In our earlier editorial, we observed how tobacco harm reduction had become a battlefield of opinions — a place where ideology too often outshouts evidence. That hasn’t changed. But the landscape around us has. Over the past year, the discussion about nicotine, risk, and responsibility has started to move from confrontation to reconstruction. The question now is: what comes after the battlefield?
Evidence that refuses to disappear
New data keep confirming a simple truth: combustion is the enemy, not nicotine itself.
Recent reviews highlighted by the Cato Institute and others show that modern alternatives — from pouches to vaping systems — consistently deliver nicotine with a fraction of the toxic burden of smoking. In clinical and population studies, switching from cigarettes to non-combustible products results in lower exposure to carcinogens and, for many, a realistic path away from smoking altogether.
At the same time, a PubMed review on e-cigarettes’ pharmacology reinforces the harm-reduction logic: for smokers who can’t or won’t quit nicotine, providing safer delivery methods saves lives.
That shouldn’t be controversial. Yet somehow, it still is.
A tale of two approaches
Around the world, governments are pulling in opposite directions.
The World Health Organization’s 2025 report celebrates global progress on traditional tobacco control — higher taxes, plainer packs, more bans. But it also reveals a hesitation to acknowledge products that reduce harm for existing smokers.
Meanwhile, in countries such as Sweden and the United Kingdom, a different model is emerging. Regulators there continue to restrict youth marketing and demand product quality, yet they encourage adult switching through access, transparency, and proportionate taxation. This pragmatic line — neither libertarian nor prohibitionist — is beginning to show results. Smoking rates in Sweden are approaching five percent, a figure once thought unattainable without coercion.
Contrast that with regions where all nicotine products are treated as equally undesirable. There, smokers simply keep smoking. Ideology wins; public health loses. Of course, everything would be great of people stopped using nicotine, drinking alcohol or use drugs. But due to flaws in our humanity
A new front: defining harm reduction itself
The debate has also shifted to language.
A recent piece in Tobacco Prevention & Cessation argues that the tobacco industry’s use of “harm reduction” risks co-opting a public-health term for commercial ends. It’s a fair warning. Any company working in this field must be clear about intent and evidence — that harm reduction isn’t a slogan, it’s a measurable outcome: fewer smokers, fewer deaths, cleaner products.
When the messages align with those coming from the tobacco industry, which is notorious for lying through their teeth, they are inherently tainted. At the same time, dismissing the entire concept because industry participates in it would be absurd. The car industry also builds electric vehicles; that doesn’t invalidate the case for cutting emissions.
Where dialogue is beginning to heal
At this year’s Global Forum on Nicotine 2025, discussion shifted from whether harm reduction works to how to implement it responsibly. The focus was on consumer protection, product standards, and clarity of communication — not tribal loyalty. That tone matters. It suggests that perhaps the field is maturing.
Science is slowly reclaiming the space once dominated by rhetoric. Even heated debates about youth use and marketing are becoming more nuanced: stakeholders now ask how to protect minors without denying access to adults who smoke. That balance — difficult but achievable — is what real public health looks like.
From conflict to construction
So, where do we go next?
-
Regulate by risk, not by category.
Combustion should face the highest barriers; low-risk products should be taxed and communicated accordingly.
-
Keep the focus on adult smokers.
Youth protection is essential, but policy must not forget the 200 million adults in the world who still light up every day.
-
Make transparency non-negotiable.
Harm reduction depends on trust. Every manufacturer should publish toxicology data, ingredient lists, and clear warnings.
-
End the all-or-nothing narrative.
People change in steps, not leaps. Meeting them where they are — whether through pouches, vaping, or heat-not-burn products — is pragmatism, not surrender.
What is next for the harm reduction battlefield?
The real test for harm reduction will be whether we can talk about it without shouting.
Sweden’s experience shows what’s possible when ideology yields to evidence: adult smokers are switching, and smoking-related disease is declining faster than anywhere else in Europe. Combined with powerful information campaigns, the proof for the Swedish approach is in the pudding.
It’s time to leave the battlefield and start building a bridge — between science and policy, between public health and consumer reality.
That bridge will decide whether harm reduction remains a fight of words or becomes a success of lives saved.
References for further reading:
