The latest Bhekisisa opinion post, “Hey Parliament, our children are becoming addicted to vapes. Let’s put an end to it” raises legitimate concerns. Protecting young kids from nicotine is something I wholeheartedly support. However, the piece misrepresents my organisation’s (VSML) beliefs and risks directing public discourse away from South Africa’s considerably greater and deadlier tobacco epidemic.
RELATIVE HARM
Let me be clear: VSML has never claimed that vaping is harmless. It isn’t. Nicotine is addictive, and no inhaled product is risk-free. However, for millions of adult smokers worldwide who have failed to quit using traditional techniques, vaping provides a much less harmful alternative. Our advocacy is based on harm reduction for adult smokers, not a free-for-all encouragement of nicotine use.
YOUTH VAPING A NO NO
Much like the overwhelming majority of respondents to our recent survey, we favour steps to prevent kids from accessing vapes. VSML has consistently supported strong restrictions that prevent the sale and supply of vaping goods to anybody under the age of 18. Retailers who sell to minors should face consequences. Adults who provide vapes to minors should face sanctions. Cartoons and other forms of youth-orientated marketing should be forbidden. Why? Because, as seen in our survey, 66% of our respondents started their tobacco journey as minors, a pattern we wish to see end.
However, protecting youngsters does not mean weakening the rights of adults who smoke. Nor does it support policies that would encourage adults to return to cigarettes, which remain the largest cause of preventable death in South Africa.
FLAVOURS MATTER
We do not support flavour bans—and for good reason. The Bhekisisa article suggests that flavours exist to entice children. That’s incorrect. When transitioning from cigarettes, adults overwhelmingly choose non-tobacco flavours, and global research consistently reveals that flavours help quit efforts and long-term abstinence. Banning them would see a rise in smoking rates, as seen in other parts of the world that have taken these measures. Our position is obvious. Flavours should be permitted as long as they adhere to accepted safety standards, such as those set by the South African Bureau of Standards.
Marketing and packaging must be fully adult-appropriate and devoid of youth-orientated imagery. This is a balanced method that protects youngsters while assisting adult smokers in selecting a significantly less harmful option.
ONLY SOME KIDS COUNT
The data on vaping in schools only tells part of the story. The author’s cautions concerning teen vaping are based solely on research conducted in higher-income schools, which is a significant detail left out of the piece. This restricted sample, where 80% of respondents attended a single-sex institution in leafy suburbs of major cities, excludes the great majority of South African learners, notably those in low-income neighbourhoods, where the smoking rate is substantially greater. Illicit tobacco is easily available, and there is almost no quitting support.
If our policy debate is limited to youth vaping in rich schools, we risk overlooking the far larger crisis: millions of adults stuck in a lifelong cigarette addiction, disproportionately in poorer neighbourhoods, with disastrous health implications. What about the lack of help for smokers wishing to quit?
THE REAL CRISIS
The author heads the only government hospital smoking cessation clinic in the country. That statistic alone reveals a larger issue than any discussion of vaping in wealthy schools. Where is the national uproar regarding:
The lack of publicly financed quit services in all provinces and communities?
The lack of access to counselling and nicotine replacement therapy?
The focus on tens of thousands of smoking-related deaths each year, which dwarves any harm caused by vaping among youth?
The public would also benefit from knowing: What is the clinic’s long-term quit rate? How many people does it serve? Could harm-reduction measures, such as vaping products, improve these outcomes, as seen in the United Kingdom and New Zealand? If not, is that based on science or an ideological standpoint?
The hopelessness expressed by the author in referring patients to medical specialists and/or palliative care is shared; the only difference is that these were our loved ones. We watched them smoke, we watched them quit, and we watched them fail time after time because what was available just didn’t work. All whilst we feared the same fate, until we discovered safer nicotine products. Somehow this is not where the focus lies.
BOTTOM LINE
South Africans deserve transparency and an open, balanced discussion, not selective indignation. Youth protection and adult harm reduction are not incompatible aims. We can—and must—do both. Youth should not vape. Adult smokers should not be refused safer choices and accurate information.
Policies must reflect socioeconomic realities, not only the experiences of a small subset of students in privileged settings. Overly broad limits on vaping may appear to be decisive action, but they risk driving people back to cigarettes, the product responsible for the true public-health emergency: cancer, COPD, cardiovascular disease, and more than 20% of all adult fatalities in some areas.
Let’s base tobacco policy on evidence, not fear. South Africa requires regulations that prevent youth access. Stop irresponsible marketing. impose product standards (including flavours). Help support adult smokers even if it means providing safer alternatives. This is how we reduce harm—not by demonising technologies that help adults quit smoking or by disregarding the vast disparities in smoking prevalence and cessation support.
Definitely protect the children. But let’s not forget about the millions of adults who smoke, are dying, and have almost no assistance – for whom vaping could mean the difference between life and death.
