In a bold and alarming opinion piece, public health advocates Laura Hunter and Danielle McMullen have pulled back the curtain on a major lobbying campaign by the tobacco industry. They expose what they call a "dirty, dark and disturbing" strategy: Big Tobacco's push for the Australian government to impose a tax on vaping products.
At first glance, taxing vapes might seem like a sensible public health measure. However, Hunter and McMullen argue this is a calculated and deeply cynical move by cigarette companies. Their core claim is that the industry is not seeking to reduce harm but to protect its deadly, traditional cigarette market while simultaneously creating a new, profitable pipeline of lifelong nicotine addicts.
The Cynical Core of the Tax Push
The authors lay out a compelling case against the tobacco industry's motives. They point out that multinational tobacco giants now own most of the world's leading vaping brands. This gives them a direct financial stake in both sides of the nicotine market.
Their proposed model, according to the analysis, involves taxing vaping products at a high rate but keeping them significantly cheaper than traditional cigarettes. This creates a dangerous price signal. For adult smokers, it removes a key financial incentive to switch completely to a less harmful alternative. For young people and non-smokers, particularly those sensitive to price, it makes vapes an accessible and attractive entry point into nicotine addiction.
The ultimate goal, Hunter and McMullen contend, is a "worst of both worlds" outcome: a protected, high-profit cigarette business and a booming, taxed vape market that feeds new users into the ecosystem.
Protecting Profits Over People
The article underscores the tobacco industry's long and documented history of deception. The authors remind readers that these are the same corporations that lied for decades about the cancer-causing effects of smoking and the addictive nature of nicotine.
"Why would we trust them now to design a tax policy that's in the public interest?" they ask pointedly. The push for a vape tax is framed not as a health policy, but as a commercial strategy dressed in the language of responsibility.
Hunter and McMullen warn that adopting the industry's tax model would be a monumental public policy failure. It would effectively outsource health regulation to the very companies that have caused a global health crisis, prioritising their shareholder returns over the wellbeing of Australians, especially the young.
A Call for Genuine Public Health Policy
In contrast to the industry's self-serving proposal, the authors advocate for a truly evidence-based approach. Their clear recommendation is for the Australian government to reject Big Tobacco's tax framework entirely.
They call for policies that decisively separate the vaping and cigarette markets, making it harder, not easier, for people to use either product. This includes maintaining strong restrictions on the availability, flavourings, and marketing of vapes to prevent youth uptake.
For adult smokers seeking to quit, they argue support should come through medical pathways like prescriptions, not via a commercial, industry-controlled retail model. The central message is that public health policy must be designed by public health experts, not by the merchants of disease.
The exposé by Hunter and McMullen serves as a critical wake-up call. It urges policymakers and the public to look beyond the surface of industry proposals and recognise the old, deadly tactics at play. The future of nicotine addiction in Australia, they conclude, hinges on whose advice the government chooses to heed.
