fbpx

Harm-Reduction

Pentingnya Kampanye Harm Reduction pada Perhelatan Besar di Indonesia

Beberapa waktu lalu, Indonesia menggelar salah satu perhelatan olahraga terbesar di dunia, MotoGP. Perhelatan ini diseleggarakan di Sirkuit Mandalika yang terletak di pulau Lombok, di provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB).

Tidak bisa dibantah, kesempatan untuk menyelenggarakan perhelatan yang sangat bergengsi ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang cukup langka, dan hal yang dapat terjadi begitu saja. Untuk dapat menjadi tuan rumah dalam perhelatan yang sangat bergengsi ini, dibutuhkan berbagai persiapan yang sangat matang dan biaya yang tidak sedikit.

Indonesia misalnya, harus mengeluarkan biaya setidaknya sejumlah 9 juta euro untuk menjadi tuan rumah perhelatan olahraga internasional tersebut. Dana tersebut dibayarkan kepada perusahaan Dorna Sport, yang merupakan perusahaan induk dari perhelatan MotoGP (suara.com 3/12/2021).

Biaya ini tentunya belum juga termasuk dana yang harus dikeluarkan untuk membangun Sirkuit Mandalika tersebut, yang menjadi tempat perhelatan MotoGP. Diestimasi, pembangunan sirkuit internasional tersebut memakan biaya sebesar 1,2 triliun rupiah (sports.okezone.com, 1/2/2022).

Namun, biaya yang sangat besar ini tentu bisa sangat dimengerti, mengingat MotoGP merupakan salah satu perhelatan olahraga terbesar di dunia. Tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa melalui perhelatan internasional ini, kita memiliki kesempatan yang sangatbesar untuk mempromosikan Indonesia di mata dunia internasional. 

Dengan suksesnya penyelenggaraan ajang olahraga internasional sebesar MotoGP, diharapkan akan semakin banyak turis yang datang ke Indonesia, dan akan semakin banyak investor yang menanamkan dananya di negara kita.

Tidak hanya itu, perhelatan olahraga internasional sebesar MotoGP juga pasti akan mendatangkan banyak pemasukan melalui iklan dan juga penjualan tiket. Tidak sedikit perusahaan multinasional dari brand ternama yang pastinya akan membayar mahal untuk menaruh nama dan juga mempromosikan produk-produk yang mereka jual kepada publik.

Tidak hanya produk-produk yang dibuat dan dijual oleh perusahaan-perusahaan multinasional dari luar negeri, perhelatan ajang kompetisi olahraga internasional sebesar MotoGP juga memberikan kesempatan yang besar untuk mempromosikan berbagai produk-produk lokal yang dibuat oleh para produsen dari Indonesia. 

Upaya untuk memperkenalkan berbagai produk dalam negeri, apalagi kepada masyarakat internasional, tentu saja merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk meningkatkan industri dalam negeri di negara kita.

Selain itu, bukan hanya kampanye dan iklan dari produk-produk dalam negeri, perhelatan olahraga internasional seperti MotoGP juga memberi ruang kesempatan yang besar untuk melakukan kampanye sosial, seperti mengenai kesehatan, dan lain sebagainya. 

Salah satu kampanye yang bisa dilakukan diantaranya adalah mengenai pentingnya langkah dan kebijakan yang mendukung harm reduction untuk para perokok, khususnya di negara kita.

Sudah menjadi rahasia umum bahwa Indonesia merupakan negara dengan jumlah populasi perokok terbesar di dunia. Pada tahun 2020 saja misalnya, hampir 40% penduduk dewasa di Indonesia merupakan perokok aktif, yang merupakan salah satu negara dengan tingkat prevelensi populasi perokok yang terbesar di dunia. Hal ini tentu menimbulkan permasalahan kesehatan publik yang besar, yang harus segera diselesaikan (economy.okezone.com, 13/12/2020).

Untuk itu, berbagai kebijakan yang ditujukan untuk mengurangi jumlah perokok di Indonesia merupakan hal yang sangat penting. Salah satunya adalah, melalui kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk harm reduction. 

Kebijakan ini berfokus bukan pada pelarangan tetapi bagaimana kita bisa membantu para perokok untuk mendapatkan produk yang lebih aman. Dengan demikian, mereka dapat perlahan-lahan meninggalkan kebiasaan merokoknya yang sangat berbahaya.

Penyelenggaraan MotoGP di Mandalika sendiri juga dimeriahkan oleh kampanye program untuk mengurangi rokok (smoking reduction program) yang diselenggarakan oleh perusahaan produsen vape asal Indonesia, Movi. 

Dalam program tersebut, dikampanyekan mengenai metode harm reduction melalui inhalasi uap herbal dengan menggunakan berbagai bahan tradisional yang berasal dari Indonesia (tribunnews.com, 24/3/2022).

Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang positif dan bisa dicontoh di berbagai acara atau perhelatan lainnya, terlebih di perhelatan internasional, yang tentunya menarik banyak perhatian para penonton dan pengunjung. 

Perhelatan internasional yang menarik banyak perhatian publik tentu merupakan salah satu tempat yang paling cocok dan tepat untuk mengkampanyekan pentingnya kebijakan dan program yang berfokus pada harm reduction untuk mengurangi jumlah perokok aktif di Indonesia.

Terlebih lagi, kebijakan atau program yang berfokus pada harm reduction merupakan sesuatu yang belum populer dan belum banyak diketahui secara luas oleh masyarakat Indonesia, termasuk juga para pengambil kebijakan. 

Tidak sedikit masyarakat Indonesia dan para pengambil kebijakan yang masih berpandangan bahwa satu-satunya cara untuk mengurangi prevelansi perokok di Indonesia adalah melalui kebijakan pembatasan dan pelarangan ketat. 

Padahal, kebijakan pembatasan dan pelarangan ketat, tanpa dukungan dari adanya produk alternatif yang lebih aman, merupakan kebijakan yang sangat berbahaya, dan justru dapat semakin menyuburkan berbagai praktik pasar gelap yang menjual produk-produk ilegal.

Sebagai penutup, kebijakan dan program yang berfokus pada harm reduction merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk mengurangi tingkat perokok di Indonesia, dan sudha terbukti berhasil di negara lain, seperti Britania Raya. Dan perhelatan-perhelatan besar merupakan salah satu tempat yang tepat untuk mengkampanyekan pentingnya program tersebut.

Originally published here

Hawaii: Eliminating vape flavors would cause more problems than it would solve

By Yaël Ossowski

When the state acts to protect our children, we trust it will do so with knowledge and responsibility. Considering the rise in availability of vaping products this last decade, it is understandable that the State Legislature has been called on to act.

But if Hawaii curbs the sale of flavored vaping products — intended for adult former smokers — this will not eradicate the problem of youth access. Rather, it may make it even worse.

Health committee chair Rep. Ryan Yamane admitted as much last week, stating “I don’t want our youth who are electronic savvy to get access to unknown supplies or, who knows, black-market cartridges laced with dangerous substances through the internet where we don’t know where it’s coming from.”

What Yamane alludes to is the 2019 EVALI epidemic, when illicit cannabis vaping devices made their way into the hands of thousands of people across the country, causing death and serious lung injuries that spread panic around vaping products. There were 4 cases in Hawaii.

The CDC has concluded that virtually every case was linked to a supply of bootleg THC vape cartridges laced with Vitamin E Acetate. While these products are far removed from the vaping devices found in convenience stores and vape shops, even though activists have attempted to connect them, the EVALI crisis demonstrates the ills associated with unregulated black market products.

Massachusetts enacted a ban on flavored vaping products in 2019 and the results should raise caution. Since the ban, a massive influx of smuggled tobacco and vape products has resulted in a thriving black market, siphoning tax revenue for the state, criminalizing adult consumers trying to make the healthier choice, and exposing kids to black market dealers who don’t ask for ID.

Making a product illegal will not necessarily make the demand for it go away, as the era of Prohibition taught us.

If Hawaii moves forward with a vaping flavor ban, they’ll not only endanger our kids, but they will also push adult consumers to switch back to smoking combustible tobacco, a disaster for public health. Over 1,400 Hawaiians lose their lives to smoking-related illnesses each year. As found in multiple studies and even Public Health England, vapers benefit from 95% less harm than cigarettes.

Fortunately, more than 7% of Hawaii’s adult population uses vaping products, accounting for over 100,000 Hawaiians who have switched to a better alternative, including our elderly. According to data from the Hawaii Journal of Medicine and Public Health, the largest demographic of Hawaiian vapers are actually over 65.

If those retirees have their smoking cession options taken away, it will not only nudge them back to smoking and put their health at risk, but it would cost Hawaii dearly. Smoking-related healthcare costs already cost Hawaiian taxpayers $141.7 million annually, not to mention the pain of long-term illnesses and deaths experienced by many families.

Our goal should be to expand people’s choices to quitting tobacco, not to limit them severely.

What’s more, similar bans to what is proposed here in Hawaii have actually been demonstrated to increase smoking rates among youth in jurisdictions like San Francisco. Data from the Journal of the American Medicine Association shows that the flavored vaping product ban caused increased smoking rates for youth aged 18 and younger.

If we are concerned about youth gaining access to vaping products, we need to ask why it is happening. Are retailers breaking the law and selling it to them? Are they asking older friends or family to acquire for them? Will adult users of these products still have less harmful alternatives to cigarettes if we outlaw them? These are important considerations.

Teenagers seek out risky behavior, whether it is drugs, alcohol, or vaping devices. Education and parental responsibility, however, would be much more effective than a sweeping ban that would boost a new black market and deprive responsible adults of products they have sought to improve their lives. This is the choice Hawaii will have to make.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.

Smoking is up for the first time in a generation. The public health lobby is to blame

By Yaël Ossowski

It often takes a long time for health policy influencers, advocates, and proponents to admit fault. 

When it is about topics such as diet fads, saturated fats, food pyramids, and sugar consumption, long-held consensus beliefs and government actions later proved erroneous have had a lasting negative impact.

But nothing has been more egregious and harmful in our current age than the public health lobby’s persistent denialism of the harm reduction value of nicotine vaping products and other alternatives to cigarettes.

That denialism has come in many forms: public information campaigns demonizing vaping devices, misinformation on lung illnesses caused by tainted cannabis cartridges, bans, restrictions, and taxes on flavored nicotine products (especially those without tobacco), Kafkaesque market authorization applications handled by the drug regulators, and a never-ending crusade to deny adult consumers from having access to life-saving products because of illicit and risky behavior by teens.

These public health bodies, anti-smoking groups, and allied journalists, whatever their intent, have sought to convince the public that not only is smoking bad and dangerous — an easy admission — but also that alternative nicotine devices like vaping products, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco are just as or even riskier than a pack of smokes.

Those conclusions are easily debunked by the millions of passionate vapers who have long since put down cigarettes and taken up customized tanks, vaporizers, and flavored liquids that give them a familiar nicotine sensation without the tar and combustible byproducts of tobacco.

David Butow for Rolling Stone

The public health mission to muddy the popular perception of nicotine alternatives such as vaping — even though it is scientifically proven to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes — is causing actual damage to American public health. And now we have the proof.

That proof is found both in the increased sales of cigarettes nationwide and also in a highly concentrated study on teen smoking in a jurisdiction where flavored nicotine vaping was outlawed.

According to the sales figures collected by the Federal Trade Commission for its 2020 Cigarette Report, Americans bought more cigarettes in 2020 than they have in more than a generation.

“The total number of cigarettes reported sold by the major manufacturers, 203.7 billion units in 2020, increased by 0.8 billion units (0.4 percent) from 2019, the first increase in cigarettes sold in twenty years,” cites the report.

Americans could be buying more cigarettes for a multitude of reasons: lockdowns, stress from both the pandemic and the government responses to the pandemic, job losses, closed schools, and more. Or perhaps because they’ve been told repeatedly by trusted public health sources and news outlets that vaping, an alternative that millions of adult consumers are now using to quit smoking, is just as dangerous.

Whatever your conclusion, the trend that lowered the percentage of US smokers down to 14 percent in 2019 (when the last complete nationwide survey was completed) is halting. And that should concern us all.

We see anecdotal echoes of this in a recent style piece in the New York Times, highlighting the “comeback” of cigarettes among the bourgeois hipster crowd in Brooklyn, New York. 

“I switched back to cigarettes because I thought it would be healthier than Juuling,” claimed one woman. It seems the public health lobbies have done their job.

On the more evidentiary side, an extensive May 2021 article published in JAMA Pediatrics found that after San Francisco’s ban on flavored vaping and tobacco products, more teens took up smoking.

“San Francisco’s ban on flavored tobacco product sales was associated with increased smoking among minor high school students relative to other school districts,” concludes the paper.

As tobacco harm reduction advocates have claimed for several years, the persistent public health campaigns, echoed by headline-grabbing media outlets, to demonize and restrict access to vaping has led to a predictable rise in smoking rates, both among adults and teens.

Whatever your view on whether vaping devices, heated tobacco, snus, or nicotine pouches are the most attractive and effective gateway away from smoking, this recent uptick in smoking demonstrates actual harms result when politically-charged health lobbies seek to extinguish market alternatives. And we must ask why they persist.

The opposition of these groups, along with affiliated journalists and researchers, to the rise of nicotine alternatives may have less to do with quantitative questions of science and health and more to do with how these products were created and are delivered: by entrepreneurs providing solutions in the market.

These entrepreneurs are vape shop owners, makers of vape liquids, gas station owners, vaping technology firms, tobacco firms pivoting to alternative products, and an entire creative class of vaping influencers both on and offline who are trying to give smokers a second chance at a long life. These are the true heroes of harm reduction in the 21st century.

The fact that spontaneous markets can deliver helpful and healthier solutions because of consumer demand, rather than by edicts, funding, and programs directly controlled by public health bureaucracies and agencies, runs counter to much of the ideology in the tobacco control space. 

It is the former, therefore, that is the true American innovative spirit that has helped make this country so prosperous and competitive, while the latter has failed us again and again.

If we want to reclaim a true public health victory and help smokers quit to give them long and fruitful lives, it is time to cast aside this aversion to the innovations of the market. The future health of our nation depends on it.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center

6 Reasons Nicotine Is Not Your Enemy

This month’s Christmas festival has great news on public health. In countries that encouraged and accepted tobacco harm reduction policies, the number of smokers has dropped significantly.

In the UK, for example, smoking levels have dropped by 25% since 2013 (when e-cigarettes became popular). Over the past four years in Japan, cigarette sales have fallen by 34%, while sales of reduced-harm alternatives such as heat-not-burn tobacco surged to 30% in 2019.

This was achieved because people who usually look for nicotine do so in a harmless way.

But while these numbers are important wins for consumers, the entire army of nicotine’s unscientific scapegoats undermines their success. This approach has dire consequences: fewer people switch to less harmful alternatives such as vaping, nicotine pouches, or heat-not-burn tobacco devices.

In the Philippines, additional categories of harm reduction are being legalized, but still failing to achieve the widespread adoption required.

Read the full article here

Researchers Call for End to ‘War on Nicotine’

A new research paper attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding nicotine consumption and the role it plays in the diseases caused by smoking. The paper, released by the Consumer Choice Center, outlines six main reasons why the “war on nicotine is pointless” and should end.

“Instead of celebrating declining numbers of smokers and far fewer deaths, many governments, public health agencies and anti-smoking activists have been on the hunt for new enemies,” the researchers wrote. “They decided to scapegoat nicotine, and as a result, the fight against smoking gradually transformed into a fight against nicotine. Such an approach has dire consequences: fewer people switching to less harmful alternatives.”

Read the full article here

New Research Hopes to Help End War on Nicotine

A new research paper attempts to clarify the confusion surrounding nicotine consumption and the role it plays in the diseases caused by smoking. The paper, released by the Consumer Choice Center, outlines six main reasons why the “war on nicotine is pointless” and should end.

“Instead of celebrating declining numbers of smokers and far fewer deaths, many governments, public health agencies and anti-smoking activists have been on the hunt for new enemies,” the researchers wrote. “They decided to scapegoat nicotine, and as a result, the fight against smoking gradually transformed into a fight against nicotine. Such an approach has dire consequences: fewer people switching to less harmful alternatives.”

The paper was co-authored by Michael Landl, director of the World Vapers’ Alliance, and Maria Chaplia, research manager at the Consumer Choice Center This six reasons listed to stop the war against nicotine the paper recommends are:

  • People consume nicotine, but they die from smoking
  • Nicotine in patches and gums is not a problem — it is neither (a problem) when vaped nor in a pouch
  • Addiction is complex and not solved by a war on nicotine
  • Nicotine makes some people smarter, stronger and more attractive
  • Misconceptions about nicotine are hindering progress
  • Prohibition never works

Read the full article here

Шість причин чому не варто демонізувати нікотин

Добрі новини для початку тижня: у країнах, які пішли шляхом заохочення вейпінгу, кількість курців суттєво зменшилась.

У Великій Британії, наприклад, рівень куріння впав на 25% з 2013 року (час, коли вейпінг став популярним). 

Але для критиків цих успіхів нікотин став козлом відпущення і в результаті боротьба з курінням поступово переросла в боротьбу з нікотином. Такий підхід має жахливі наслідки: менше людей переходить на менш шкідливі альтернативи.

Шість причин чому треба перестати демонізувати нікотин:

1. Люди споживають нікотин, але вмирають від куріння

Це правда, що не слід заохочувати людей починати вживати нікотин. Але органи охорони здоров’я повинні перестати перешкоджати курцям переходити на вейпінг та інші альтернативи. Британська національна служба охорони здоров’я (British National Health Service) дотримуєтьсяпрагматичного підходу до споживання нікотину та вейпінгу, заявляючи наступне: «Хоча нікотин викликає залежність у сигаретах, він сам по собі є відносно нешкідливим. Майже вся шкода від куріння походить від тисяч інших хімічних речовин в тютюновому димі, багато з яких є токсичними».

2. Нікотин у патчах і жувальних гумках не є проблемою, а тому він не має вважатись проблемою у вейпі

Королівський коледж лікарів Великобританії узагальнив роль вейпінгу як методу споживання нікотину таким чином: «Електронні сигарети відповідають багатьом критеріям ідеального продукту для зменшення шкоди від тютюну. Хоча споживання нікотину з електронних сигарет залежить від ряду факторів, […], вони можуть містити високу дозу нікотину, але при цьому не мати шкідливих компонентів тютюнового диму […]». 

3. Залежність від нікотину складна і вона не вирішується заборонами

Безсумнівно, нікотин викликає виділення дофаміну і, таким чином, сприяє звиканню до куріння, але це не може бути єдиною причиною, чому так багато людей не можуть кинути палити. Якби нікотин був єдиною причиною залежності від куріння, кожен курець, який використовує нікотинові патчі, мав би кинути курити одразу.

Як показало дослідження, опубліковане у 2015-ому році в науковому журналі Drug and Alcohol Dependence, за відсутності тютюнового диму потенційна залежність від нікотину дуже низька, тому більшість вейперів відчувають набагато менший тиск залежності, ніж курці.

4. Нікотин має медичні переваги 

Дослідження, проведені в 1960-х роках, показали, що у курців спостерігається нижчий рівень хвороби Паркінсона, і нещодавні дослідження показало, що причиною цього є нікотин. Було доведено, що «чоловіки, які не курили, але вживали снюс (тип бездимного тютюну), мали значно нижчий ризик хвороби Паркінсона». Однією з причин є те, що нікотин має позитивну когнітивну дію.

5. Помилкові уявлення про нікотин гальмують прогрес

Сприйняття громадськості щодо нікотину, на жаль, викривлене. 57% респондентів американського опитування помилково погодилися з твердженням, що «нікотин в сигаретах є речовиною, яка викликає більшість ракових захворювань, викликаних курінням», і навіть 80% лікарів помилково вважають, що нікотин викликає рак. Ці неправильні переконання громадськості та експертів мають негативні наслідки, адже вони викривлюють уявлення про вейпінг, який є на 95 відсотків менш шкідливий ніж куріння.

Недавній огляд 755 тематичних досліджень про загальні наслідки вейпінгу прийшов до висновку, що лише 37 «відповідають точним критеріям наукової якості».

6. Політика заборон ніколи не є ефективною

Якщо політикам до цього часу слід було б чомусь навчитися з історії, так це те, що заборона не працює. Заборона алкоголю в США була повною катастрофою, що призвело до збільшення споживання алкоголю, споживання неощадливих продуктів і породило величезні картелі. Війна з наркотиками в усьому світі є повним провалом і в багатьох випадках призвела до контрпродуктивної політики. Тому справедливо припустити, що війна з нікотином матиме такі ж результати.

Оскільки куріння і хвороби, які ним спричинені, залишається одним з викликів людства, дуже важливо підходити до їх вирішення зважено і без нав’язаних ідеологій. Нікотин – не ворог.

Originally published here

Apresiasi Inggris Negara Pertama yang Melegalkan Vape sebagai Produk Medis

Isu mengenai produk rokok elektronik, atau yang dikenal juga dengan nama vape, saat ini masih menjadi kontroversi. Perdebatan mengenai isu terkait vape umumnya muncul pada aspek kesehatan, terlebih lagi, dari tahun ke tahun, jumlah pengguna vape di seluruh dunia kian meningkat.

Bagi sebagian kalangan, vape atau rokok elektronik merupakan produk yang sangat berbahaya, dan tidak jauh berbeda dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Untuk itu, akan sangat berbahaya pula bila produk ini dapat dijual bebas ke masyarakat seperti produk-produk konsumen lainnya.

Mereka yang memiliki pandangan bahwa vape atau rokok elektronik sebagai produk yang sangat berbahaya umumnya akan meengadvokasi berbagai kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk mencegah seseorang mengkonsumsi produk tersebut. 

Berbagai kebijakan ini ada dalam berbagai bentuk, mulai dari kebijakan untuk mengenakan cukai atau pajak yang tinggi, untuk mengurangi insentif seseorang mengkonsumsi vape, hingga kebijakan pelarangan total.

Sementara itu, di sisi lain tidak sedikit pula pihak-pihak yag memiliki pandnagan bahwa vape atau rokok elektronik merupakan produk yang tidak lebih berbahaya daripada rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Oleh karena itu, vape atau rokok elektronik memiliki potensi untuk membantu para perokok untuk mengurangi kebiasaan merokoknya yang sangat berbahaya bagi kesehatan.

Mereka yang memiliki pandangan tersebut umumnya justru menentang keras berbagai kebijakan yang ditujukan agar seseorang semakin sulit untuk mendapatkan akses terhadap produk-produk vape. 

Mereka melihat kebijakan tersebut justru akan membawa dampak yang kontra produktif, karena bukan hanya akan semakin menyulitkan para perokok untuk mendapatkan produk alternatif yang dapat membantu mereka berhenti merokok, namun juga berpotensi besar akan semakin membuka praktik pasar gelap vape yang sanget berbahaya bagi konsumen.

Di Indonesia sendiri, tidak sedikit pihak-pihak yang memiliki pandangan pertama terkait dengan produk-produk vape. Mereka memiliki pandangan bahwa vape atau rokok elektronik adalah produk yang sangat berbahaya dan harus dilarang oleh pemerintah. Ikatan Dokter Indonesia (IDI) misalnya, menganjurkan agar produk-produk vape dilarang di Indonesia (cnnindonesia.com, 24/9/2019).

Tetapi ada pula negara lain yang memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda terkait dengan produk-produk vape atau rokok elektronik. Salah satu dari negara tersebut adalah Britania Raya, yang bukan hanya tidak melarang vape, tetapi justru menjadikan produk tersebut sebagai alternatif yang dapat membantu seseorang untuk berhenti merokok.

Kebijakan yang diambil oleh Inggris ini memang tergolong unik. Ketika berbagai negara di dunia berupaya untuk memberlakukan kebijakan yang membatasi hingga melarang vape, mulai dari Amerika Serikat hingga Australia, Inggris justru memberlakukan kebijakan yang berbeda 180 derajat dari kebijakan yang diambil oleh negara-negara lainnya.

Pendekatan yang diambil oleh Pemerintah Inggris ini bisa ditarik kembali ke tahun 2015. Di tahun tersebut, lembaga kesehatan publik Inggris, Public Health England (PHE), mengeluarkan laporan mengenai vape, yang isinya secara eksplisit menyatakan bahwa kandungan dalam vape atau rokok elektronik 95% lebih tidak berbahaya bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar. 

Tidak hanya itu, PHE juga menyatakan bahwa produk rokok elektronik dapat membantu seseorang untuk berhentu merokok (theguardian.com, 28/12/2018).

Laporan tersebut kelak menjadi salah satu dasar kebijakan resmi dari Pemerintah Inggris untuk menjadikan vape atau rokok elektronik sebagai produk alternatif untuk membantu seseorang berhenti merokok. Kebijakan ini akhirnya secara resmi diterapkan di negara tersebut pada akhir bulan Oktober 2021 lalu.

Pada bulan Oktober lalu, lembaga regulasi medis Inggris, United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) menerbitkan panduan untuk menjadikan produk-produk vape sebagai salah satu resep medis bagi seseorang untuk berhenti merokok. Resep tersebut bisa dikeluarkan oleh lembaga kesehatan nasional Inggris, National Health Service (NHS) (edition.cnn.co, 29/10/2021).

Melalui aturan ini, perusahaan produsen produk-produk vape bisa mendaftarkan produk yang mereka buat ke MHRA untuk diteliti agar bisa mendapatkan lisensi medis bagi produk tersebut. Proses tersebut diberlakukan sama dengan produk-produk medis lainnya.

Kebijakan ini sendiri diambil sebagai salah satu upaya dari Pemerintah Inggris untuk mengurangi jumlah populasi perokok di negaranya. Bila kelak nanti sudah ada produk vape yang lolos proses regulasi dari MHRA dan mendapatkan lisensi medis, maka Inggris akan menjadi negara pertama di dunia yang melegalkan produk-produk vape untuk digunakan sebagai produk pengobatan medis.

Namun, Pemerintah Inggris dalam hal inibukan berartoi menyatakan bahwa vape merupakan produk yang 100% aman untuk dikonsumsi, tetapi resiko tersebut jauh lebih rendah bila dibandingkan dengan rokok elektronik yang dibakar. 

NHS menyatakan bahwa, rokok elektronik tidak memproduksi tar dan karbon monoksida, yang merupakan dua zat yang paling berbahaya yang terkandung dalam rokok konvensional yang dibakar (edition.cnn.co, 29/10/2021).

Kebijakan yang diambil oleh Pemerintah Inggris ini sendiri tentu merupakan kebijakan unik dan yang patut diapresiasi, di mana Pemerintah Inggris dalam hal ini berupaya untuk bersikap pragmatis untuk mengurangi populasi perkok di negaranya. Indonesia sendiri tentu dapat mengambil pelajaran dari kebijakan yang diambil oleh Inggris tersebut.

Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan jumlah populasi dewasa perokok tertinggi di dunia. Pada tahun 2021 ini, Indonesia menduduki peringkat negara dengan populasi perokok tertinggi ketiga di dunia, dengan jumlah 65,7 juta penduduk Indonesia adalah perokok aktif, atau 33,8% dari jumlah total penduduk (jpnn.com, 29/4/2021).

Hal ini tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat berbahaya, dan bukan hanya membahayakan kesehatan publik, tetapi juga dapat semakin menambahkan beban pemerintah untuk membiayai biaya pengobatan masyarakat Indonesia. 

Untuk itu, kebijakan pragmatis untuk menanggulangi hal tersebut adalah hal yang sangat penting, salah satunya adalah mencontoh kebijakan yang diambil oleh Pemerintah Inggris tersebut.

Originally published here

Can we please have a debate about policy issues?

Trying to talk policy with confused Le Monde activist journalists

Have you ever attempted to argue with a conspiracy theorist? 

They don’t all wear tinfoil hats and argue about vaccines or government plots. Some earn paychecks from respectable media outlets. Others are funded by billionaire philanthropists to sow doubt and spin narratives.

The Consumer Choice Center recently met with some Michael Bloomberg-funded journalists — a troubling web on its own — supposedly to discuss our campaigns on tobacco harm reduction, an important issue for us and for a billion smokers worldwide. Yesterday they published their “research” after months of inquiry.

We wanted to talk to them about policy issues. But they seemingly weren’t interested in the great work we do on consumer choice and innovative, smart policies across the globe. They did not care about our fight to save the lives of millions of smokers, or our efforts to make ride-sharing available for everyone and reduce drunk driving, or combatting criminals and drug-dealers by endorsing cannabis legalization. We advocate for innovative solutions to tackle the world’s problems — from hunger to pandemics — but they had a different narrative to sell.

Cynical activist-journalists don’t seem to care about the life-saving potential of vaping but instead aim to slander people that endorse and use it. Where is the alternative solution provided by these intrepid journalists? They also don’t care about us and our volunteers being actual consumers — this makes me look forward to displaying hundreds of video testimonials of vapers in the upcoming weeks across Europe. Nearly 70 million smokers (that’s 1% of world population and about 200-times more people than Le Monde readers) have been able to quit thanks to vaping. This is likely the largest public health victory since the invention of the Polio vaccine! 

Instead, the big story they wanted to target is that the CCC receives money from for-profit corporations. This is true, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s clearly stated on our website, and we’ve answered these questions a hundred times. If it takes three “journalists” months to figure this out, then Michael Bloomberg and those who run his foundation, who funded their research, should probably consider the return on their investment. 

Despite their ambiguous claims, CCC has ZERO ties to the Koch family, their companies, or their money, and though this was made very clear to the intrepid reporters, they devoted the vast majority of their screed to trying to force a link that doesn’t exist. This is neither honest journalism nor fact-based reporting, but it fits the illiberal and moralizing worldview of a sect of journalists, and their contrived sense of right and wrong. 

They believe that fighting for consumer choice and evidence-based policies is a fringe pursuit and lonely endeavor, which no one would dare try unless funded by various incarnations of the devil. We disagree. 

I devoted more than an hour to talking with these journalists in person, and provided responses to all of their follow-up questions, in good faith. The same can be said for my colleagues who provided answers to them in the months prior. Their suggestion that I was evasive just doesn’t match the facts. We are open and proud of the work that we do. 

There’s a massive need to raise and amplify the voice of consumers that want access to innovative products, that want to decide for themselves, and that don’t want to be lectured to by activist-journalists with an ideological axe to grind. 

The Consumer Choice Center is proud of its accomplishments in our years of existence, and that my colleagues and our volunteers work hard hours every day to bring evidence and consumer choice to the public debate. I am very thankful for all the support we have received in the past and we look forward to growing our efforts for 21st century consumer policies! 

P.S.: The story that consumers and ex-smokers (like me) fight for the right to vape seemed to be such a non-story that the writers decided it was appropriate to comment on the fashion choices of myself and Michael. When they go low, we’ll go high, so we won’t respond in kind. But I would like to say that I proudly bought my Burberry trench coat in a second hand market. But this wouldn’t fit their narrative. 

P.P.S.: All I want for Christmas is for Michael Bloomberg and the World Health Organization to realize that vaping can save millions of lives. Santa, can you help with this?

P.P.P.S: If you want to read through the result of the aforementioned 3-month-long research you can have some entertainment here.

Addition: This thread by Michelle Minton at the Competitive Enterprise Institute shows the undeclared conflicts of interest of some of the authors of the references ‘research’.

strategy to ban vaping products

Leaked: Bloomberg-funded ‘Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids’ Global Strategy to Ban Vaping Products By Bribing Public Bodies

To people in the United States, billionaire Michael Bloomberg is most well-known as a swashbuckling former New York City mayor who blew a lot of money on an ill-fated presidential primary run.

But around the world, his network of charities and selected groups he provides with millions of dollars in grants are, for all intents and purposes, a sort of private government who influence government leaders, fund the entire salaries of public health officials, and write legislation that is then introduced into legislative bodies, including the recent example of vaping bans in Mexico and the Phillippines.

Some of these organizations are those directly chaired and controlled by Bloomberg, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, but most are various campaign groups that rely heavily on funding and guidance from the New York City billionaire, including those focused on the environment, education, public health, and general tobacco control.

According to the latest article from Michelle Minton at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who was able to get her hands on internal documents from the Bloomberg-funded Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids organization, the pernicious impact of the campaigns to target developing countries goes much beyond standard tobacco-control measures such as taxes, age-gating, and advertising restrictions.

Influence and Cash-Strapped Governments

Instead, there are direct payments offered to government bodies and public health officials that implement the CTFK wish-list of legislation. Because developing nations spend less on public health measures and programs than developed nations, foreign NGOs that seek specific policy measures in exchange for millions of dollars in public funding are granted immense influence.

As such, rather than actual domestic democratic demand for measures against tobacco and vaping products, including all-out bans on vaping flavors and technology, these nations pass laws in direct exchange for grants, often much larger than their own domestic department budgets. In other contexts, this would rightly be defined as bribery.

Considering Michael Bloomberg’s charities have spent nearly $700 million globally to hurry these measures into law, the long arm of the global anti-tobacco advocacy movement has already chalked up several success stories.

In government, CTFK and its partners engage in lobbying, like most other advocacy organizations, but CTFK’s strategy for influencing tobacco policy really hinges on establishing itself as an indispensable resource for regulators and lawmakers. For example, the CTFK plan lists myriad examples of support it has provided to government entities, such as assisting in lawsuits against the tobacco industry in Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Uganda, Nigeria, and Kenya. In Panama, it notes “collaboration with the Ministry of Health of Panama who is interested in financing a regional effort” for tobacco litigation.

Michelle Minton, Exposed: Bloomberg’s Anti-Tobacco Meddling in Developing Countries

The documents outline the efforts of campaigners from CTFK to pass various tobacco control and anti-vaping measures in countries such as Brazil, China, and Nigeria, including “financial support” to ministries and government offices.

More than just government officials and health bodies, exorbitant funding is also made available to universities and media institutions, documents show, to amplify the core messages and aims of CTFK.

The Smokescreen

Rather than advocating for general tobacco control measures, a good portion of CTFK’s campaigns has focused on banning or severely restrict harm reducing technologies such as vaping, especially in developing countries such as India, the Phillippines, China, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, and more.

Diverting from their mission of truly “tobacco-free kids,” Bloomberg’s connected organizations have instead used their influence to zero in on innovative and novel technological vaping products that deliver aerosolized nicotine and have nothing to do with tobacco.

Instead, organizations like Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids have used powerful rhetoric on the need to eliminate smoking as a literal smokescreen for eliminating or severely restricting all non-combustible nicotine alternatives, including vaping devices, heat-not-burn devices, nicotine pouches, and more.

Considering the demonstrated health potentials that come with endorsing nicotine-delivery alternatives as a means to quit smoking, as is recommended by relative health ministries in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to undermine these efforts in developing countries with relatively high smoking rates should be a scandal of epic proportions.

But, alas, those headlines are far from prominent. Instead, we have multiple policy victories that restrict consumer choice and access to alternatives without much regard for actual public health.

Achieving True Public Health

What makes these revelations most startling is that there is no room for nuance on whether innovative new vaping devices and other alternatives, which do not contain tobacco, should be considered tobacco products. Organizations such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an organ of the World Health Organization, say they are no different.

But they’re wrong. The growing compendium of academic studies and government reports demonstrating that vaping is 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco speaks to that.

The fact that millions of people have been able to quit smoking by using nicotine vaping devices should be a testament enough to how the market can deliver solutions for public health, not to use a cudgel to hamstring and deny developing nations the real opportunity they have to improve and save the lives of millions of their citizens.

But as noted by Minton at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “the strategy of CTFK and the wider Bloomberg-funded anti-tobacco effort appears aimed at winning policy battles and passing laws with little consideration of whether they result in actual reductions in smoking or improvements in health.”

If this is the face of the modern tobacco control movement, then we know that public health is not actually their goal.

Consumer Choice Radio

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2023, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top