Alan Gor 05 March 2025
Simon Chapman’s critique of Mendelsohn et al.’s paper appears to be a predictable attempt to dismiss inconvenient evidence supporting consumer access to vaping products. His response seems to contain misrepresentations, selective omissions, and contradictions that warrant scrutiny. Below is a point-by-point rebuttal of his main arguments.
1. The Accusation of Cherry-Picking New Zealand
Chapman claims the authors “cherry-picked” New Zealand instead of including other regulated market model (RMM) countries like the UK, USA, and Canada. This argument appears to be misleading for several reasons:
Direct Policy Contrast: New Zealand and Australia contrast two regulatory approaches. New Zealand has a regulated retail market, and Australia has a pharmacy-only model. Other RMM countries' different regulatory and tobacco control histories could introduce confounding variables.
Comparable Demographics and Policy Contexts: The study justified its selection based on similarities between New Zealand and Australia in smoking history, tobacco control policies, and demographic composition. Chapman acknowledges these similarities while simultaneously downplaying their relevance.
Irrelevant Comparisons: While the UK, USA, and Canada also allow vaping sales, they differ in key aspects such as tobacco taxation, enforcement, and youth smoking trends. Including them might have diluted the analysis rather than strengthened it.
2. Misrepresenting the Illegal Market in New Zealand
Chapman describes as "naïve" the claim that New Zealand has little incentive for an illicit vaping market. He cites anecdotal enforcement actions and retail compliance failures, yet:
New Zealand's illicit market is small compared to Australia’s black market, which exists precisely because of prohibitionist policies.
Enforcement failures exist in all markets, including pharmacy-based systems. Australia’s black market is a direct consequence of its policy failure, while New Zealand’s approach fosters legal competition that may help reduce illicit sales.
His reference to black market activity in Canada, the UK, and the USA seems to undermine his argument. If RMMs supposedly fuel illegal markets, why does Australia’s black market persist despite its pharmacy-only model?
3. Use of Outdated Data to Predict Smoking Trends
Chapman accuses Mendelsohn et al.. of using outdated smoking prevalence data to argue Australia may miss its 2030 smoking reduction target. However, his counterargument appears to rest on:
Assumptions that past trends will continue, despite evidence that Australia’s decline in smoking seems to be slowing relative to other countries.
A dismissal of the role of vaping in reducing smoking rates—a central question of the study.
A lack of alternative explanations for why New Zealand have seen a sharper decline in smoking than Australia.
What explains New Zealand's rapid decline if vaping played no role? Chapman does not seem to provide an answer.
4. Misrepresenting the Youth Vaping Debate
Chapman highlights concerns about youth vaping without acknowledging:
Smoking among youth continues to decline, even in countries with higher youth vaping rates.
The gateway theory remains unproven, with research suggesting that the vast majority of youth vapers were already at risk of smoking.
Vaping is overwhelmingly concentrated among smokers and ex-smokers, providing a net public health benefit.
His argument that youth vaping offsets smoking declines does not seem to be supported by strong evidence and appears to contradict the well-established role of vaping in displacing smoking.
5. The Pharmacy Model Myth
Chapman insists that Australia’s pharmacy model “preserves access” while preventing youth uptake. Yet this argument appears to overlook:
Mass non-compliance and the thriving black market, which put unregulated products directly into the hands of minors.
The real-world failure of the pharmacy model, evidenced by smokers who are struggling to obtain legal vaping products.
The success of RMMs elsewhere, where adult smokers have easier access and smoking rates are falling faster.
He cites Australia’s pharmacy network as if geographical availability ensures accessibility, but this does not reflect the reality that many smokers face significant barriers, including the need for a prescription and the difficulty of finding a pharmacy willing to stock vaping products.
Chapman’s response appears to be more ideological than scientific, relying on selective data, double standards, and misplaced confidence in a policy model that is not working as intended. The reality is:
New Zealand’s more permissive model correlates with steeper smoking declines.
Australia’s restrictive model has fueled a black market while failing to accelerate smoking cessation.
Vaping is a powerful harm reduction tool, and regulated consumer access rather than pharmacy gatekeeping can be the most effective way to help adult smokers transition away from combustible tobacco.
Chapman’s opposition to vaping is well-documented, and his latest critique seems to follow a familiar pattern of dismissing evidence that challenges his seemingly prohibitionist stance.