a light purple tick sign and a model on dark purple background

Regulating smoke-free alternatives

It is in the best interest of adult smokers and society at large to apply a commonsense approach to public health. The most effective decisions are made transparently and based on facts. Through open dialogue and constructive discussion, we can address the issue of smoking more effectively.

Why should we consider smoke-free products?

A growing body of evidence shows that for adults who smoke, switching completely to scientifically substantiated smoke-free alternatives, like heated tobacco or e-cigarettes, can be a better choice than continuing to smoke cigarettes. *

 

It’s important that adult smokers can access better alternatives to continued smoking, but that’s not enough. They should be provided with accurate, science-based information about smoke-free products in order to make an informed decision.

 

Encouraging adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke to change to a better alternative to cigarettes can help reduce smoking rates faster. 

 

This approach, coupled with continuing efforts to discourage people from starting to smoke cigarettes, and encouraging smokers to quit tobacco and nicotine altogether, can bring about positive change faster than traditional measures alone.

 

*smoke-free products are not risk-free and contain nicotine, which is addictive.

Fact-based Decisions

Regulators and public authorities play a critical role in defining regulatory frameworks that can accelerate large-scale switching by adults who smoke. 

 

They have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps up with the pace of innovation, and that scientific evidence is factored into policymaking, outweighing ideological and misinformed positions. 

 

Better alternatives to smoking exist, and policies should ensure that adults who don’t quit have access to, and accurate information about them.

Differentiated Policies

When new types of products become available, existing regulations may need to be adjusted. 

 

A growing number of public health and policy experts agree that regulation should follow a fundamental principle: products that carry different levels of risks should be regulated differently and in proportion to the risks they pose.

Smoke-free products can be a better alternative to combustible tobacco for smokers that do not quit. The most harmful products, such as cigarettes, should be regulated most strictly, while those smoke-free products, like heated tobacco and e-cigarettes, that, whilst addictive and not risk free, have the potential to be less harmful should be regulated differently. For example, allowing adult smokers to access information about them.

 

Protecting Youth: Tobacco and nicotine products should be regulated to protect unintended audiences, such as youth, while enabling current adult smokers who do not quit to switch to them and leave cigarettes behind for good.

DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RISK

Products that don’t burn tobacco are fundamentally different from those that do. 

Some governments have already taken a progressive approach by thinking beyond traditional tobacco control and embracing harm reduction as a critical tool to accelerate smoking decline, recognising that smoke-free products can be a better alternative to combustible tobacco for smokers that do not quit, and factoring this into their policies. 

Policies that ban or prohibit smoke-free products can perpetuate smoking because those who don’t quit cannot legally access better options than cigarettes.

Related articles

Find out more about...

SMOKE‑FREE TECHNOLOGIES

PROTECTING THOSE WHO DON’T SMOKE

REDUCING HARM