James, thank you so much. I’m glad the pieces did their job: inspire and spark questions. I’ll keep digging; if there’s an angle that intrigues you, let me know. Best.
"Between a teenager who has never smoked and a 54-year-old man with COPD, the answers should not be the same. Banning marketing that seduces the young makes sense; making access to simple, clearly labeled, and supervised devices easier does too."
One consideration you have neglected is how many youth may be diverted away from smoking (the much more harmful option), to vaping/nicotine pouches (the much less harmful option)? In other words, how many teenagers now vaping would otherwise been smoking? The neat division between teenager and adult access to these products is not at all as straight forward as allowing access to adults whilst restricting access to teenagers.
Sure, I agree we should restrict access to teenagers, but to get too caught up with that question is to do a disservice (and harm) to both adults and teenagers.
Also may I ask, what do you mean by 'supervised' devices?
Thank you, Paul, for such thoughtful points: I really appreciate much of what you raise.
It’s worth clarifying that my mention of the WHO’s position on taxation was descriptive, not an endorsement. Personally, I don’t see high, punitive taxes as an effective or ethical way to reduce consumption. They tend to punish and discipline the poor rather than addressing the root causes of their problems. To punish the dependent, not the dependent variable. The logic of price as a deterrent might work on paper, but it rarely works in the life of a smoker.
I also agree with the point about youth and substitution. The line between “adults” and “teenagers” often sounds clear in policy language, but it dissolves in biography. And real life. Many who vape today might have smoked if vaping didn’t exist. I was one of them; I started smoking at thirteen. And stopped at 43. To treat harm reduction as something that begins only at adulthood is to miss how early tobacco dependence can start, and how early the desire for safer options could make a difference.
By “supervised devices,” I meant properly regulated ones: tested, certified, and traceable, under clear safety and labeling standards, like those certified by public agencies that oversee product safety and technical standards; FDA in the U.S., CE authorities in Europe, or Inmetro in Brazil. Supervision, in this sense, is not moral but technical: it means ensuring that the tools designed to reduce harm don’t become another source of it.
And thank you. I genuinely appreciate your comments; they always add depth and provoke reflection.
Brother, your articles are so good. Thanks for sharing these. I’m inspired.
James, thank you so much. I’m glad the pieces did their job: inspire and spark questions. I’ll keep digging; if there’s an angle that intrigues you, let me know. Best.
"According to the WHO, there is robust evidence that high, targeted taxes are the most effective tool for reducing consumption".
Personally I would not trust anything coming out of WHO these days. For anyone who might be interested here is a paper looking at the evidence of Tobacco Control measures: https://coreiss.com/file/display/publication/27/2022_phillips_glover_echoes.pdf
"Between a teenager who has never smoked and a 54-year-old man with COPD, the answers should not be the same. Banning marketing that seduces the young makes sense; making access to simple, clearly labeled, and supervised devices easier does too."
One consideration you have neglected is how many youth may be diverted away from smoking (the much more harmful option), to vaping/nicotine pouches (the much less harmful option)? In other words, how many teenagers now vaping would otherwise been smoking? The neat division between teenager and adult access to these products is not at all as straight forward as allowing access to adults whilst restricting access to teenagers.
Sure, I agree we should restrict access to teenagers, but to get too caught up with that question is to do a disservice (and harm) to both adults and teenagers.
Also may I ask, what do you mean by 'supervised' devices?
Thank you, Paul, for such thoughtful points: I really appreciate much of what you raise.
It’s worth clarifying that my mention of the WHO’s position on taxation was descriptive, not an endorsement. Personally, I don’t see high, punitive taxes as an effective or ethical way to reduce consumption. They tend to punish and discipline the poor rather than addressing the root causes of their problems. To punish the dependent, not the dependent variable. The logic of price as a deterrent might work on paper, but it rarely works in the life of a smoker.
I also agree with the point about youth and substitution. The line between “adults” and “teenagers” often sounds clear in policy language, but it dissolves in biography. And real life. Many who vape today might have smoked if vaping didn’t exist. I was one of them; I started smoking at thirteen. And stopped at 43. To treat harm reduction as something that begins only at adulthood is to miss how early tobacco dependence can start, and how early the desire for safer options could make a difference.
By “supervised devices,” I meant properly regulated ones: tested, certified, and traceable, under clear safety and labeling standards, like those certified by public agencies that oversee product safety and technical standards; FDA in the U.S., CE authorities in Europe, or Inmetro in Brazil. Supervision, in this sense, is not moral but technical: it means ensuring that the tools designed to reduce harm don’t become another source of it.
And thank you. I genuinely appreciate your comments; they always add depth and provoke reflection.