BEAMSVILLE, Ontario, June 10, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Opponents of vaping often claim that there is no health benefit to the dual use of cigarettes and nicotine vaping products. Moreover, they claim that dual use may be more harmful than smoking alone. This is contrary to the well accepted principle of harm reduction that is a cornerstone of every modern public health initiative. Instead, it rests on a fallacious binary option, where smoking and abstaining from nicotine use are the only alternatives for adults. This view is an endorsement of the discredited abstinence or prohibition models that have been discarded by modern democracies such as Canada in all other public health contexts as ineffective, unscientific, unrealistic, unenforceable, counterproductive, and ultimately harmful to public health.
Each time a vape is used instead of a cigarette, that individual reduces exposure to the thousands of harmful chemicals found in a cigarette. Additionally, dual use is often an indicator that a smoker is trying to quit or substantially reduce their cigarette intake. The dual use harm fallacy defies common sense, as dual use is a spectrum ranging from mostly smokers to mostly vapers. An individual who primarily vapes and only occasionally smokes has greatly reduced exposure to toxic chemicals.
“One of the most dangerous ways to consume nicotine is by smoking it. The availability of safer nicotine products, such as vape, is intended to encourage people to quit smoking. For the most nicotine addicted, a period of dual use seems essential to free themselves from the smoked cigarette,” said Martine Robert, a nurse specialised in tobacco treatment.
“From an individual perspective, the goal should be the total elimination of cigarette smoking. It has been shown that the risk of cardiovascular disease due to smoking does not follow a linear dose-response curve and that simply swapping out a few cigarettes with vaping will not significantly reduce the long-term risk. However, on the road to quitting cigarettes, any reduction should be considered a positive step. Historically, the message of tobacco control advocates and the medical profession has been to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked with the aim of quitting. It is still better to consume half a pack of cigarettes per day than a full pack. As with any behavioral modification, the process of a gradual change is ultimately much more successful than a ‘cold-turkey’ approach. Ironically, this stepwise introduction is exactly how we promote nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) using patches and gums. We would never tell someone to stop NRT because they are smoking the occasional cigarette,” said Dr. Mark Tyndall.
“The problem with the persistence of vaping myths like the dual use fallacy, is that they likely contribute to prolonging dual use and smoking in general. Smokers are not receiving clear guidance on reduced risk products from health authorities, and as a result, they are hesitant to try vaping or other harm reduction products after traditional methods have failed,” said Darryl Tempest, Government Relations Counsel to the CVA Board.
“We can all agree that the goal should be to phase out cigarettes and eliminate exposure to the deadly chemicals released through combustion. The focus now should be how we best help people to fully move away from cigarettes. However, taking a position that dual use is unhelpful or even dangerous is disingenuous and not supported by the scientific evidence provided,” said Tyndall.
Contact:
Darryl Tempest
Government Relations Counsel to the CVA Board
dtempest@thecva.org
647-274-1867
