Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 9;38(4):daad080. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daad080

Table 1:

Arguments made in self-reported e-cigarette users’ submissions to the TGA’s consultation on introducing a prescription model for nicotine vaping products in Australia (n = 1405)

Code n %
Perceptions of the potential negative consequences associated with the TGA’s decision 1178 84
 People will go back to smoking 674 48
 Decision infringes upon freedom of choice 332 24
 Seeing a doctor for a prescription will be difficult/time consuming/inconvenient 303 22
 Black market will emerge 276 20
 Smokers will never quit/smokers who have quit will find it harder to stay quit 266 19
 Seeing a doctor will burden the health system/cost taxpayers money 252 18
 People will get sick and die 212 15
 Will cost consumers more money 173 12
 Youth will turn to cigarettes 131 9
 Access to the variety of products needed to quit will be denied 66 5
 Decision will increase appeal of use among youth because they want to rebel 42 3
 Decision will burden the health system as people will go back to smoking 41 3
 Destroy the vaping industry 24 2
 Smoking rates will increase 21 2
 Put pressure on justice system/enforcement 19 1
Claims made about the benefits of e-cigarettes/vaping 772 55
 Vaping has beneficial health outcomes 601 43
 E-cigarettes are an effective quitting aid 174 12
 Vaping is cheaper/has financial benefits 129 9
 How e-cigarettes make it easier to quit 95 7
 95% factoida 80 6
 Vaping is proven to be safer than smoking 80 6
 Users have greater control of content 35 3
 Vaping reduces burden on the health system 33 2
 Vaping is not harmful to others 29 2
 Vaping is better for the environment 16 1
Inconsistent treatment 736 52
 E-cigarettes should not be restricted when more harmful tobacco products are readily available/e-cigarettes should be as accessible as nicotine replacement therapies 671 48
 A script is not needed for tobacco cigarettes or nicotine replacement therapies 259 18
Alternative policy and practice approaches 436 31
 E-cigarettes should be available in retail stores 267 19
 Tobacco cigarettes should be harder to access 94 7
 E-cigarettes should be taxed instead 50 4
 Vape store staff are experts/preferred providers of information 45 3
 Youth should be educated on the harms associated with vaping 36 3
Industry-led campaign 370 26
Motivation behind legislation 236 17
 Revenue raising by government 197 14
 Government is in the pocket of Big Tobacco/Pharma 60 4
 Ploy by Big Tobacco 11 <1
Bandwagon fallacy: need to legalize e-cigarettes as per other countries 231 16
Denial of evidence 174 12
 Youth uptake is not a problem 103 7
 Nicotine is not harmful 50 4
 Gateway hypothesis/normalization is a fallacy 36 3
 Only certain vapes are the problem 13 <1
Healthcare professionals are unwilling to prescribe or dispense e-cigarettes and are not trained in how to do so 172 12
Harm reduction at the individual level prioritized over the population level 105 8
Benefits of legalizing e-cigarettes 90 6
 Better for kids to vape than smoke 38 3
 Create jobs/benefit economy 33 2
 Rates of cigarette smoking will decrease 27 2
Government ignoring evidence 52 4

Note. Proportions within and between codes do not add to 100% as submitters could make multiple arguments.

aRefers to the use of Public Health England’s claim that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than smoking (McNeill et al., 2015).