On 2017 Feb 17, Clive Bates commented:

It's a surprise that the authors are apparently unaware of the efforts that have been made to reduce the supply and demand of nicotine in its most dangerous form (smoking cigarettes). These includes high taxation, advertising bans, public smoking bans, warnings, plain packaging, communications campaigns, smoking cessation services and so on. In fact, a whole WHO treaty (the FCTC) is devoted to it.

The idea of reducing the supply and demand of the very low-risk alternative is obviously absurd. The whole point of harm reduction is to expand the supply of and demand for the low-risk harm-reduction alternative at the expense of the high-risk product or behaviour. Are they seriously suggesting that we should take measures to reduce the supply of clean needles or reduce the demand for condoms in high HIV risk settings?

The main problem is that many commentators from this school are thoughtful harm-reductionists when it comes to illicit drugs, sexual behaviours and other risks, but inexplicably become 'abstinence-only' when it comes to the mildly psychoactive drug nicotine. It is a glaring inconsistency that this article helps to illuminate.

The point is that having low-risk alternatives to smoking is synergistic with the tobacco control measures favoured by these authors. E-cigarette, smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products increase the range of options for smokers to respond to the pressures from tobacco control policies (e.g. taxation) without requiring abstinence, recourse to the black market or enduring the unwanted effects of tobacco policies on continuing smokers - like regressive tax burdens. That should appeal to those with genuine concerns for public health and wider wellbeing unless part of the purpose is to force smokers into an abstinence-only 'quit or die' choice and to make life harder for them.

On 2017 Feb 17, Clive Bates commented:

It's a surprise that the authors are apparently unaware of the efforts that have been made to reduce the supply and demand of nicotine in its most dangerous form (smoking cigarettes). These includes high taxation, advertising bans, public smoking bans, warnings, plain packaging, communications campaigns, smoking cessation services and so on. In fact, a whole WHO treaty (the FCTC) is devoted to it.

The idea of reducing the supply and demand of the very low-risk alternative is obviously absurd. The whole point of harm reduction is to expand the supply of and demand for the low-risk harm-reduction alternative at the expense of the high-risk product or behaviour. Are they seriously suggesting that we should take measures to reduce the supply of clean needles or reduce the demand for condoms in high HIV risk settings?

The main problem is that many commentators from this school are thoughtful harm-reductionists when it comes to illicit drugs, sexual behaviours and other risks, but inexplicably become 'abstinence-only' when it comes to the mildly psychoactive drug nicotine. It is a glaring inconsistency that this article helps to illuminate.

The point is that having low-risk alternatives to smoking is synergistic with the tobacco control measures favoured by these authors. E-cigarette, smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products increase the range of options for smokers to respond to the pressures from tobacco control policies (e.g. taxation) without requiring abstinence, recourse to the black market or enduring the unwanted effects of tobacco policies on continuing smokers - like regressive tax burdens. That should appeal to those with genuine concerns for public health and wider wellbeing unless part of the purpose is to force smokers into an abstinence-only 'quit or die' choice and to make life harder for them.