Exploring Potentially Reduced-Risk Alternatives for Smoking
The villanization of vaping seems to be the new hot topic across mainstream and social media. Much of the discourse lacks any nuance, awareness or accuracy and does nothing other than condemn the act of vaping in its entirety. While there may be justified health concerns if a non-smoker was to take up vaping, the picture is much more complex when it comes to existing smokers.
When content on any subject is disseminated, it is crucial that the subject is defined with precision. Also, a clear a target audience should be borne in mind. Thus, an important distinction should be made between vapes that include tobacco and vapes that do not. In fact, vapes do not contain a majority of the harmful substances found in cigarettes. A further distinction should be drawn between content targeting smokers and content targeting non-smokers. So, when discussing the benefits and pitfalls of vaping, the validity of the claims ultimately depends on what the product is and who the target audience is. More often than not, the content is not meant to encourage non-smokers to take up vaping, but rather to encourage tobacco consumers to switch completely to a less harmful “tobacco-free” nicotine alternative.
According to the World Health Organization (‘WHO’), there are approximately 1.25 billion smokers worldwide. That would be akin to saying ‘smokers’ constitute the third largest country in the world. Many of these smokers are looking to migrate to smokeless products that present a reduced risk compared to cigarettes. But they may be reluctant to get off the island if the destination is unrealistically far.
The hypothetical
Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario. Imagine A is a non-smoker and B is a smoker. They are each assigned a health rating, which is a simplified, hypothetical metric that represents an individual’s long-term health potential based on lifestyle choices. Imagine A has a health rating of 9/10 and B a rating of 5/10. B’s rating is heavily influenced by the fact that they regularly smoke.
In a situation where B finds it extremely difficult to stop smoking altogether, the question arises whether vapes could be a next-best solution. If there is the potential for B to move their health rating from 5/10 to 7/10 by switching to vapour products, should vaping be in its entirety condemned? In this scenario, switching from smoking to vaping could result in a genuine improvement to B’s health situation. Therefore, while vaping is not-risk free, its potential as a harm reduction tool should not be overlooked.
The analogy
Consider the fact that carbon emissions invariably harm our environment – much like the way tobacco inhalation harms our lungs. Combustion engines would do the most damage to the environment, and the ideal would be to switch to electric vehicles (‘EV’), which do little to no damage. Meanwhile, hybrid vehicles, which also involve some combustion, fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.
If we use our carbon footprint to quantify environmental damage, a person who drives an EV switching to a hybrid would increase their carbon footprint. So, promoting hybrids among EV users would not result in a cleaner environment. But if a person drives a combustion engine and for a variety of reasons is resistant to switching to an EV, the option of a hybrid may be sensible. It would certainly reduce their carbon footprint.
Conclusion
Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) measures the total number of years lost due to ill health, disability or early death. It’s a way for health experts to estimate the burden of a disease on a population, combining both fatal and non-fatal impacts. Unfortunately, specific DALY calculations for vapes are still emerging, but the best available scientific assessments suggest significantly lower harm compared to smoking. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Public Health England published studies in 2015 and 2018 concluding that vaping is likely to be at least 95% less harmful than smoking. This estimate is widely cited and has formed the basis of the UK’s harm reduction approach.
This isn’t to say vaping is without any harm whatsoever. But if you’re among the 1.25 billion smokers worldwide, and you do not want to continue to smoke, switching to a regulated vapour product may help reduce harm – both to you and the healthcare system. It may restore life years set to be lost due to smoking.
In this context, if minimizing tobacco consumption is the final destination, it seems irrational to demonize all conversations about vaping. Ultimately, if the promoted product is regulated, and the target audience are current smokers, vaping may be that ‘hybrid’ solution that can seriously reduce harm.