In the never-ending debate on public health, some products are subjected to great scrutiny while others enjoy free access to markets. Some recent articles have highlighted speculative health concerns associated with vaping, particularly regarding reproductive and cardiovascular health. While these findings call for scrutiny, they also underscore glaring discrepancies in how products with similar or, at times, worse health risks are treated in the marketplace. Products like fast foods, alcohol, faux meat, and cigarettes face no comparable stigma or restriction.

In spite of much worse consequences in terms of diabetes, liver damage, and obesity, these products remain readily available without any restriction, raising the question: why is vaping treated so much worse than smoking? Unlike traditional cigarettes loaded with heavy amounts of carcinogens and toxic chemicals, vaping omits combustion – a primary cause of smoking-related diseases. This difference makes vaping a safer alternative for adults trying to quit smoking. Public health campaigns have long encouraged harm-reduction strategies, yet vaping faces regulatory and cultural stigmatization that undermines its potential as a smoking cessation tool.

Advertisement

Consider the double standard in public health policies. Faux meat and processed soybased meat alternatives in India have become super popular among the vegetarian population despite their documented adverse effect on sperm count and reproductive health. Yet, these products are marketed openly, often celebrated in advertisements. Despite its comparatively lower risk profile, vaping faces bans, flavour restrictions, and punitive taxes. This selective approach to regulation limits consumer choice and creates a precedent where public health policies are driven more by politics than evidence.

The crackdown on vaping often aligns with vested interests. Pharmaceutical companies producing nicotine replacement therapies and governments reliant on tobacco tax revenues stand to gain from restricting vaping. Additionally, traditional tobacco companies benefit from policies that stifle their most significant competitor. Meanwhile, adults looking for a safer way to quit smoking are left with fewer options, and the black market for vaping products thrives — offering unregulated and potentially unsafe alternatives. The consumer angle is clear: adults deserve the freedom to make informed choices about their health. While educating consumers about the potential risks of vaping is important, imposing bans and using heavy-handed regulations will deprive individuals of their autonomy. Adults opting to vape are making a calculated harm reduction decision, and they shouldn’t be penalized for making decisions to achieve their health goals.

Instead of demonizing vaping, policymakers should focus on a balanced regulatory framework that ensures product safety without hindering innovation or restricting consumer freedom. A reasonable approach would encourage people to make sound choices while reducing harm. The debate about vaping and health risks must prioritize fairness and consistency. If products like fast food, cigarettes, faux meat, and alcohol can co-exist, there’s no reason to treat vaping differently, especially when it serves as a tool for harm reduction. By singling out vaping, we risk alienating smokers who could benefit from switching and undermining broader public health objectives. It is time to respect consumer choice and acknowledge vaping’s role in building a healthier society.

(The writer is an Indian policy associate at the Consumer Choice Centre.)