In the quest to liberate the world from the shackles of smoking, it’s evident that a one-size-fits-all approach falls short. This realisation must extend to the institution that aims to lead the charge – the World Health Organisation (WHO). Two decades ago, the WHO unveiled the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, envisioning a universal solution to combat smoking’s scourge. Yet, over a billion people still smoke worldwide today, and the WHO’s stringent stance on alternative options, particularly vaping, appears to be part of the problem, not the solution.

Amidst the glaring data that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death globally, the WHO’s adamancy in treating all nicotine products equally harmful persists. The critical misstep is that this stance conflates cigarettes and safer alternatives, thwarting the potential for harm reduction strategies.

Acknowledging that perfection doesn’t exist, it’s irrefutable that alternatives to cigarettes, such as vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches, offer a substantially less harmful path than cigarettes. Eminent experts echo this sentiment, none more distinguished than Professor Chris Whitty, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer. “If you smoke, vaping is much safer,” he asserts. The caveat is simple: if you don’t smoke, don’t vape. A balance that transcends dogma.

In a world where abrupt cessation often leads to frustration, harm reduction offers a pragmatic path. The United Kingdom, unwilling to be dictated by the WHO’s intransigence, embraced vaping as a cornerstone of its cessation strategy. The result? A staggering 178,198 smokers were liberated from their habit in just a year, from April 2021 to March 2022.[1]

This triumph, while discordant with the WHO’s paradigm, speaks volumes. The onus for change is apparent.

Firstly, the approach to tobacco harm reduction must be as diverse as the people it aims to help. Secondly, science, not ideology, should illuminate the WHO’s path. A laser focus on saving lives must supplant rigidity.

Finally, though often brushed aside by the WHO, championing the merits of alternatives to cigarettes, such as vaping, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches, as a tool to move away from cigarettes should be paramount,

The narrative needs a shift in this global battle against smoking’s reign—from an inflexible doctrine to a flexible approach that saves lives. The onus is on us to clear the air and champion the cause of pragmatic tobacco harm reduction.

As the UK contemplates this paradigm shift, we must consider effective tobacco reduction strategies on a national level, in Pakistan as well. A country grappling with high smoking rates and associated health burdens can glean lessons from the UK’s harm reduction success.

Tailoring strategies to local realities while keeping an open mind toward smoke-free alternatives could provide a powerful tool to combat the country’s smoking epidemic. The challenge is not just for the WHO to heed this call but for nations like ours to heed it for a brighter future for everyone.