I’ve been exchanging emails with Riccardo Polosa, and in one of his recent notes, he distilled the entire nicotine debate into a single, unsettling idea: we are chasing ghosts.
Excellent metaphor. One important ingredient in characterizing the ghost: a "war like" attitude and a crusader mentality. There is a very accurate analogy between orthodox tobacco control and a crusade (victims, a Big Satan, a holly priesthood, infidels, heretics, sin and virtue, saving souls, entitlement provided by a notion of common good coming from superior orders, "God" in medieval crusades). In our topic, tobacco control was at its beginning a righteous guerilla crusading against a tyrannic industry. But crusades grow up and become powerful and influential. All crusades are moralistic, this one is no exception: smokers are sinners (technically "addicts") to be rescued from Big Satan industry with the help of our Pharma Knight allies and governments, tobacco control is a holly priesthood committed to save souls. The crusade won: the FTCT was established as a major victory. Governments acquiesced. We could say that before the mid 2015s the crusade ruling with militaristic mentality was justified. Once popular products emerged as a consumer non-medical non-pharma initiative, the crusade felth existentially threatened of loosing its justification and entitlement. The initial distrust was justified, the products were new, but a change of mentality and a new form of governance was necessary. However, the crusaders reacted just like crusaders react. What happened in the Middle Ages with the crusades? They degraded into mobs that caused a lot of harm and at one point ruling classes put an end to them. On nicotine issues, ruling classes still support the crusade and give crusaders veto power. Many elites do so because they benefit (taxes) or because they are not the sinners that are targeted. By casting new products as Satan's invention the crusaders are in practice contributing to Satan's welfare. At one point elites will realize that the crusade causes more harm to global economy and stability than Satan (who is much more pragmatic than the caricature voiced by crusaders).
I’m attending the 34th MardiGrass cannabis law reform event in Nimbin, a tiny Australian counter culture village surrounded by a ravishingly beautiful rainforest. Like the case for reform of cigarette excise and the quasi prohibition of vaping in Australia, the case for regulating rather than banning recreational cannabis has been crystal clear for decades. The US only implemented alcohol prohibition for 12 years but Australia persisted with futile alcohol prohibition for about a century while only applying it to its indigenous people. So adopting a terrible policy that it also made unquestionably racist. And now tobacco control is indulging in Mission Creep: after starting with a lousy case for public health and ending up with an even worse case for nicotine prohibition.
“Chasing Ghosts” really does capture the current situation. The public firmly believes that nicotine is dangerous and there is no such thing as safe or even safer nicotine products.
I see it as inertia transferred from one side to the other. For decades, the tobacco industry was reluctant to innovate, enjoying the fruits of protectionism bought by high taxes and barriers to entry. But a looming existential crisis and a massive shift in consumer behaviour in favour of risk reduction pushed it to move. Now tobacco control is reluctant to adapt, using its privilege and hard-won seat at the policy table to block innovation even at the cost of meeting its own goals. It is also driven by self-preservation (no harm, no control) but can hold out against consumers and markets (along with science) much longer by shifting goalposts and reframing the debate.
Excellent metaphor. One important ingredient in characterizing the ghost: a "war like" attitude and a crusader mentality. There is a very accurate analogy between orthodox tobacco control and a crusade (victims, a Big Satan, a holly priesthood, infidels, heretics, sin and virtue, saving souls, entitlement provided by a notion of common good coming from superior orders, "God" in medieval crusades). In our topic, tobacco control was at its beginning a righteous guerilla crusading against a tyrannic industry. But crusades grow up and become powerful and influential. All crusades are moralistic, this one is no exception: smokers are sinners (technically "addicts") to be rescued from Big Satan industry with the help of our Pharma Knight allies and governments, tobacco control is a holly priesthood committed to save souls. The crusade won: the FTCT was established as a major victory. Governments acquiesced. We could say that before the mid 2015s the crusade ruling with militaristic mentality was justified. Once popular products emerged as a consumer non-medical non-pharma initiative, the crusade felth existentially threatened of loosing its justification and entitlement. The initial distrust was justified, the products were new, but a change of mentality and a new form of governance was necessary. However, the crusaders reacted just like crusaders react. What happened in the Middle Ages with the crusades? They degraded into mobs that caused a lot of harm and at one point ruling classes put an end to them. On nicotine issues, ruling classes still support the crusade and give crusaders veto power. Many elites do so because they benefit (taxes) or because they are not the sinners that are targeted. By casting new products as Satan's invention the crusaders are in practice contributing to Satan's welfare. At one point elites will realize that the crusade causes more harm to global economy and stability than Satan (who is much more pragmatic than the caricature voiced by crusaders).
I’m attending the 34th MardiGrass cannabis law reform event in Nimbin, a tiny Australian counter culture village surrounded by a ravishingly beautiful rainforest. Like the case for reform of cigarette excise and the quasi prohibition of vaping in Australia, the case for regulating rather than banning recreational cannabis has been crystal clear for decades. The US only implemented alcohol prohibition for 12 years but Australia persisted with futile alcohol prohibition for about a century while only applying it to its indigenous people. So adopting a terrible policy that it also made unquestionably racist. And now tobacco control is indulging in Mission Creep: after starting with a lousy case for public health and ending up with an even worse case for nicotine prohibition.
“Chasing Ghosts” really does capture the current situation. The public firmly believes that nicotine is dangerous and there is no such thing as safe or even safer nicotine products.
I see it as inertia transferred from one side to the other. For decades, the tobacco industry was reluctant to innovate, enjoying the fruits of protectionism bought by high taxes and barriers to entry. But a looming existential crisis and a massive shift in consumer behaviour in favour of risk reduction pushed it to move. Now tobacco control is reluctant to adapt, using its privilege and hard-won seat at the policy table to block innovation even at the cost of meeting its own goals. It is also driven by self-preservation (no harm, no control) but can hold out against consumers and markets (along with science) much longer by shifting goalposts and reframing the debate.
Absolutely awesome stack. Fantastic dissection of the whole picture. Fantastic job Gentlemen.