class denial
category negative reinforcement
motivation ? (FUD prerequisite?)
reality aversion 🟥🟪🟧

E-cigarettes not being suitable for smoking cessation was a claim originally promulgated by the tobacco industry, now outsourced to dependent front orgs.

NVPs outperform classic NRT. They're possibly 70% more effective in absence of FUD campaigns. Partly resting on placebo effects, but customization to dependence profiles makes up for it (IMHO), slower off-ramp, higher adherance, and thus rarer relapses. Not to mention disassociation, whilst better substituting habit and rituals.

For some reason TICs made not-quitting claims a foundational argument. It does abet some arguments (why demand disassociative flavours if it's not helping with quitting anyhow according to us!), but flies in the face of the accruing academic consensus. Thus indentured some junk studies (Glantz, Pierce, etc). And it wasn't stricly necessary for gateway hypothesis or youth doom scenarios.

possible narratives
  • Denounce science and reality
  • Unapproved quitting option / no pharma revenue
  • Visual misdiagnosis (looks like smoking still)
  • Needle's eye: disregard harm reduction by focus on quit-only
  • Disavow any redeeming values of e-cigs
  • Cargo/formalistic retreat (delay via lower-quality FDA per-vendor reviews, rather than accepting class studies)
  • medical superstition
  • undermine spontaneous / mood-driven quitting urges by making it more arduous to get NVPs (Australia)
  • Proclaim user-friendly NRT to be non-effective, while linear-dosing was evidence-based.
  • Sabotage confirmation bias / Thought process?: NVP couldn't possibly work after TC-scaremongering should have deterred any switchers. (efficacy drains, but perhaps PPR motivation outweighs placebo effect still)
  • 10% accidental quitters: TC sees those as transitions that come too easily, thus not proper quitting.
  • denial-resentment: because the majority of smokers don't even want to quit, which is where e-cigs might particularly work - but TC sees it as further undermination of their efforts.
  • betty ford fallacy: quitting too slow (20 years smoking must be solved with 10 weeks of NRT, else declared a failure)
  • dual use was a frequent talking point, as if to insinuate an inherent defect for a transitional phase (also largely caused by FUD and ATFs)
  • pharmacy superstition: most of the medicalisation talk is about eradicating vape shops and counseling from former smokers. Either to reduce efficacy via pharmacist advise / ons-size-fits-all / leaflet readings, or ingrained distrust on smokers.
  • Or just denying autonomy even
efficacy drains

IMHO, e-cigs also hinge on placebo effects more than NRT. Which is why the US environment likely inhibits success rates.

  • Accessibility and price obviously impact attempts and execution.
  • Post-purchase commitment is undermined by harm exaggarations.
  • Flavour "bans" (AKA tobaccofication) don't help disassociation (which is likely why TC is pushing for it).
used-by
. no-evidence no-studies wrong-studies NRT-suffices else
CTFK 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥
ERS - - 🟥 🟥 -
refs
comm/inv