Opponents of vaping (and other safer, smoke – free nicotine options) invariably avoid the point that vapes, heated tobacco products & nicotine pouches are MUCH less risky than smoking deadly cigarettes. They use endless obfuscation & dissembling so that they don’t have to explicitly admit that these options are much less dangerous than smoking. This is as unethical as when tobacco companies used to deny smoking causes cancer. Professor Michael Russell used to say “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar”. Now it’s fair to say that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the unethical behaviour of vape opponents”.
Professor Michael Russell used to say “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar”. Now it’s fair to say that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the unethical behaviour of vape opponents”.
Alan, this is a great overview of the issue. People can only make as good a decision as the information available to them allows. Yet we have those who engage in outright misinformation and in deception by omission. Then blame those who were thus misled for their continued cigarette smoking. Not ethical. Not humane. But a surefire way to further erode public trust in authorities.
Would like to add that letting tobacco control get away for decades without quantifying risks for smoking vs smokeless, especially snus, has normalised this kind of paternalist and ultimately misleading messaging not only in case of safer nicotine products, but also in other areas of public health - WHO now says there's no safe level for alcohol.
Samrat, I agree. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly evident that when a field avoids quantifying relative risk for long enough, that avoidance becomes normalised as a communication strategy.
The concern isn’t that public health should minimise risks. It’s that refusing to quantify relative risk can become misleading in its own way. Adults make decisions comparatively. If institutions decline to provide proportional information, people either assume equivalence or seek information elsewhere.
Opponents of vaping (and other safer, smoke – free nicotine options) invariably avoid the point that vapes, heated tobacco products & nicotine pouches are MUCH less risky than smoking deadly cigarettes. They use endless obfuscation & dissembling so that they don’t have to explicitly admit that these options are much less dangerous than smoking. This is as unethical as when tobacco companies used to deny smoking causes cancer. Professor Michael Russell used to say “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar”. Now it’s fair to say that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the unethical behaviour of vape opponents”.
THIS!!!
Professor Michael Russell used to say “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar”. Now it’s fair to say that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the unethical behaviour of vape opponents”.
Alan, this is a great overview of the issue. People can only make as good a decision as the information available to them allows. Yet we have those who engage in outright misinformation and in deception by omission. Then blame those who were thus misled for their continued cigarette smoking. Not ethical. Not humane. But a surefire way to further erode public trust in authorities.
Would like to add that letting tobacco control get away for decades without quantifying risks for smoking vs smokeless, especially snus, has normalised this kind of paternalist and ultimately misleading messaging not only in case of safer nicotine products, but also in other areas of public health - WHO now says there's no safe level for alcohol.
Samrat, I agree. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly evident that when a field avoids quantifying relative risk for long enough, that avoidance becomes normalised as a communication strategy.
The concern isn’t that public health should minimise risks. It’s that refusing to quantify relative risk can become misleading in its own way. Adults make decisions comparatively. If institutions decline to provide proportional information, people either assume equivalence or seek information elsewhere.