Will it be a happy new year for people who smoke?
Do we do what we've always done or try something new?
It’s New Year’s Resolution Time!
Today is December 25th. As with most newsletter editions, I’ll work on this for a few days until there’s enough content to publish. In the last newsletter, I hinted that my topic for this one would be New Year’s Resolutions. I will spend the next few days researching to write this and jotting down thoughts. I will wait to publish this until New Year’s Eve day. Due to its length, I plan to publish it as a stand-alone piece.
It’s now December 30th and I have a pile of research notes that I intended to use to write this. They include statistics on how many people make and don’t keep resolutions (most of them), as well as on how many smoke and struggle to maintain a smoke-free life. But, while I could try to dazzle you with my research skills, the truth is that most people who read my blog already know about this topic. So, I think I’ll change my mind about using that research and writing from that perspective.
Let’s dive into possible resolutions for people in the nicotine space.
I’ll start with mine, which is the same as the last few years. I want to do my best, do the right thing, and complete my daily self-care list. I want to continue to be a voice for people like me. I want to help people not smoke. My goals stay the same: amplify voices, build bridges, and foster communication. My messaging will remain: Support Not Stigma, Be A Good Neighbor, and please Be Kind.
I am blessed to have readers with a wide range of views, so it will be interesting to imagine some of your nicotine-related resolutions.
Has anyone involved with US policy considered encouraging an evaluation of the Tobacco Control Act (TCA)? That might make for an interesting resolution. Is the TCA achieving what we hope it achieves? Does it need to be amended to meet current market demands and consider the role of newer nicotine products?
The FDA is tasked with determining what is appropriate for the protection of public health (APPH). Why does the law allow an easy pathway to put more lethal combustible products on the market via the substantial equivalence pathway? Don’t we have it backward if it’s harder to market a less harmful product? What could we resolve to do in 2025 to influence that? Do we need a substantial equivalence pathway for products deemed APPH?
I think some of you will remain focused on crushing the tobacco industry. It feels to me like some people are at war with them. I get it. They did some terrible things in the past. They make a product that kills people. While some wish they’d instantly stop manufacturing cigarettes, I don’t see how it’s possible to squash the legacy tobacco companies.
I want to invite others to think about what we can do if we can’t eliminate them. How can we influence the market to make manufacturing products further down the risk continuum attractive to the industry?
What can we do to make sure marketing is mature and adult-orientated? How can we help companies communicate to consumers who smoke that if they don’t want to quit nicotine, there are better options than smoking?
AH! But that gets us to the next possible resolution: those of you who want to influence policy toward a nicotine-free world. I see many of you concerned about addiction. You know that the addiction to smoking kills people, so it makes sense to me why you want to influence people not to smoke.
But there’s more to it for some of you. You think about low-income people spending money on nicotine products. You worry about loss of autonomy from people being dependent on a substance. It feels wrong to you to have someone addicted to something.
I want to ask if you’re as concerned about other addictions. Alcohol, gambling, and a whole list of different substances, for example. Why or why not? I can’t help but think that no matter how much you’d like to see a society where consumers don’t use nicotine, do you think that’s a realistic expectation? Would you be willing to consider an alternative world, one focused on avoiding the lethal use of nicotine?
Some of you will keep your sites on preventing youth initiation. This is an important resolution. We all want what is best for young people. I want to remind all of us that the adults in those young people's lives are essential to their lives. Some of those adults still smoke.
I think it is also vital to remember that no matter how hard we try, some young people will take risks. It is a part of growing up. Besides curiosity and peer pressure, young people have multiple reasons for taking those risks, most of which, as a society, we’re not making enough effort to do something about—things like poverty, mental health, and adverse childhood experiences.
What can we do to help those kids who will experiment remain as safe as possible? This makes me think of programs that educate teens about safe sex, efforts to have kids who have been drinking call their parents for a ride with no questions asked, and providing safety equipment to student-athletes. All things to reduce the potential for harm to them. Why wouldn’t we do the same if they want to use nicotine?
Some of you will resolve to work towards a smoke-free society. Many are willing to admit that it is close to impossible to eradicate smoking completely, so they have accepted a figure of smoking prevalence to be around five to six percent in the hopefully not-too-distant future.
While I would prefer we see a time when no one smokes, I can live with the goal of this low number. People are going to do what they want. I understand it’s essential to try to encourage them to quit smoking or practice harm reduction and accept not everyone will.
In 2017, Dr. Carl Phillips suggested that “Focusing events and product substitution – the two most effective tools for quitting smoking – do not compete with each other. They can be synergistic. If you have a smoker friend who is a promising candidate to switch to vaping, take advantage of the calendar this week. Consider suggesting that a good New Year’s resolution would be to trying vaping instead, for just one week, assuring him that he can light up again after that if he wants to. There is good reason to believe that just committing to a substitute for a week, on the basis a friendly dare or challenge, is enough to convince someone that it is a good permanent substitute. And what better time for someone to take up a friendly challenge than January 1?”
It is common for people who smoke to resolve on New Year’s that this will be the year they quit. I thought it was ironic that the first thing I saw on X on the 25th when I started writing this was a tweet by BMC’s Harm Reduction Journal that said, “An analysis published in the Harm Reduction Journal finds that the population-level data on tobacco product use by US adults continues to support the association between increasing e-cigarette use and decreasing cigarette smoking.”
That is excellent news! Perhaps it will help more people keep their New Year’s resolution to stop smoking!
Watching the New Year’s messaging change over the years has been sad. There used to be a focus on deadly smoking. Now, there are many examples of the switch to focusing on nicotine.
In my opinion, this sends the wrong message and furthers the misperception that it is the nicotine that is the most harmful part of using a product that contains nicotine. I’ll provide a few examples of the quit nicotine for New Year’s messages: Tobacco Free Finland, Manitoba Lung Association, WhyQuit.com, Tobacco Education Clearinghouse of CA, Lincoln County Health Department, Siskiyou County Public Health. There are more, but I think you probably get my point.
I was happy to see that New Year’s messaging by some organizations still focuses on quitting smoking. Several posts offered free nicotine replacement therapy products, and posts in the UK offered free vapes as part of the Swap to Stop program. I was pleased to see success stories from that program!
I am grateful to see organizations that have not lost their way and who see that the tragedy of millions of people dying from smoking has to be curbed. I am also grateful to see people pondering what we could do better. What would be more helpful to people who smoke?
Jeff Willett, who published his thoughts on this topic today (December 30th), is an example of someone trying to answer that question. His idea reminds me of the CDC’s program “Tips From Former Smokers,” but it goes above and beyond that program.
Jeff’s piece, "Quit Your Way": A Hypothetical [and much needed] Smoking Cessation Campaign for 2025, feels more inclusive to me. It also feels less stigmatizing than the CDC program. It has a more positive and empowering feel to it.
“Just keep trying the same old things” isn’t good enough for Jeff. While acknowledging that traditional cessation methods work for some people and should continue to be available, more is needed.
What I liked best about Jeff’s idea was that he addressed the question many people don’t discuss. He takes into consideration the people who can’t or don’t want to quit nicotine. The effort he proposes means it’s not OK to let those people fall through the cracks and die from smoking.
He emphasizes the importance of combating misperceptions about nicotine products so consumers can make informed choices. I credit him for recognizing the importance of involving people who use(d) nicotine in the program. It filled my eyes with tears to see someone from his world see that the voices of people like me matter.
Jeff concluded his piece with this; “By providing an unbiased and objective overview of the smoking cessation and nicotine product landscape, Quit Your Way will represent a call to action that empowers people to make informed decisions that will dramatically improve their health. Roughly 14 million Americans will attempt to quit smoking in 2025; Quit Your Way will help many more of them succeed.“
What are your thoughts? Could you resolve to support a program like “Quit Your Way” in 2025?
My biggest hope for 2025 is that we all resolve to work together to balance public health, profit-seeking, and the needs of people of all ages. We’d have a significant impact if we did.
Until next time…
