KURT YEO | Youth shouldn’t vape — but don’t ignore South Africa’s real tobacco crisis

The recent Bhekisisa opinion post raises legitimate concerns. Protecting young kids from nicotine is something I wholeheartedly support. However, the piece misrepresents my organisation Vaping Saved My Life’s (VSML) beliefs and risks directing public discourse away from South Africa’s considerably greater and deadlier tobacco epidemic.

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.

We favour rigorous 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-oriented marketing should be forbidden.

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.

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 raise smoking rates, as seen in parts of the US.

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.

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.

Marketing and packaging must be fully adult-appropriate and devoid of youth-oriented imagery. This is a balanced method that protects youngsters while assisting adult smokers in selecting a significantly less harmful option.

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 excludes the great majority of South African learners, notably those in low-income neighbourhoods, where 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 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 regulated vaping goods, improve these outcomes? If not, is that based on science or an ideological standpoint?

South Africans wants 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 or accurate information.

Policies must reflect socioeconomic realities, not only the experiences of a small subset of pupils and students in privileged institutions. 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.

Kurt Yeo is a former smoker who, after switching to vaping, became a founder of the consumer advocacy group Vaping Saved My Life

For opinion and analysis consideration, email opinions@timeslive.co.za