On alternatives to tobacco products, the policies in most Western countries are inconsistent, contradictory and hypocritical. Health experts, activists and regulators approach the issue with an irrational bias against vaping and other tobacco harm reduction products. What makes professionals in high positions act so irresponsibly and against the interests of protecting public health? Perhaps it is:
a decades-old vindictive grudge against Big Tobacco’s past transgressions, or
a moral righteousness often prevalent with dogmatic health crusaders, or
the temptation of easy money from virtue-signaling philanthropists.
But whatever is driving this rush from rationality, the hypocrisy shown by these so-called leaders and experts is stunning. I would like to call it vapocrisy.
I got involved in the debate over non-combustible alternative products (e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco products…) partly out of personal reasons, partly to develop my righteous risk concept. Vaping strategies are an interesting bellwether on the intellectual maturity of our policymakers, the rationality of our policies and the level of regulatory risk management literacy.
What follows are ten dogmatic contradictions that highlight the complete failure of the health policy community to regulate rationally, protect public health and provide evidence-based policy solutions. It is frustrating to see well-educated, well-paid public servants and stakeholder representatives behave in such an irresponsible manner. It is inexcusable that these hypocrites do so while the public they confused with misinformation or denied safer alternatives continues to smoke tobacco and suffer the consequences.
1. Profiting from Continued Smoking
Smokers who want to quit get little support from the medical community (gums and patches do not work well) or clear guidance from family doctors. Unlike other health risks like diabetes, there are no tobacco cessation medical devices available on medical insurance plans. Quite the opposite is the case. If you smoke, your life or health insurer will likely charge you more for your premiums. Rather than helping you quit smoking and live a longer, healthier life, they profit from you. These insurance companies are blatant vapocrites.
2. Bad Science on Second-Hand Vaping Aerosols
If the health risks from inhaling the few ingredients in nicotine vaping devices are low to non-existent, then why in heaven’s name are the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission warning on the risks of second-hand vaping exposures? The evidence is scant but unchallenged. By restricting vaping to limited areas, authorities are trying to identify nicotine e-cigarettes under the same category as tobacco smoking. They argue that both practices should be considered at equal risk levels. This is not science-based but a political strategy (and very vapocritical).
3. Contradictory Positions on Addictive Behavior
Vaping or nicotine pouches are often condemned because nicotine is addictive, but addiction is only a problem if it is harmful to people or society. Many things are addictive but not harmful (caffeine and sex for example), and if regulators started to restrict pleasurable practices only because they claim they are addictive, then we get onto a very slippery Nanny-slope. The vapocrites need to understand that nicotine is not a health problem, tobacco is.
4. Banning Flavors to Make Vaping Less Enjoyable
Imagine going into a restaurant and all of the food had zero flavors – completely tasteless, without aroma or texture. Nobody would want to eat that food. Life is not meant to be bland and dull. People want to enjoy flavors when they vape so attempts to remove flavors is an effort to remove pleasure and enjoyment. I tried to get my wife to quit smoking via e-cigarettes for four years, but it was only when we found a vape with the flavor of her cigarette brand that she finally took to it. People will only switch from smoking to vaping if it is more enjoyable. The anti-nicotine vapocrites understand “joy” about as much as they understand what it means to protect public health.
5. Abdication of Protecting Children
Philanthropists like Michael Bloomberg have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to shift the focus of vaping away from tobacco harm reduction and towards creating the narrative of some evil industrial strategy to get children addicted. While victimizing children is common with many activist campaigns, the role of a health regulator is to control the sale and use of a product, not ban it simply because some children may be at risk of misusing it. We don’t ban the internet, cars, sex toys or alcohol because children may be exposed; instead our governments manage the risks. They put age limits and controls at points of access, create laws and provide support for young people in schools. Worse, blanket bans would simply expose kids to black markets (teenagers are resourceful). Few in the vaping community would object to regulators banning child-focused flavors like bubble gum or cotton candy. Removing all flavors or banning harm reduction products because of “the children” is a dereliction of a regulator’s responsibility.
6. Cannabis Legalization
Many anti-nicotine zealots, at the same time, promote the legalization of cannabis and other soft drugs. As drug addiction and gang warfare increase, causing serious social and (mental) health issues, not a peep is heard from the anti-nicotine activist groups. They don’t question the health risks of smoking cannabis or even vaping THC or CBD oils (where cases of lung injury known as EVALI emerged as a health risk). These dogmatic fundamentalists are not acting against the risks of smoking or vaping, but the presence of several Big Tobacco companies on the nicotine product market. Even more vapocritical is how they are campaigning to stop vaping to protect the children but then tolerating the sale of CBD-laced “Gummy Bears” in the local cannabis dispensaries. I suspect these activists are too buzzed to realize the level of their hypocrisy.
7. Tolerance of Censorship and Denormalization
Most anti-nicotine advocates are left of center. And while they presently criticize the US Trump administration for silencing opponents and restricting dialogue (accusing them of fascism), these same activists have worked diligently to restrict or censor views from the pro-vaping community about the benefits of tobacco harm reduction. Without a wide range of stakeholder views, and the continued vilification of anyone promoting or working with the vaping industry, policy and open-mindedness suffer from open bias, irrationality and vengeance. I applied to attend the upcoming WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (as a journalist) but I don’t expect to even get a reply. These health zealots are not interested in hearing from someone who might challenge their thinking or confront their prejudicial bias. Vapocrisy!
8. Disproportionate Regulatory Reaction Against Nicotine
After the Australian ban on e-cigarettes, the black market has taken over and gangland style wars are erupting around vaping access points (often in flames). Meanwhile, Australian regulations on other substance like alcohol are as lax as can be. At the UN’s recent Fourth High-Level Meeting (HLM4) on Noncommunicable Diseases, the vocabulary of the final draft document was excessively harsh against non-combustible nicotine products, while their earlier positions against sugary foods and drinks and alcohol had been massively tempered. Perhaps the UN member states, while blocking any access to the vaping lobby, allowed themselves to hear views from the food and drink industries.
9. Irrational Tax Regimes
Part of the UN’s HLM4’s objective was to advocate increasing taxes on any products contributing to noncommunicable diseases. Many countries, in considering regulations to restrict vaping or nicotine pouches, look at taxes as a preventative measure (which also adds to the state treasury). But heavily taxing tobacco harm reduction products like e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches is counterproductive. By making it more expensive to vape, regulators are making tobacco products a more affordable alternative. The justification for the frequent increases in tobacco taxes was to support the healthcare budgets. Because vaping reduces this strain on the healthcare system, taxes should be lowered and incentives to vape increased. But in a vapocritical world, I might as well just be talking to myself.
10. Harm Reduction Hypocrisy
Harm reduction is common sense – no one wants to hurt themselves. It is also a basic risk management principle: reduce exposure to potential harms to as low as reasonably achievable. And while other harm reduction measures are promoted by activists and regulators to reduce consequences from risky behavior (like methadone clinics or distributing free condoms and needles), in the case of tobacco harm reduction measures, an assumedly educated professional class suddenly behave very stupidly (altogether, all at once). Smokers who want to stop either understand the value in vaping and have no problem ignoring the scare tactics and regulatory obstacles, or they get confused by the disinformation campaigns of so-called experts and continue smoking. So regulators who do not embrace tobacco harm reduction are either losing public respect or contributing to a decline in public health. But what I find most vapocritical is the vindictive nature of their rejection of harm reduction common sense, accepting increased deaths and black markets, while pretending to still speak on behalf of public health.
°°°
The vapocrites have enormous budgets via foundation funding, a lot of passion and lobbying support. What they don’t have is scientific evidence or a moral authority. With every activist campaign against alternative nicotine products, these dogmatic zealots are confusing tobacco smokers looking for a means to quit their deadly habit. More people will needlessly die thanks to these these so-called health advocates. With every regulatory measure against vaping or nicotine pouches, the public is further unable to have the means to access safer tobacco harm reduction tools. With every attempt to silence open dialogue and discussion on the benefits of tobacco harm reduction, a rational, democratic policy process is denied.
This vapocrisy needs to stop.