The Case of the Mother Who Chose to Buy Cigarettes to Steer Her Son Away from Vaping

The fight against smoking has undeniably shifted in form. Misinformation and oversimplified narratives about vaping have left families caught in ethical dilemmas and the void of poorly calibrated public policies. The story of a mother choosing to buy cigarettes for her son to discourage vaping highlights the deep contradictions of a society that, by demonizing harm-reduction tools, condemns younger generations to perpetuate cycles of dependency and face an uncertain future.

On an ordinary evening, while the city revolves in its routine, a mother and her 16-year-old son enact a scene that could belong to a dystopian screenplay illustrating the contradictions of the modern world: both in a car and heading to a gas station. Their goal is not to fill the tank but to purchase a pack of Marlboro Gold cigarettes.

She is overwhelmed by guilt; he is resigned to the discomfort of a reality he cannot control.

The exchange is quick, almost mechanical, as if throwing the cigarettes to her son could alleviate the moral burden of a decision she cannot even justify.

And yet, both are convinced that this ritual, absurd as it may seem, is the lesser evil compared to what they are trying to combat: vaping.

When Machteld van Hulten learned that her teenage son was consuming, through vaping, an amount of nicotine equivalent to forty packs of cigarettes in just four days, she faced a dilemma as perplexing as it was distressing:

Should she accept his dependence on electronic devices or, despite the risks, try to steer him toward a form of nicotine consumption, she considered more controlled—even if that meant resorting to combustible tobacco? This ethical dilemma underscores a mother’s desperation in a system that offers no apparent alternatives or sufficient support to handle the problem safely.

In an unexpected and desperate twist, this mother chose a controversial path: buying cigarettes for her son as a lesser evil in an attempt to reduce harm.

The Existential Void Behind Failing Public Policies

This true story, reported in a Dutch outlet, not only exposes the internal contradictions of a family caught between smoke and vapor but also sheds light on a reality the official narrative prefers to ignore: the paradigms have failed to adapt to contemporary challenges.

Authorities cling to a flawed approach in the fight against youth addiction.

Narratives surrounding vaping have focused on alarmism and prohibition, as evidenced by attempts to restrict flavors in e-liquids without a precise analysis of their effects.

These strategies have failed to reduce youth addiction and have instead driven many teenagers toward more dangerous alternatives.

Indeed, this account not only highlights the anguish families face in dealing with addiction but also exposes the cracks in poorly designed public policies on vaping.

These campaigns, crafted more to demonize than to understand, lack a realistic approach that, far from protecting youth, ends up pushing them toward more significant risks, such as traditional tobacco use, while depriving families of practical tools to address an overwhelming problem.

This scenario reveals a structural dynamic in which the adolescent, caught between their desire for autonomy and the demands of society, public policies, family, culture, and an increasingly uncertain future, seeks a space of enjoyment to cope with an existential void voraciously fed by capitalism.

Adolescents become trapped between their quest for independence and the pressures of a society that offers no real alternatives.

The consumption of any psychoactive substance becomes a symptomatic response to this search—a partial satisfaction attempting to fill the void but paradoxically reinforcing dependency on the object of consumption.

In the scene of the mother and her son, so familiar to many families yet so tragic in its implications, a profound ethical conflict emerges: the desperate attempt to protect a child colliding with a socio-political and economic system that, through misinformation and stigmatization, leaves families without viable options.

In a cruel irony, in her attempt to reduce harm, the mother ultimately confronts the real enemy: misinformation.

This discourse, which demonizes vaping, obscures the potential to save her son from the most lethal risk: smoking.

What began as a crusade to eradicate tobacco—once one of the greatest threats to public health—has devolved into an erratic and poorly calibrated battle against vaping devices, precisely the lower-risk alternative to smoking.

Harm-reduction products outside the pharmaceutical industry have become shrouded in misinformation, alarmism, and stigmatization.

In a supposed attempt to protect youth, these tools—when adequately regulated—could be part of an effective strategy to mitigate many health problems linked to smoking. Instead, they have been turned into a misunderstood problem.

What Does the Demonization of Vaping Say About Society?

This demonization reflects a society that tends to act under the principle of forbidden pleasure, on the one hand, while encouraging all other forms of pleasure on the other.

By stigmatizing vaping, policies not only overlook its harm-reduction potential but also reinforce the allure of consumption itself, feeding the transgressive impulse of youth.

The forbidden becomes desirable precisely through exclusion, and this principle operates with the growth of illegal markets worldwide.

Recent data from the Gezondheidsmonitor Jeugd 2023 in the Netherlands shows that vaping use among youth aged 12 to 16 has quadrupled in the last four years, while traditional smoking has seen a general decline during the same period.

This raises important questions about how to address relative risks. Though these figures may seem alarming, they demand calm and contextualized analysis, not alarmism.

Demonizing vaping as an absolute enemy obscures a crucial fact: in most cases, this habit replaces the deadliest consumption—traditional smoking—which continues to claim millions of lives annually, as a persistent but neglected threat in public discourse that prefers polarization and diversion.

Harm Reduction as the Only Necessary Path

In light of this situation, harm reduction should never be viewed as surrender but as a pragmatic and necessary strategy in a world where ideal solutions often seem increasingly out of reach.

Vaping, though not risk-free, has saved lives by offering millions of adult smokers a significantly less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes.

Confusing these two realities, as many anti-vaping campaigns do, erodes the possibility of an honest, evidence-based debate.

A pragmatic public health approach could frame vaping as a “transitional object” to help smokers separate from cigarettes.

Though not ideal, this object allows individuals to negotiate their dependency in a less harmful context, opening the possibility for later sublimation of their drive into more constructive forms.

The real problem lies in the misguided focus of these disinformation campaigns, which prioritize fear over education and fail to differentiate between responsible and uncontrolled use.

These initiatives misunderstand adolescent behaviors, neglecting the underlying reasons that lead them to seek such substances.

The kid’s desire becomes trapped in a repetitive cycle of satisfaction and frustration, where the object (be it vaping or cigarettes) never fully satisfies, leaving intact the structural void it sought to fill.

Without proper regulatory frameworks and consistent educational efforts, this cycle will perpetuate itself.

Instead of stigmatizing vaping, efforts should shift toward intelligent regulation that restricts access for non-users while enabling smokers to benefit from its harm-reduction potential.

An Uncertain Future for Younger Generations

The ultimate question is not how to eradicate vaping but how to design balanced public policies that reduce the harms associated with smoking.

Regulating access to vaping for adolescents, educating families on its risks and benefits, and promoting its responsible use among adult smokers are concrete steps toward a future where decisions are guided by evidence rather than alarmism.

The future we are building for younger generations is riddled with contradictions: on the one hand, a crusade for a “Smoke-Free Generation” that lacks realistic, evidence-based tools; on the other, alarming indifference to the fact that rushed, poorly informed decisions may push youth toward far more deadly habits.

The battle against smoking has changed form, and our strategies and narratives must also evolve.

Without confronting this challenge with honesty, empathy, and pragmatism, we risk trapping young people in a cycle of dependency that, far from being extinguished, will perpetuate itself with new faces, leaving behind a moral and public health void that could have been avoided.