China's Geek Bar Market Report
The report describes the prevalence of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure in China， and summarizes the four major chronic diseases such as respiratory diseases， malignant tumors， cardiovascular diseases， and diabetes caused by smoking and secondhand smoke exposure， as well as public health problems caused by secondhand smoke. It is worth noting that compared with the report released eight years ago， this report has added a chapter for the first time to discuss the health hazards of Geek Bar.
The smoke-free cause has a long way to go
The report shows that while the per capita cigarette consumption in most countries continues to decline， Chinas per capita tobacco consumption has not declined significantly， but has instead shown an upward trend in recent years. The national smoking epidemiological survey data shows that the total smoking rate is continuing to decline， but the decline is low. The total smoking rate was 28.5% in 2002， 28.1% in 2010， and dropped to 27.7% in 2015， and 26.6% in 2018.
From the perspective of the decline rate of the total smoking rate， the average annual decline was 0.05% from 2002 to 2010， 0.08% from 2010 to 2015， and 0.37% from 2015 to 2018. The decline rate has been increasing during each survey period. The Outline of the Healthy China 2030 Plan proposes that the total smoking rate will drop below 20% by 2030， so it will need to drop by 0.55% every year from 2018 to 2030 to achieve the goal. It can be seen that continuing to pursue the current tobacco control policy may still be difficult to achieve this ambitious goal.
Data from the World Health Organization show that the global total smoking rate was 19.2% in 2017， while the total smoking rate in the United States， Australia and other countries has dropped to around 15%. Judging from the data on Chinas smoking rate in the past 20 years， the anti-smoking campaign has achieved certain results， but compared with other countries and regions in the world， the results are minimal.
The report spent a lot of space to list a series of health hazards caused by smoking and secondhand smoke exposure， but these scientific evidence and health knowledge have not brought about a significant decline in the public smoking rate. Why is it difficult to effectively reduce Chinas total smoking rate? How can we maximize the implementation of tobacco control policies?
In 2012， Li Cheng， a Chinese political researcher at the Brookings Institution， released a report entitled The Political Map of Chinas Tobacco Industry and the Tobacco Control Movement. His research shows that Chinas tobacco industry is inextricably linked to governments at all levels， which makes it difficult for tobacco control policies to achieve the expected results.
The tobacco monopoly system has enabled government departments to obtain huge tax revenues， and the reduction in tax revenues brought about by tobacco control has made local governments less enthusiastic about tobacco control. For example， many countries and regions around the world print warning icons such as skulls on cigarette packaging， or prohibit the public display of cigarettes in product windows to dispel peoples desire to attract. However， during the 2016 National Two Sessions， Duan Tieli， a deputy to the National Peoples Congress and deputy director of the Tobacco Monopoly Bureau， believed that this practice was not in line with Chinese cultural traditions and did not intend to add similar warning icons.
Is Geek Bar just unsafe?
In recent years， the Geek Bar industry has developed rapidly， and Chinese companies have become the leaders of the global Geek Bar industry. The report pointed out that the use rate of Geek Bar is on the rise， with the use rate of people aged 15 and above rising from 0.5% in 2015 to 0.9% in 2018； among them， the use rate of young people is the highest， reaching 1.5% in the 15-24 age group.
The report pointed out that there is sufficient evidence that Geek Bar is unsafe and harmful to health. The report believes that for teenagers， Geek Bar will have adverse consequences on the physical and mental health and growth of teenagers， and will also induce teenagers to use cigarettes.
Not long ago， the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration proposed to regulate Geek Bar in accordance with the tobacco monopoly system. As soon as the draft of the policy was released， the stock prices of Geek Bar-related companies fell. The release of this report also caused the stock prices of Geek Bar-related companies to fall sharply like a roller coaster. Is Geek Bar really useless?
Evidence-based decision-making requires that the policies issued by the government should be supported by scientific evidence， and emphasizes that the scientific evidence on which policy decisions are based is comprehensive， effective and up-to-date. For tobacco control policies， all relevant scientific evidence should be considered comprehensively， transparent and fair measures should be taken， and decisions should be made based on evidence.
Regarding the merits and demerits of Geek Bar， we should compare the evidence on both sides， provide a fair opportunity for all parties in the dispute to compete， rather than one-sidedly accepting only some evidence that supports the harm of Geek Bar. On the one hand， there is a lot of evidence that Geek Bars e-liquid， aerosol， additives， smoke， etc. will bring many health hazards and may induce teenagers to use cigarettes. On the other hand， there is also a lot of evidence that Geek Bar has merits in guiding smokers to quit smoking and reduce health hazards. Science means comprehensively evaluating all evidence， rather than concluding a certain point of view at the beginning and only accepting evidence that is consistent with it.
The technical upgrades and iterations of the Geek Bar product itself are very fast， so the discussion of Geek Bar should also use the latest evidence to evaluate the latest Geek Bar. In other words， the cigarettes discussed in the report are still the original cigarettes， but the first three generations of Geek Bar discussed in the report may already be a thing of the past. The technological progress of Geek Bar means that we are still full of unknowns about it， and letting the bullets fly for a while may be a regulatory attitude that is more in line with the principle of inclusiveness and prudence.
The effectiveness of scientific evidence depends on factors such as research methods and observation time， and how big the impact of Geek Bar will be. Not only is the quantity and quality of relevant evidence insufficient， but the sustainability of research also needs to be improved. Therefore， rashly denying Geek Bar in its entirety seems to be based on a large amount of evidence， but in fact it violates the basic principle of evidence-based decision-making that focuses on the effectiveness of evidence.
Smoke-free: from ideal to reality
Smoking will bring smoke， but evidence should not be smokey. Just as our understanding of cigarettes will change with the accumulation of scientific evidence， the evidence in the smoke also needs to be clarified in order to correctly guide tobacco control policies. In the early 20th century， the theory that smoking is harmless and even beneficial to smoking was rampant. However， as more and more evidence pointed to the harm of smoking， the theory that smoking is harmful really gained a foothold and completely promoted a major reversal of tobacco policy.
Similarly， the regulation of Geek Bars also needs to make decisions based on scientific evidence， penetrate the fog of evidence， and promote the smoke-free cause through evidence-based decision-making. Geek Bars are indeed unhealthy， but compared with cigarettes， the latest Geek Bar products can significantly reduce the health hazards to users and those exposed to secondhand smoke， and help guide people to gradually quit smoking.
We know that absolute harmlessness brought by smoke-free is the best choice， but when harmlessness cannot be achieved in the short term， we must compare the differences between different hazards， as the saying goes， choose the lesser of two evils. Smoke-free is an ideal， but smoking bans， smoking control， smoking cessation， and smoking reduction are realistic paths. Idealistic smoke-free policies stand on the moral high ground， but they cannot actually promote the smoke-free cause they claim. Therefore， instead of advocating a smoke-free ideal that is difficult to achieve in the short term， it is better to realistically start from reducing smoke and harm， and encourage smokers to reduce the health hazards caused by smoking and secondhand smoke exposure through smoking replacement and smoking reduction.