Alan Gor 13 March 2025
This article in the Sydney Morning Herald is a textbook example of fear-mongering and misinformation designed to push an ideological anti-nicotine agenda rather than genuinely inform or help young people. The Mainstream media (MSM) only ever publish the negative when it comes to nicotine alternatives, deliberately ignoring harm reduction perspectives and real-world evidence.
1. The “Illegal and Unregulated” Scare Tactic
The constant emphasis on nicotine pouches being “illegal and unregulated” in Australia does nothing to address the real question: Why is a far safer alternative to smoking being outlawed in the first place? The same rhetoric was used against vaping, and we know how that played out in banning and restricting access. Australia created a thriving black market with no quality control. Now, they’re making the same mistake with nicotine pouches.
Nicotine pouches contain no tobacco, no combustion, and significantly lower risks compared to smoking. Yet, instead of acknowledging their harm reduction potential, the article pushes the tired narrative that any nicotine use = bad.
2. “We Don’t Know What’s in Them” – Really?
Dessaix claims, “There are lots of question marks about what’s really in these products.” That’s either wilful ignorance or deliberate deception. Leading nicotine pouch brands, such as Zyn, clearly list their ingredients—nicotine, flavourings, sweeteners, and plant-based fillers. These products are heavily regulated in markets like the US, UK, and Sweden. The only reason Australia doesn’t have clear product standards is its prohibitionist policies.
3. The “Big Tobacco” Boogeyman
Ah, yes, the predictable scapegoating. Instead of admitting that adult consumers, many of whom are smokers or ex-smokers, choose nicotine pouches as a harm reduction tool, the article tries to paint this as a sinister plot by Big Tobacco. What’s missing? Any mention of who profits from maintaining nicotine prohibition in Australia.
• Pharmaceutical companies that sell patches, gums, and ineffective smoking cessation drugs
• The Cancer Council and anti-smoking organisations that rely on government funding for their campaigns
• The Australian government, which collects billions in tobacco taxes while actively blocking lower-risk alternatives
4. The “Gateway” Myth Again?
Dessaix trots out the tired claim that nicotine pouches could be a pathway to smoking or vaping. This argument is unproven and has been thoroughly debunked in harm reduction research. Countries with widespread access to reduced-risk nicotine products have seen record-low smoking rates. Sweden, for example, where oral nicotine products are popular, has the lowest smoking prevalence in the world. If anything, nicotine pouches help people stay away from smoking, not move towards it.
5. Addiction: The Hypocrisy of Nicotine Stigma
Freeman warns, “The number-one risk is addiction.” But what about caffeine addiction, which also affects the brain’s reward pathways? What about alcohol, which is physically and socially destructive yet widely available? The issue isn’t addiction itself; it’s the dishonest framing of nicotine as uniquely dangerous when used outside of pharmaceutical control.
6. “We Don’t Know the Long-Term Effects”
This is the same excuse used to delay and discredit vaping, despite overwhelming evidence that it is significantly less harmful than smoking. Nicotine pouches do not contain the thousands of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. The long-term risks are far more likely to be minimal compared to smoking, but instead of being honest, the article fear-mongers by calling users “guinea pigs.”
7. Where Is the Harm Reduction Perspective?
Not once does this article acknowledge the millions of former smokers worldwide who have successfully switched to nicotine pouches. Instead, it pushes prohibitionist propaganda, demonises users, and ignores real-world evidence that these products help reduce smoking rates.
The Real “Perfect Storm”? Ideological Dogma Over Public Health
The so-called “perfect storm” isn’t about marketing or youth trends; it’s about the deliberate suppression of harm reduction options by public health bodies that refuse to accept that nicotine use, independent of smoking, is not the enemy.
Demonising safer alternatives does not protect young people; it pushes them toward unregulated black markets and keeps smokers trapped in deadly habits. If Australia truly cared about health, it would regulate and allow access to nicotine pouches as a legitimate harm reduction tool. Instead, they are repeating the same mistakes they made with vaping, putting ideology before evidence and keeping safer alternatives out of reach.