Very informative article. Non-combustible products and Tobacco Harm Reduction are profound disruptions (in fact functional threats) to a tobacco control technocracy that remains entrenched in paradigm drafted during the 1990's, containing a visceral uncompromising rejection of the tobacco industry. This hostile stance has become hardened as the technocracy started acting in full synergy with a powerful philanthropic corporate billionaire, whose purpose is to derail THR by lobbying through a global corporate complex of local NGOs in coordination with the WHO. A normalization path for an industry investing in THR would benefit all stakeholders. Unfortunately, this will not happen as long as global elites agree with the agenda of the prohibitionist axis.
I fully agree that an update of the paradigm is not only necessary but urgent. However, implementing this change will require a more transparent debate stripped of self-interested rhetoric and grounded in solid empirical evidence—not ideological affinities or the defense of sector-specific interests. Unfortunately, the mindsets that move the world seem to be going in another direction. I appreciate your comment, which offers a valuable perspective.
Very informative article. Non-combustible products and Tobacco Harm Reduction are profound disruptions (in fact functional threats) to a tobacco control technocracy that remains entrenched in paradigm drafted during the 1990's, containing a visceral uncompromising rejection of the tobacco industry. This hostile stance has become hardened as the technocracy started acting in full synergy with a powerful philanthropic corporate billionaire, whose purpose is to derail THR by lobbying through a global corporate complex of local NGOs in coordination with the WHO. A normalization path for an industry investing in THR would benefit all stakeholders. Unfortunately, this will not happen as long as global elites agree with the agenda of the prohibitionist axis.
I fully agree that an update of the paradigm is not only necessary but urgent. However, implementing this change will require a more transparent debate stripped of self-interested rhetoric and grounded in solid empirical evidence—not ideological affinities or the defense of sector-specific interests. Unfortunately, the mindsets that move the world seem to be going in another direction. I appreciate your comment, which offers a valuable perspective.