Supply reduction (i.e., border control, law enforcement) is notoriously ineffective, expensive, and comes with a whole range of negative consequences that will likely make the problem worse, not better.

Here is the full paper for those interested in a deeper dive: link.springer.com/content/pdf/...

Supply reduction (i.e., border control, law enforcement) is notoriously ineffective, expensive, and comes with a whole range of negative consequences that will likely make the problem worse, not better.

Here is the full paper for those interested in a deeper dive: link.springer.com/content/pdf/...

Great that we're starting to acknowledge the role of excessive tax in creating the tobacco black market, but stronger enforcement is not going to fix the problem. We've already poured more than $300 million into stronger compliance/enforcement to little effect. Lowering tax will be necessary.

Here’s a recent review by the UK Royal College of Physicians. This is the same organisation that first alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Their view: it is “likely that vaping poses only a small fraction of risk compared to smoking”.

www.rcp.ac.uk/policy-and-c...

Exactly. The UK and NZ govts give free vapes to people who smoke to help them to quit. Here we make them harder to get than deadly cigarettes and spend 100s of millions to try and suppress the market. It's the exact opposite of an evidence-informed harm reduction approach, and it's clearly failing.