Prof. Edward Gorzelańczyk: "Fear doesn't work. In the fight against addiction, we need facts and support, not moralizing"

Prof. Edward Gorzelańczyk: Absolutely. Demonizing smokers and a moralizing tone lead to stigmatization, guilt, and isolation. Paradoxically, this hinders change. Moreover, the claim that all nicotine products are equally harmful contradicts scientific evidence and undermines trust in public health institutions. Overly aggressive campaigns also have the opposite effect—rebellion against imposed bans. That's why we need a language of empathy, reliable information, and support for harm reduction.

EG : Smoking is truly more than just nicotine—it's a ritual, a way of coping with emotions, and a part of social life. Therefore, pharmacotherapy has its limitations. Effective treatment requires finding a substitute for the ritual—e.g., an e-cigarette, nicotine gum, or a ritual similar to making tea. But in the long run, it's more important to transform these rituals into healthier forms of emotional regulation, such as exercise, music, or relaxation techniques.

EG : The difference lies in language and actions. Realizing the need to stop taking nicotine is an awareness of the problem, but without a decision or plan yet—but it's already a willingness. It's evident in specific steps: choosing a date, talking to a doctor, purchasing replacement therapy. A ready smoker doesn't downplay the difficulties but discusses coping strategies. It's a transition from declaration to action.

EG : Harm reduction is a pragmatic and rational public health and economic tool. The key here isn't justification, but risk minimization. Just as seat belts don't eliminate accidents, they save lives. E-cigarettes, heaters, and nicotine pouches are less harmful than nicotine cigarettes and can be a transitional step. The key is to clearly communicate that this is a step toward lower risk, not an incentive to use.

EG : Preparation and psychoeducation are key – the patient should know that this is natural and temporary. Relaxation techniques, physical activity, healthy snacks, as well as nicotine replacement therapy and supportive medications, can help. Psychological support is also important – cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing. The patient should not feel alone.

EG : Yes, because fear has a short-term effect. People often deny the risk of illness. Positive motivations, however—better breath, better taste, improved fitness—are felt quickly and strengthen the sense of agency. Identity shifts from escaping illness to a sense of being a healthy and active person. This provides lasting power for change.

EG : They can be a transitional tool, especially for those not ready for complete abstinence. They are less toxic and help maintain the ritual. However, they are not risk-free – they still deliver nicotine, and the long-term effects are not fully understood. Therefore, they should be considered a component of harm reduction, not a healthy alternative.

EG : We need to redefine our identity. Instead of feeling like a smoker, we need to feel like a person who nurtures their breath and energy. The ritual can be maintained, but in a new form – a break for a walk, tea, or breathing. New sources of tension relief, like music or meditation, allow us to maintain a sense of coherence. It's not a loss, but a recovery of self.

EG : We need to distance ourselves from the myth of failure. Relapse is feedback—an opportunity to learn about ourselves. Instead of blaming ourselves and feeling let down, it's better to treat relapse as a cognitive process—an opportunity to expand our understanding of the circumstances under which the relapse occurred. Normalization, group support, a contingency plan, and self-compassion techniques can help. It's a learning phase, not the end of the road.

EG : We need to change the narrative. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon. Every day without a cigarette is a success. It's worth celebrating small steps—improved taste, breath, and fitness. Campaigns should showcase the beauty of slow change, not promise a miracle in a week. It's these small, tangible successes that build lasting motivation and a sense of empowerment. Effectively combating nicotine addiction requires moving away from fear and moralizing toward empathy, harm reduction, and positive motivation. Quitting cigarettes is a process that includes relapses—but every step forward is a victory.

EG : I disagree with the policy of harsh repression of lower-risk nicotine products, which lumps all forms of nicotine together and aims for their complete ban. This is an example of a narrative based on fear and moralizing, rather than scientific evidence and empathy for addicts. The claim that nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes are as harmful as traditional cigarettes is contrary to the facts and undermines trust in public health institutions. Harm reduction is not an excuse for addiction, but a pragmatic public health tool—just as seat belts don't eliminate accidents, but they save lives.

Less harmful products can serve as a transitional step for those not yet ready for complete abstinence. Of course, they aren't risk-free, but demonizing and banning them can paradoxically perpetuate cigarette smoking—the most toxic form of nicotine consumption. Therefore, instead of prohibitions, we need regulations based on relative risk, reliable information, and support in the change process. This empathetic approach gives people real tools to overcome their addiction, instead of pushing them into guilt and rebellion against restrictions.

The European Union's stance on alternative nicotine products is not unique; it fits into a broader political climate in which restrictions and moralizing narratives dominate public health pragmatism. This echoes policies pursued for years, particularly in Poland, where the approach to addiction remains extremely restrictive and orthodox. This is largely a legacy of bygone times, when the state treated the problem of stimulants primarily in terms of control and social discipline, rather than empathy and harm reduction. To this day, the strong influence of the fundamentalist anti-drug lobby, which absorbs the majority of resources allocated to addiction, completely ignores medical interventions and perpetuates the logic of absolute abstinence as the only acceptable strategy, while simultaneously marginalizing solutions based on scientific evidence and relative risk. In Poland, we are dealing not only with demedicalization, but also with the descientification or rather descientification of the approach to addictions, which is increasingly moving away from reliable empirical foundations in favor of ideology and moralizing.