Australia is currently embroiled in a heated discourse over the proposed de-scheduling of vapes from Schedule 4 (prescription-only medicines) to Schedule 3 (pharmacist-only medicines). This legislative change, set to take effect from October 2024, raises significant concerns among healthcare professionals, particularly pharmacists who fear it will undermine professional standards and overburden them without compensation.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) claims that “dispensing therapeutic vapes from 1 October 2024, when they are classified as Schedule 3 substances,” is intended to make smoking cessation aids more accessible. However, many pharmacists believe this move is problematic. According to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, “We are not tobacconists or garbologists”. The Guild stresses that pharmacies are not equipped to handle the surge of customers seeking vapes, potentially attracting a demographic that may not align with the professional ethos of healthcare settings.
Moreover, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) has expressed concerns that this shift places an undue burden on pharmacists, who are already stretched thin with increasing responsibilities. The PSA notes, “Pharmacists are frontline healthcare providers, and expecting them to manage vape supply adds to their workload without additional support or remuneration.” This move could compromise the quality of care that pharmacists are able to provide to other patients, as they juggle more tasks without any increase in resources.
There is also a significant ethical debate surrounding this decision. Many in the healthcare community feel that it goes against the professional standards upheld by practitioners. The PSA argues that “pharmacists are healthcare professionals, not gatekeepers for products that may cause harm”. This sentiment is heightened by the well-documented health risks associated with vaping, which include cancer, lung scarring, and nicotine addiction. These risks illustrate why many pharmacists are uncomfortable supplying products that may cause more harm than benefit to their patients. Furthermore, there is limited evidence to support the use of vaping products for smoking cessation and nicotine dependence, as highlighted by a report from the Australian National University ( ‘Nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: Evidence to support guideline development by Australian National University’).
The opposition to this policy isn’t limited to pharmacists alone. Major pharmacy chains have also expressed reservations. An article from ABC News reported that “several big pharmacy brands have outright rejected the idea of stocking vapes,” citing concerns over the message it sends to the community and the potential for pharmacies to become inadvertently associated with promoting vaping.
While the intention behind de-scheduling vapes to S3 may be to improve access to smoking cessation tools, the reality is far more complex. The potential fallout on pharmacists, the ethical considerations, and the possible public health implications make this a contentious issue. As the debate continues, it is crucial for policymakers to consider these factors and engage with the healthcare community to find a solution that balances accessibility with professional standards and public health priorities. As pharmacists, it is crucial for us to stand our ground and express concerns on behalf of our profession and community.
For more information, visit the TGA, Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.