Canada’s latest Tobacco Strategy progress report paints an encouraging picture. Smoking rates are falling and youth smoking is near historic lows. Ottawa for instance, is celebrating progress toward its goal of reducing tobacco use to under five percent by 2035. On the surface, it’s a victory lap. But a closer look reveals a troubling omission: the report provides almost no detail on which nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) and cessation tools actually help Canadians quit.
According to Health Canada, roughly 300,000 Canadians quit smoking in 2024. More than half did so without assistance, about 25% used NRTs—lumped together by the report as a single undifferentiated category—and just over 21% relied on vaping products. Beyond that, the paper offers no breakdown by patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, prescription medications, nicotine pouches, or vaping devices. There is no comparison of outcomes, no indication of which tools give smokers the best chance of success. For a government claiming to be “guided by science,” this lack of transparency is remarkable.
The evidence in favour of vapes and nicotine pouches is undeniable
Nicotine pouches occupy a similar, yet ambiguous, place in the Canadian regulatory landscape. Health Canada authorized ZONNIC tobacco-free nicotine pouches in 2023, but they are restricted to behind-the-counter sales in pharmacies, and public guidance on their role in quitting is minimal. Early clinical studies published in Addiction show nicotine pouches are well tolerated, help reduce cigarette consumption, and may serve as lower-risk alternatives to smoking. Systematic reviews summarized by Cochrane note no evidence of serious short-term harm, while research in Nicotine & Tobacco Research demonstrates effective nicotine delivery with far fewer toxic compounds than combustible cigarettes.
Despite these findings, policymakers continue to treat vaping and nicotine pouches primarily as public health threats, framing traditional NRTs as the default solution—even though many smokers fail with gum or patches alone. Public health experts stress that combustion, not nicotine, is the real danger. Health Canada attributes roughly 46,000 deaths annually to smoking, underscoring that smoke, not nicotine, is what kills.
Why vape flavour bans backfire
Meanwhile, Canadian experience illustrates the unintended consequences of prohibition. Filter discussed a study led by Michael Pesko from the University of Missouri examined retail sales data from 2018–2023 across provinces with flavour bans, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and Quebec. Using a difference-in-differences model, the research found that cigarette sales rose by nearly 10% after the bans, despite Canada’s strict tobacco control framework, including plain packaging and advertising restrictions.
Pesko explained that their data revealed that the vape flavour ban led to a 10% increase in cigarette sales. David Sweanor, Chair of the Centre for Health Law, Policy, and Ethics at the University of Ottawa, emphasized that substitution effects, which have been consistently reported by public health experts, are well-established across consumer products, but in this case, the consequences are life-or-death. Consumer advocacy groups such as Rights4Vapers echo these concerns, warning that flavour bans fail to protect the public and instead increase revenues for tobacco companies while discouraging adult smokers from switching to lower-risk alternatives.
International research supports this pattern. Studies from across the globe consistently find that restricting flavoured vaping products reduces adult uptake while often driving users back to combustible cigarettes. This substitution effect highlights the importance of considering real-world behavioral responses when designing nicotine regulation.
Canadian modeling studies, including the Canada Smoking and Vaping Model published in BMJ Public Health, suggest that legal access to vaping products is associated with lower smoking prevalence and fewer smoking-related deaths over time. Restricting flavoured products undermines these gains, particularly for adults who rely on flavours and product variety to quit successfully. Meanwhile, nicotine pouches—despite growing evidence of effectiveness—are treated more like a regulatory nuisance than a viable harm-reduction tool.
Worrying trends
Health Canada’s omissions illustrate a broader problem: policy often emphasizes optics and caution over evidence and outcomes. More than one in five successful quitters used vaping, a mainstream cessation behavior occurring despite flavour bans, tax hikes, advertising restrictions, and fear-based messaging. Imagine if public health messaging were transparent, clearly comparing outcomes for patches, gum, nicotine pouches, and vaping. Imagine adult smokers receiving guidance grounded in evidence rather than ideology. Smoking rates could fall faster, and lives could be saved sooner.
Advocates argue that Canada’s Tobacco Strategy is achieving results not because it has perfected policy, but because Canadians are finding effective ways to quit on their own. Greater transparency and support for lower-risk alternatives, including vaping and nicotine pouches, would accelerate progress and reduce harm. Until then, selective reporting and restrictive regulations risk slowing the very gains the government claims to celebrate.
