"Like Antibiotics"? The Dangerous Nonsense of Australia’s Vaping Analogy

Alan Gor 08 April 2025

Australia’s war on vaping has reached a new level of absurdity. In their desperate attempts to justify draconian restrictions on access to safer alternatives to smoking, public health figures like Simon Chapman have begun comparing vapes to antibiotics. “Vapes aren’t banned,” he insists. “They’re just legally available in pharmacies.” This, we’re told, is perfectly reasonable.

Let’s be clear: it is not. It’s both a poor analogy and a smokescreen for an indefensible policy.

Imagine if life-saving antibiotics were only available at a handful of pharmacies, at wildly inflated prices, after a mandatory, awkward consultation. Imagine if the majority of Australians couldn’t access them when they needed them. Would we seriously argue that antibiotics weren’t “banned” under such a regime? Of course not. We’d say access had been destroyed by red tape, stigma, and artificial barriers.

That’s the current reality for nicotine vapes in Australia. And the "antibiotics" comparison isn't just weak – it's insulting to the millions of ex-smokers who rely on vaping to stay smoke-free.

Chapman's Playbook: Downplay, Deflect, Deny

Chapman, a long-time anti-vaping crusader, has leaned hard on this analogy. His recent X post:

“Note vapes not ‘banned’, but legally available in pharmacies (like saying antibiotics are ‘banned’).” Considering 74% of pharmacies refuse to stock vaping products.

It’s a shallow rhetorical trick. Antibiotics are for short-term bacterial infections; vaping is a long-term, often daily lifeline for former smokers. The only valid comparison would be with a chronic treatment like insulin – something available widely and affordably because people's lives depend on it.

Yet Chapman’s narrative is echoed by others in the public health establishment.

Becky Freeman: Shifting the Blame

Professor Becky Freeman, another voice from the same camp, recently stated:

“We don’t have a tobacco tax problem. We have an enforcement problem.”

She argued against reducing tobacco taxes, insisting that:

“Illicit tobacco is so incredibly cheap that if we were somehow going to try and compete… we would absolutely encourage a frenzy of young people taking up smoking.”

So instead, the public is told to endure sky-high prices, ineffective cessation tools, and restricted access to the most effective quitting method – all while illegal tobacco and vaping products flood the market. Enforcement, Freeman insists, will fix everything. But where is that enforcement? Where are the meaningful results? Meanwhile, smokers continue to pay the price – often with their lives.

Minister Mark Butler: Defending the Indefensible

Then there's Health Minister Mark Butler, who dismissed concerns that Australia’s high tobacco taxes are fuelling black markets:

“What I don't accept is the idea that if you make legal cigarettes cheaper... you're going to knock out illegal cigarettes. I don't think there's any evidence of that.”

He added:

“It's no coincidence that Australia has some of the highest prices of cigarettes, but also some of the lowest rates of smoking in the world.”

But this is cherry-picking. Smoking rates have stalled. Illicit trade is booming. Adult smokers are being punished and priced out of quitting tools, while youth access continues despite (or because of) the ban. And when asked to address the role of Big Tobacco in youth vaping, Butler simply… didn’t. (45% of the vaping products in pharmacies are from Bib Tobacco)

Instead, he talked about enforcement, penalties, and Quitline—the standard lines. There were no answers, and there was no accountability.

An Ideology in Crisis

This isn’t tobacco control anymore – it’s ideological entrenchment at the cost of public health. The people behind this strategy have stopped listening. They’re more interested in defending their legacy than saving lives.

Vaping is indisputably safer than smoking. Every major health body outside Australia – from the UK’s Royal College of Physicians to New Zealand’s Ministry of Health – supports harm reduction. But Australia is clinging to a punitive, prohibitionist approach, more focused on optics than outcomes.

And to justify it? They compare vapes to antibiotics.

Australians deserve better.

We deserve access to safer alternatives without shame, stigma, or artificial barriers. We deserve a public health system based on evidence, not ego. And we deserve policies designed to reduce harm – not win X and Bluesky arguments.