Vape Is Not a Narcotic

There are two main reasons why many adult smokers are switching to vapes. First, vapes do not operate through the combustion of tobacco, so users are not exposed to the mixture of substances produced by burning, as in conventional cigarettes. Second, for adult smokers who find it difficult to quit completely, vapes often serve as a more realistic transitional path than mere normative advice to stop. The UK government itself states that vaping is less harmful than smoking and can help adult smokers quit, but it is not intended for children or non-smokers.

Therefore, labelling vapes as narcotics is a categorical error. What must be distinguished from the outset is the device, the nicotine, and the illegal psychoactive substances that may be misused by certain actors. The misuse of a medium does not automatically transform the entire product category into narcotics. If there is vape liquid mixed with prohibited substances, the legal issue lies with the illegal substance and its misuse, not the fact that all vape products themselves become narcotics. In public policy, the failure to make such elementary distinctions almost always gives rise to panicked responses rather than precise ones.

From a public health perspective, the relevant question is not ‘safe or dangerous’ in absolute terms, but whether the level of risk is lower compared to burned cigarettes. This is where the concept of harm reduction becomes important. The Royal College of Physicians positions e-cigarettes as an instrument that can play a role in preventing deaths, disabilities, and health inequalities due to tobacco use. In line with that, research led by University of Oxford researchers in the Cochrane review found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapy in helping people quit smoking for at least six months. Oxford also emphasises that vapes are not without risks, so what is scientifically valid is to call them more effective for quitting smoking, not totally safe.

This position is consistent with Cancer Research UK, which states that legal e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking, although they still carry risks and not all long-term impacts are yet known. New Zealand even officially allows statements that completely replacing cigarettes with vapes will reduce health risks, and that for smokers, fully switching to vaping is a far less harmful option. In other words, countries that seriously read the evidence tend not to position vapes as risk-free products, but also do not reject the fact that for adult smokers, a complete shift from burned cigarettes to non-combustible products can meaningfully reduce risk exposure.

The most interesting example comes from Sweden. Official data shows that in 2024, the prevalence of daily smokers is only 5.4%, while daily snus use reaches 22% among men and 10% among women. In the OECD-European Commission cancer profile, Sweden’s age-standardised cancer death rate in 2021 was recorded at 207 per 100,000 population, lower than the EU average of 235 per 100,000 and among the lowest in the EU. For lung cancer, the difference is even sharper: Eurostat 2022 data shows the EU average at 46.9 per 100,000, while Sweden is only 31.7 per 100,000, the lowest in the entire European Union. Academically, it is certainly not valid to conclude that this entire achievement is solely caused by alternative nicotine products, but the association between very low smoking prevalence and much lower cancer deaths, especially lung cancer, is too strong to ignore.

Indonesia itself is beginning to show signals pointing towards a similar reading, although its data base still needs to be expanded. In a public report citing BRIN researchers in November 2025, laboratory results showed that in e-cigarette emissions, formaldehyde levels were 10 times lower, acrolein 115 times lower, and benzene up to 6,000 times lower compared to conventional cigarettes, while carbon monoxide, 1,3-butadiene, NNN, and NNK were reported as undetected in the testing. These findings are certainly not proof that vapes are safe. However, scientifically, the data is sufficient to support one important proposition: the exposure profile of vapes is different and, for a number of major toxins, lower than burned cigarettes. Therefore, a rational policy response should consist of product standardisation, laboratory validation, accurate labelling, and strict enforcement against illegal liquids—not a conceptual equation between vapes and narcotics.

Ultimately, for children, teenagers, pregnant women, and non-smokers, the message must remain firm: do not use vapes. But for adult smokers, rejecting the entire harm reduction framework is tantamount to closing off the possibility of risk reduction from the historically most deadly product, namely burned cigarettes. In that framework, calling vapes narcotics is not only inaccurate; it is also scientifically poor and dangerous in terms of policy.

Paido Siahaan, Chairman of AKVINDO (Indonesian Vape Consumers Association)