The Adam Smith Institute published a paper yesterday about tobacco harm reduction.
Using World Health Organisation 'estimates' of additional life expectancy from quitting smoking at different ages and Public Health England 'estimates' of the relative risk of e-cigarettes, the 'neoliberal' think tank calculated 'an overall estimate' (that word again) for years of life saved if more smokers (young women especially) switched to vaping.
Specifically, the author concluded, 'one million years of life could be saved' and the world will be 'healthier, happier, and freer'.
Leaving aside the dubious attention-seeking title, there's much I agree with in a generally well-written report (One Million Years of Life: How harm reduction in tobacco policy can save lives), but declarations like that are disappointing and even nauseating.
Healthier? Perhaps.
Happier? Not if you prefer smoking.
Freer? Hmmm, let's see.
The ‘freedom’ argument in relation to smoking has long been challenged by tobacco control campaigners on the grounds that smokers are in the grip of a serious addiction and need help to set them 'free'.
In reality, as the CSUR’s Pleasure of Smoking report discovered, a majority of respondents (confirmed smokers) believed they were addicted to smoking but it didn't bother them because their enjoyment of smoking trumped any worries they may have had about their addiction.
My concern is not just that the ASI paper is endorsing the tobacco control view that smokers will be 'freer' if they quit, but it's counterproductive even in the context of vaping.
Think about it. Most public health campaigners believe that addiction to any substance is unhealthy, hence very few vaping advocates in the public health industry want e-cigarettes to be a long-term 'solution' to smoking.
Nicotine, they argue, is addictive so vaping should be nothing more than a short-term smoking cessation tool. The endgame is to wean smokers and vapers off the drug so they are 'free' of their addiction.
In my view the conclusion of the ASI paper plays to that narrative.
It is of course true that vaping has been a free market success story so I understand why free market think tanks are supportive of e-cigarettes. But this subservience to the tobacco control playbook is foolish and short-sighted.
Indeed, it amazes me that people who routinely mock bodies like the WHO and PHE when they pontificate on other issues (alcohol and obesity, for example) will happily cite the same organisations' apocalyptic claims about the dangers of smoking.
Since when has the World Health Organisation become the arbiter of truth and honesty in tobacco control? If you accept without question their ‘estimates’ on life expectancy and smoking, it becomes almost impossible to challenge the WHO on other issues (including vaping) because you have effectively accepted their 'expert' status.
Meanwhile a self-confessed "nanny state" senator has urged the Irish government to develop a policy on e-cigarettes to reduce the number of smokers in Ireland.
Catherine Noone, who last year accepted an award from Forest for being 'Ireland's Nanny-in-Chief', said:
"I'm known for having nanny state policies on alcohol, sugar and things like that, so I'm not in favour of e-cigarettes really.
"I think they look a bit ridiculous but they help people quit smoking and we need to develop a policy that recognises that."
As it happens I have a soft spot for Senator Noone who was a perfect if surprise guest at Forest's Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin last year.
Nevertheless I can't help noting the increasingly strange bedfellows that are effectively promoting a 'healthier', 'happier', smoke free future:
Free market think tanks, "nanny state" politicians, anti-tobacco campaigners, the World Health Organisation – and Philip Morris.
United or not, that's some coalition.