In the battle against smoking, you might assume that any tool promoting smoking cessation would be celebrated. Sadly, that assumption is false, and the opposition of many anti-tobacco groups to nicotine vaping illustrates why.
While these organizations have historically framed smoking as the deadliest threat to public health, their rabid opposition to e-cigarettes–the most effective cessation tool in existence–confirms that they really aren’t that troubled by tobacco. They want smokers to quit— so long as it doesn’t threaten their jobs as activists.
Ignoring the Real Threat
In the last 10 years, vaping has emerged as the most effective quit-smoking tool, hands down. Studies, including those from Public Health England and the Cochrane Library, have shown that vaping is up to twice as effective as traditional nicotine replacement therapies like patches or gum in helping smokers quit. The primary reason for this efficacy is that vaping mimics the act of smoking, providing both the nicotine hit and the sensory experience of smoking without the harmful combustion products found in cigarettes.
It’s nothing short of a public health miracle: a tool that preserves the pleasurable aspects of smoking with almost none of its harmful health effects. What’s not to like? Absolutely nothing. However, many anti-tobacco groups have taken a hardline stance against e-cigarettes, often citing concerns about youth vaping–which is at historic lows–and the potential long-term health effects of inhaling vaporized nicotine—which still haven’t materialized after nearly two decades.
The ultimate problem with these overhyped concerns about vaping is that they continue to overshadow the immediate public health benefits of reducing cigarette consumption among adults. The focus on these mostly theoretical risks has led to policies like flavor bans, high taxation and stringent advertising restrictions, which make vaping less accessible and less appealing to adult smokers looking for an exit from cigarettes.
The Case for (Consistent) Harm Reduction
The other oddity surrounding anti-vaping activism is the fact that public health advocates have long endorsed the concept of harm reduction: if it’s possible to make a dangerous behavior safer, we should encourage people to modify their habits accordingly. This is the rationale behind distributing clean needles to heroin users and promoting condom use on college campuses.
Nicotine vaping is an even better example of harm reduction because it all but eliminates the risks of smoking. The Royal College of Physicians in the UK has stated that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking, and many studies have confirmed that conclusion in subsequent years. There is no comparable body of evidence vindicating needle exchanges and condoms, yet the public health establishment endorses those tools without hesitation. Something is amiss.
Costly propaganda
It’s also worth noting the economic impact of anti-vaping activism. Smoking cessation through vaping can generate substantial material benefits for societies, not to mention the personal financial benefits for former smokers. Free of their deadly addiction, these individuals spend far less on medication and doctor’s appointments, and they typically live longer and more productive lives. Anything that discourages smokers from switching undermines these outcomes.
Conclusion
The anti-tobacco groups will deny that they’re protecting the cigarette industry, that they need smokers to keep smoking so they have a problem to solve. But it’s hard to make sense of their anti-vaping rhetoric under any other scenario. Why else would they lobby against a tool that makes it possible to eliminate harmful tobacco use? I’d sure like to know.
