At the end of July, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States took a remarkable, even revolutionary step. The organization has chosen to take a rational stance on nicotine by advocating “harm reduction”. Canada would do well to follow suit.
REDUCE THE BURDEN CONSIDERABLY THROUGH PRODUCTS WITHOUT COMBUSTION!
In Canada, it is not the same story, we focus on “risk aversion” regarding nicotine, and such an attitude, paradoxically, protects the cigarette business.
Despite decades of efforts to eradicate it, cigarettes are still responsible for about 100 deaths per day in Canada. Smoking remains our biggest preventable cause of death.
It has been known for decades that if people smoke for nicotine, they die of the smoke. The culprit of this public health catastrophe is the inhalation of combustion products rather than the addictive but relatively harmless use of nicotine. Just as we can eliminate cholera through sanitation, we can prevent the ravages of smoking with non-combustion alternatives.
Huge numbers of smokers want to reduce their risks and are already switching to new alternatives, such as vaping, various forms of smokeless smoking, medicinal nicotine, and products that heat instead of burn. To this end, they often have to overcome the obstacles created by our governments and an avalanche of messages centered solely on abandonment.
« Smoke-free products could not only significantly reduce the burden of tobacco-related illnesses, but also make it easier to quit nicotine altogether for those who want it. »
To date, Canadian regulations have not only failed to adapt and facilitate the transition to these much lower risk products, but
has also hampered their development, marketing and accessibility. Smoke-free products could not only significantly reduce the burden of tobacco-related illnesses, but also make it easier to quit nicotine altogether for those who want it.
Dr Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the FDA, announced a plan to regulate tobacco products and nicotine in the United States by enacting a " risk continuum ". This plan provides for helping smokers switch to non-combustible products. Dr Gottlieb sees nicotine as not just the problem (in being addictive), but also the solution, in the end. In other words, nicotine can be offered in a way that allows smokers to quit these deadly cigarettes.
Sadly, Canada has taken a misguided position of " risk aversion With Bill S-5, duly passed by the Canadian Senate this summer and which is now awaiting the approval of the House of Commons (contrary to normal parliamentary procedure). Supporters of Bill S-5 say it is an attempt to strike a balance between pragmatism and an agenda focused on quitting nicotine use. The problem is the same as that with other drugs; there is no middle ground between rationality and irrationality.
If passed, this bill will make it illegal to tell smokers that low risk products carry lower risks! When governments think that the solution is irreparably and irrationally through a risk averse approach to all products that could be a viable and absolutely less dangerous alternative, they simply miss the mark.
Canadian lawmakers have seemingly reluctantly made strides between systematically banning e-cigarettes and creating a law that makes it harder to market lower-risk products, so that fewer smokers quit smoking in favor. other less harmful products. We could speak of a lie by omission.
While that may sound excessive, know that a single smokeless product has captured a tenth of the Japanese cigarette smoker market in less than two years, and market analysts predict that eighteen percent of smokers will opt for a smoke-free solution. combustion by the end of this year. In the shadows, there are a myriad of other new low risk products on the global market, or soon to be.
« Canada could potentially make a breakthrough in health that would be historically significant, if we recognized the nicotine risk continuum. »
Canada could potentially make a health breakthrough of historic significance, if the continuum of nicotine risk was recognized. What is holding us back is not a lack of science, technology, commercial viability, or consumer interest, but rather a lack of a big picture.
