Daily Times

Tobacco claims the lives of over 8 million people each year, perpetuating a global health crisis that demands urgent action. In the fight against tobacco-related diseases, the adoption of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2003 marked a turning point. However, as the world grapples with reducing cigarette consumption, a new contender has emerged-smokeless tobacco alternatives.

In the quest to mitigate the devastating impact of smoking, countries like the UK, Canada, and New Zealand have struck a delicate balance. By implementing sensible regulations that ensure accessibility of better alternatives for smokers while safeguarding against the marketing and sale to young individuals, these nations have witnessed promising results. The idea of restricting access and information regarding alternatives that can improve the quality of life and health of smokers goes against the principles public health and the rights of these individuals.

The UK serves as a prime example of the transformative potential of such alternatives. Following the implementation of amendments to the Tobacco Product Directive in 2016, which enabled access to vaping for adult smokers, smoking rates plummeted at an astonishing pace, outperforming countries with more stringent regulations like Australia. The same trend emerges in New Zealand, where carefully crafted regulations have not only mitigated risks but also ensured equitable access to vaping for smokers.

While success stories abound, some countries have faltered in their approach to alternatives to cigarettes. The United States, once a beacon of tobacco control, has witnessed the unintended consequences of ineffective regulatory frameworks. The rise of black markets and misuse of vaping products by non-smokers exemplify the need for evidence-based regulations that strike a balance between harm reduction and public safety. Similarly, countries like India, driven by bans, have inadvertently closed the door on harm reduction opportunities.

To truly evaluate the impact of these alternatives, it is crucial to consider the relative risks compared to smoking-a risk that is significantly lower. By assessing the absolute risk in relation to other benchmarks of comparable risk, such as occupational health exposures, the context of these alternatives comes to light. Conversations about “dangers” must be grounded in magnitude and rational policy-making to foster informed decisions and meaningful progress in tobacco control.

The battle against smoking-related diseases rages on, but the emergence of smokeless alternatives has ignited a spark of hope. By learning from success stories and avoiding the pitfalls of ineffective regulations, we can navigate the complex landscape of tobacco control and embrace a future where cigarettes become relics of the past. It is time to harness the power of alternatives to cigarettes, protect public health, and pave the way for a smoke-free world.