The "Study" That Gaslights a Nation

Alan Gor 02 October 2025

Now and then, a paper comes along that does not just raise eyebrows but leaves you shaking your head in disbelief. The latest so-called study on tobacco and vaping markets is one of the most condescending pieces of work I have ever seen. It dresses up opinion as fact, cloaks assumptions in the language of evidence, and tries to tell the public what to think rather than presenting honest, verifiable data.

The timing alone is telling. This paper was released just days before the Police Ministers' Conference. That is no accident. The choice of date suggests a political motive rather than a scientific one. It reads less like a genuine contribution to public health or law enforcement policy and more like a prop designed to support a pre-determined narrative. The real experts, those who deal with the black market every day, have already spoken clearly. People like Dr James Martin and Dr Eddy Jegasothy have repeatedly warned that the black market will continue to grow under the government’s absurd combination of high taxes and prohibition policies. Yet here we are, being spoon-fed a document that downplays the problem, presents an unrealistic picture, and talks down to anyone who dares question the official line.

One of the most revealing and shocking elements of this study is its use of the Daily Telegraph. At first glance, it may seem like a routine media citation. But the implications are deeply troubling. When public health academics quote statements from Big Tobacco published in a mainstream newspaper as if they are credible evidence, what does that tell us? It tells us that Australian tobacco control has reached a point where it will work hand in hand with the tobacco industry whenever it suits its narrative. For decades, the mantra was clear. Big Tobacco is untrustworthy and must be kept at arm’s length. Now we are asked to accept industry soundbites as legitimate input. This is breathtaking hypocrisy or a sign that the field has completely lost its sense of direction.

Even more alarming is the study’s reliance on its references. The sources cited form a closed echo chamber. Rather than drawing on a broad and diverse range of evidence, the authors repeatedly cite the same small group of papers, reports, and media statements, all of which reinforce each other while ignoring inconvenient realities. Independent analyses, frontline expertise, and critical commentary are absent. This is not robust research. It is a curated loop of self-confirmation designed to exclude dissenting voices and suppress facts that challenge the preferred narrative. The echo chamber creates the illusion of credibility while deliberately ignoring the real-world consequences of prohibition and heavy taxation. Gallagher et al. (2019) – A review of industry data that simply dismisses anything coming from tobacco companies as inflated or unreliable. This sets the tone from the start: instead of grappling with the possibility that the illicit market is larger than governments admit, the paper chooses to discredit one side and ignore uncomfortable realities. Australian Tax Office (2024) – The ATO’s “tax gap” figures are notoriously conservative and almost certainly underestimate the true size of the illicit market. Even the ATO itself admits that its data is limited. Using this as a backbone reference looks more like cherry-picking a safe government number than reflecting the scope of the problem. Daily Telegraph (2025) – Here they cite a media article quoting a tobacco chief to note that Australia ranks in the top 3 in the world for black market tobacco. Interesting that when the claim can be used to reinforce alarm, the same voices they dismiss (tobacco industry) suddenly get a platform. This is selective sourcing at its worst. Wilkinson et al. (2019) – A study about smoking prevalence and tax increases up to 2017. This is dated and does not reflect the explosion in illicit tobacco after the most recent round of tax hikes and the vaping crackdown. Leaning on this paper ignores what is happening on the ground today. AIHW (2025) – Another standard government report. These reports are carefully worded, often delayed, and avoid politically inconvenient truths. Relying on AIHW means you get sanitised numbers that avoid the more dramatic shifts that FOI documents later reveal. Thomas et al. (2008) – An old systematic review on social inequalities in smoking. Out of date and not even about illicit tobacco. Its inclusion feels like filler to make the bibliography look broad, when in reality, it adds little relevance to the specific issue of black market growth. World Bank (2019) – A global review that says illicit trade happens everywhere and is a systemic problem. True, but it does nothing to explain Australia’s unique problem of self-inflicted prohibition policies. This is general background that avoids the real failures in Australian lawmaking. Ziesing et al. (2023) – A paper suggesting increasing licence costs for tobacco sales. This simply pushes the same failed logic of prohibition harder, despite all the evidence that over-regulation drives the black market. Cho et al. (2025) – Straight from Tobacco in Australia, which is written and maintained by the same activist academics who dominate the debate. This is not an independent or balanced source it is policy advocacy dressed up as “facts.” Jongenelis (2022) – Another qualitative study in the same public health bubble. These tend to interview like-minded stakeholders and then feed back the same narrative. Hardly groundbreaking or objective. Pearson et al. (2015) – A modelling paper predicting what might happen if Australia reduced tobacco outlets. Like all modelling papers, it assumes inputs that match the preferred outcome. Out of date and speculative, but included because it supports their agenda.

The outcome of these policies was not only foreseeable, it was predicted. Over seven years ago, experts (Dr James Martin) warned that steep tax increases would fuel a black market filled with unsafe, tainted tobacco. These warnings were grounded in economic reasoning and common sense. Today, we are living through exactly what those warnings forecasted. Instead of confronting this reality, the authors of the new study pretend it is not happening. They gloss over the surge in illegal trade, the growing presence of counterfeit products, and the harm inflicted on ordinary smokers who are pushed further into dangerous alternatives.

The broader issue here is trust. Studies like this do more than undermine the reputation of their authors. They erode public confidence in the entire system of public health. Ordinary Australians are not fooled. They see the price of cigarettes skyrocketing, the black market thriving, and governments doubling down on failed policies. When official research ignores these lived realities and hides behind an echo chamber of selective citations, people stop listening and stop trusting the institutions that are supposed to protect them.

The truth is simple. Prohibition and extreme taxation have failed. They have fueled organised crime, widened inequality, and left smokers and vapers worse off. Studies that gloss over these realities are not studies at all. They are political cover. They are designed to give the impression of expertise while actively excluding inconvenient facts. The public deserves research that faces reality, engages with the full range of evidence, and provides insight that can actually guide effective policy, not documents that talk down to citizens while suppressing the truth.

Ignoring reality, dismissing expert warnings, and privileging political optics over evidence does a disservice to everyone. Australians deserve public health policies rooted in truth, common sense, and a willingness to confront hard facts. Until that happens, papers like this will continue to mislead, frustrate, and erode trust, not just in research, but in the very institutions tasked with protecting our health.