The concern is rising in Hong Kong where the e-cigarette may well be banned. Quitting smoking is not easy and there is evidence that "reduced risk" products such as e-cigarettes are really less harmful. For the occasion Carrie Wade, Director of Risk Reduction Policy, R Street Institute in Washington, DC Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual in London have published a letter to defend risk reduction.
In a letter published in the South China Morning Post«, Carrie Wade et Clive Bates are worried about the potential ban on vaping in Hong Kong that could affect smokers who want to quit.
We are concerned about the call for a complete ban on e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products that are low-risk alternatives.
The reasons for this prohibition, including the fact that these products are harmful and that people must stop using other "proven" methods, do not take into account the potential for harm reduction to help smokers move away from more dangerous like tobacco.
In fact, the harmfulness of a product matters a lot; based on what we already know, there is no doubt that smokeless products are far less harmful than cigarettes. We have also seen recent trial results suggesting that e-cigarettes are twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapy, and there is evidence that these products are more effective than alternative treatments for nicotine replacement therapy. nicotine or prescription drugs.
We hope that all actors concerned with public health and personal well-being ... will adopt a regulation proportionate to the risks rather than a total ban.
Since less than 10% of stopping attempts using traditional methods yield convincing results, reduced risk products can provide and provide a safer alternative to fuel cigarettes for smokers.
In Hong Kong, it is among young smokers (20 to 39 years) that the use of e-cigarettes is increasing, with a correlated decrease in the use of conventional cigarettes. It is likely that e-cigarettes replace smoking among young people who currently smoke.
We hope that all those concerned with public health and personal well-being will reconsider this choice to ban e-cigarettes and alternatives to reduced-risk tobacco, and adopt a regulation proportional to the risks rather than excessive prohibition. .