It is human nature to think in black and white terms; we have a natural tendency to look for patterns and sort things into categories to make sense of the world.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
An unintended consequence of these mental shortcuts can be the over-simplification of an argument.
We see this play out in the heated debate over vaping.
As tobacco treatment researchers, we have seen this issue divide the field between those who seek to eradicate vaping devices to prevent youth uptake, and those who see their potential as a harm minimisation tool.
We believe the dichotomisation of the issue is counterproductive.
This contentious issue is nuanced.
We must act to protect and prevent youth uptake of vaping.
We must also support novel interventions such as vaping that have the potential to assist quitting among populations where smoking has been entrenched for decades.
There has been an increase in vape use among young people; 7.6 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds have used a vaping device at least once.
Evidence suggests non-smokers who use vapes are more likely to become a smoker.
Although, overall daily tobacco smoking rates among 15- to 17-year-olds remain low at less than 2 per cent.
In response to the concerns that youth uptake of vaping would be a gateway to tobacco smoking, the initial focus of vaping regulation has been the restriction of nicotine - the addictive component of cigarettes.
However, this has not stifled the prolific growth of the non-nicotine vaping market that targets youth with appealing imagery and addition of unregulated chemical flavouring that have the potential for harm.
Conversely, nicotine can be approached with a harm minimisation perspective.
Among priority populations (such as those who experience severe mental illness, Aboriginal and Torres strait islander people, those seeking support for alcohol or other drug use, and people at risk of homelessness) where tobacco smoking rates are high, there is a 20-year mortality gap due largely to smoking related diseases.
The morbidity and mortality are caused not by nicotine, but by the harmful effects of combustion and inhalation of tobacco and other toxic chemicals.
In regulating nicotine as the focal point of vaping policy we have made it harder for people to utilise vapes as a harm minimisation strategy or to quit cigarettes.
Therefore, vapes can be used to deliver nicotine in the absence of the cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco.
Currently in Australia, a doctor's prescription is required for liquid nicotine for use in vapes.
In regulating nicotine as the focal point of vaping policy we have made it harder for people to utilise vapes as a harm minimisation strategy or to quit cigarettes.
A more balanced perspective is needed to ensure regulation leaves no one behind.
In developing vaping policies, we can look to the history of tobacco control policy (and in fact other substance-use policy) in Australia.
Historically whole-of-population approaches have been used that tightly control and restrict access with the goal of eliminating smoking altogether.
These have been successful in reducing smoking rates in the general adult population to 12.8 per cent.
However, it has emerged these are not one size fits all approaches.
Priority populations remain smoking at much higher rates and require different responses to support both cessation and harm minimisation.
Both preventing uptake of youth vaping and using vapes in place of cigarettes to minimise tobacco related harm are worthy of our focus.
We can tightly regulate vaping products to prevent youth uptake, but not at the expense of those smokers who need more support to quit.
We deserve wholistic policy that addresses both ends of the spectrum.
Even when the goals seem disparate, responsible policy should allow for multifaceted strategies to reach populations most at risk, rather than reactive policies based on black and white thinking or whoever is making the most noise.
Dr Kristen McCarter is a clinical psychologist and lecturer at the University of Newcastle.
Dr Ashleigh Guillaumier is a health behaviour scientist and research fellow at the University of Newcastle.
Dr McCarter and Guillaumier have led clinical trials in both e-cigarette and tobacco treatment among priority populations.
Neither Dr McCarter or Guillaumier have received funding from e-cigarette or tobacco companies.
IN THE NEWS:
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark: newcastleherald.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram
- Follow us on Google News