AMA Tasmania is very concerned about Senator Tammy Tyrrell’s recent opinion piece in The Hobart Mercury, in which she argues against the new Tasmanian restrictions on vaping. She claims that the changes will make it harder for people to quit smoking. In contrast, the medical evidence from across the world is that vaping does not reduce smoking. In fact, it is a gateway for smoking in our impressionable youth.
The idea that vaping is a safe or “safer” alternative to smoking is a highly dangerous narrative pushed by tobacco companies hoping to fill the gap of dwindling tobacco sales and get their hooks into a new and unsuspecting generation of addicted customers.
While vaping is widely marketed as a tool for smoking cessation, the reality is far more complicated.
Numerous studies have shown that vaping, particularly among young people, significantly increases the likelihood of smoking cigarettes later; as much as five times more likely to start smoking than those who hadn’t.
The problem isn’t that people will revert to smoking because of tighter regulations on vapes, but rather that vaping itself has become a gateway to smoking, especially among youth.
She also suggests that vaping has helped many people quit smoking and that making access to vaping products more difficult will negatively affect these individuals. While it is true that a small percentage of smokers have successfully transitioned to vaping as a cessation tool, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Many continue vaping in the long term, and the long-term effects of vaping are not yet understood.
The evidence supporting vaping as an effective long-term cessation method is weak at best.
The most reliable tools for quitting smoking are still behavioural support and medically approved nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), which are readily available. And unlike vapes, NRTs are tested, regulated, and approved by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), providing doctors and patients with confidence in their safety and efficacy.
Alarmingly, her perspective also overlooks significant aspects of the broader debate surrounding vaping and public health. These tougher measures, designed to restrict access to vapes and ensure they are used only as a tool for nicotine cessation under medical supervision, are not just a response but a necessary and urgent one to a growing public health crisis—especially among young people.
This proactive approach is aimed directly at safeguarding public health and preventing a potential epidemic of vaping addicts. The argument that restricting access to vapes will drive people to the black market, making it more difficult for those trying to quit smoking, is a well-known narrative pushed by the tobacco and vaping industries.
Governments, including Tasmania’s, are aware of the risks of illegal markets. Much like the regulation of alcohol and other controlled substances, ensuring that vaping products are only accessible through legitimate means will mitigate, not encourage, illicit trade. Recent evidence shows that these reforms are already significantly impacting the supply chain.
In addition, the reforms introduced by the Tasmanian government do not eliminate vaping as an option for smokers trying to quit; instead, they place it under the supervision of general practitioners.
Making vapes available only through pharmacies with a doctor’s prescription ensures that vaping products are used only for their intended purpose, a legitimate tool for smoking cessation, and are not readily available to those, particularly young people, who might use them recreationally.
Claims that the new restrictions will overburden doctors are unfounded; our GPs are very happy to take the time to help their patients find the right tools to help and support them to quit smoking or vaping now rather than down the track treating them for horrible diseases as a consequence.
Tyrrell’s concern about government overreach and interference with personal choice also falls short when considering the public health implications.
Yes, personal freedom is important, but when individuals’ choices, particularly those of young people, lead to significant public health risks, it is the government’s responsibility to intervene.
Just as restrictions on tobacco, alcohol, other harmful substances and seat belt wearing all exist to protect public health, regulating vapes is necessary to prevent a new epidemic of nicotine addiction.
Framing the issue as a matter of personal liberty overlooks the clear evidence that vaping—mainly unregulated vaping—is inflammatory and poses substantial risks. The government has a duty to regulate these products to protect public health, even if it means limiting access for some individuals.
Maybe there are times when we can all benefit from a bit of old-fashioned, well-intentioned nannying—having someone look out for you and want to protect you from harm’s way is a tradition that should not be lost.
Tyrrell’s assertion that the government’s restrictions are hypocritical because they allow tobacco sales, which are heavily taxed while making vapes harder to obtain, overlooks the central issue.
These new vaping regulations are part of a broader public health initiative aimed at reducing all forms of nicotine dependence, whether from cigarettes or vapes.
Unlike vapes, cigarettes are a well-established, highly regulated product with decades of research documenting their health risks, and the rates of smoking have been steadily falling due in considerable measure to the government’s actions over many years.
The problem with vapes is that they have been on the market for only 10-15 years, and their long-term health effects are still largely unknown. What is known so far, though, is frightening: studies have linked vaping to acute lung injury, popcorn lung, tooth decay, and nicotine addiction.
When viewed through the lens of public health, the Tasmanian government’s reforms are not about restricting access to a harmless product but about regulating a highly dangerous one.
By limiting access to vapes and ensuring that they are used only as part of a medically supervised cessation strategy, Tasmania is taking a responsible approach to protecting the health of patients.
