LETTERS: I refer to "E-cigarettes must remain in generational end game" published in the NST recently.
The writer contended that alternatives to cigarettes, like vaping and heated tobacco products, are health hazards.
He also claimed that support for the use of such products in the media were seeded by groups with vested interests.
The writer is mistaken on both counts. Firstly, the writer should not conflate "health hazard" and "harm reduction". Nobody is saying that alternatives to tobacco are free of health hazards.
Even everyday products like sugar, table salt or plain water, when taken in excess or insufficiently, can be harmful towards one's health.
However, studies have consistently shown that alternatives to tobacco, like vape and heated tobacco products, are less harmful. This is how "tobacco-related harm reduction" (THR) comes about.
We all know that cigarettes are harmful and contain carcinogens. But, kicking the habit, especially among long-time smokers, is not as simple as flipping a switch. One of the most realistic and effective ways of doing so is through THR. This is not an "either-or" choice.
This brings me to the second point about the writer's contention that much of the support for the use of e-cigarettes and similar products were seeded by those with vested interests.
The writer ought to be able to tell the difference between the message and the messenger.
Why the obsession with the messenger and not look into the message? One just needs to do a simple search online to know that there's a wealth of information about THR, including peer-reviewed research papers in established journals.
For example, The Lancet, one of the world's leading medical journal, published the paper "Tobacco control: getting to the finish line" (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00835-2/fulltext) in May this year, in which the authors said tobacco control was not working in most of the world.
Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, both Professors Emeritus of the University of Auckland, argued that: "Tobacco harm reduction reduces the harm caused by burnt tobacco by replacing cigarettes with much less harmful ways of delivering nicotine."
Another paper, titled "An updated overview of e-cigarette impact on human health" published in May 2021 in the BMC biomedical journal also concurred. It said: "...based on the studies carried out so far, it seems that e-cigarette consumption is less toxic than tobacco smoking."
And, according to the United States Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), heated tobacco aerosols "have lower toxicity, and do not create new hazards compared to conventional cigarette smoke". This is a finding by one of the world's most respectable health institutions.
Is the writer saying that the findings by the CDC are also paid for by lobbyists?
And in case the writer is not aware, the CDC has in April 2020 authorized IQOS and Eclipse heated tobacco products. Would the CDC approve the sales of these products if they are as bad or worse than conventional cigarettes?
I'm not trying to pick a bone with the writer. In fact, we are on the same page in wanting to protect the health of Malaysians and we both concur that cigarettes are bad for health.
But to me, a sweeping, catch-all ban that includes THR products is going to be counter productive. This will only make quitting smoking harder and may drive smokers to source for contraband cigarettes, which are worse than THR products.
We need to be realistic about tackling this problem and not let idealistic principles get the better of us.
BRUCE KOH
Seri Petaling, Kuala Lumpur
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times