Key Stakeholders in Vaping in Australia

​

1. Pro-Vaping Stakeholders:

​

• Health Experts Advocating for Harm Reduction: Experts like Dr. Colin Mendelsohn and consumer groups such as the

ALIVE advocacy movement support vaping as a harm reduction strategy for smokers .

• Consumers and Vapers: Many adult smokers who rely on vaping as a smoking cessation tool are vocal stakeholders.

• Independent Retailers: Businesses selling legal vaping products.

• International Health Bodies: Organizations like Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians advocate for vaping as a safer alternative to smoking .

​

2. Anti-Vaping Stakeholders:

• Australian Government: Led by Health Minister Mark Butler, the government has implemented strict regulations, including a prescription-only model for nicotine vapes .

• Australian Medical Association (AMA): Strongly opposed to vaping due to perceived risks, especially regarding youth uptake .

• Public Health Organizations: Some groups oppose vaping based on concerns about long-term health risks, youth usage, and potential gateway effects.

 

Why are there people opposed to vaping? 

The best way to understand this in short:

When there is money on tap to fix a percieved issue pouring out to anti vaping antagonists, often with no KPI's then there is incentive to perpetuate the percieved issue. 

This is best explained in Pippa Starr's popular article: "The Great Australian Smoking Racket". 

​

 

Costs to Australian Taxpayers Due to Anti-Vaping Policies

 

Australia’s strict anti-vaping policies have resulted in significant economic and public health consequences:

1. Public Health Costs:

• Smoking-related diseases remain the leading preventable cause of death, costing taxpayers billions annually in healthcare expenses .

• By restricting access to vaping, many smokers who could benefit from switching to a safer alternative remain dependent on smoking, leading to further economic and health burdens .

2. Enforcement Costs:

• Implementing anti-vaping laws, such as border enforcement to combat black market sales, imposes substantial costs on law enforcement and regulatory bodies .

3. Economic Losses:

• A thriving black market, controlled by criminal networks, has emerged due to restrictive policies, depriving the government of legitimate tax revenue .

• The black market further undermines public health goals, as products are often unregulated and sold freely to youth.

4. Potential Savings Missed:

• Countries like the UK and New Zealand, which have embraced vaping as a harm-reduction strategy, report accelerated declines in smoking rates, leading to improved public health outcomes and significant economic savings .

 

Anti-vaping policies are costing Australian taxpayers billions through healthcare expenses, enforcement costs, and economic losses associated with a thriving black market. Evidence suggests that adopting a regulated consumer model could reduce smoking-related costs and improve public health outcomes .