So, Nicotine Has Another Side? Reflections Triggered by the Lu Xun Mural Controversy

Who Is Lu Xun, and Why Does He Matter?

To understand why a single mural sparked nationwide debate in China, you first need to know who Lu Xun is.

Lu Xun (1881–1936) is widely regarded as the father of modern Chinese literature. His sharp essays and stories exposed social injustices and awakened generations to new ways of thinking. In China, his image is more than cultural — it’s almost spiritual. He represents intellectual courage, independent thinking, and moral backbone.

Because of this unique status, any change to his public image can ignite public emotion.

The Mural Incident: From Local Complaint to National Storm

On August 22, a woman claiming to be an anti-smoking volunteer lodged a complaint against a mural at the Lu Xun Memorial in Shaoxing. The mural depicts Lu Xun holding a cigarette — a historically accurate detail, since Lu Xun was indeed a smoker.

She argued this was “misleading to teenagers” and suggested replacing it with an image of Lu Xun clenching his fist instead.

How the event escalated

Aug 22–23: The complaint stayed within administrative channels and drew little attention.

Aug 24: Media first reported the story. Public debate erupted over “protecting youth vs. respecting history.

Aug 25: The story went viral. Shaoxing’s cultural authorities, the Lu Xun Research Society, and Lu Xun’s own grandson all voiced support for keeping the mural unchanged, stressing respect for historical authenticity.

Key twist: Netizens discovered the complainant was also promoting a nicotine pouch product — a tobacco alternative not yet approved in China. The public began to question whether this was a case of “health advocacy” or “commercial opportunism.”

By August 26, authorities confirmed the mural would remain as is. Public anger then shifted from “should Lu Xun smoke in public art” to “should someone use Lu Xun for marketing.”

Rethinking Three Big Questions

This controversy isn’t just about one wall painting. It reflects deeper social and industry issues.

1. Are Teenagers Really That Fragile?

The original complaint claimed that showing Lu Xun smoking would harm teenagers. But do young people really need a 100% sanitized environment to grow up well?

• Public Health Englandhas stated: “Reducing youth smoking is not about erasing every tobacco image, but about enforcing retail regulations and strengthening education.”
• FDA research in the U.S.also shows that youth smoking rates correlate far more with family environment and access controlthan with simply “seeing tobacco imagery.”
• University of Ottawa studiesfound that even in regions banning all tobacco advertising, teenagers still experiment with tobacco at similar rates.

Overprotection creates weakness, not resilience.
If teens are shielded from every trace of risk, they fail to develop judgment. Ironically, they may become more vulnerable when they finally face real-life temptations.

Seeing Lu Xun smoke in a mural isn’t a health crisis. Treating it like one might be.

2. Can Commercial Value Override Historical Value?

The bigger scandal came when the complainant was linked to nicotine pouch marketing. This raised the question:

Should product promotion be allowed to rewrite cultural memory?

• Lu Xun was a real person. He smoked.
• His greatness lies in his courage and critical thought — not in whether he held a cigarette.
• Altering his image to serve a marketing narrative is intellectually dishonestand culturally disrespectful.

Great figures are not great because they are flawless, but because they are real.

• Churchill loved whiskey.
• Napoleon made disastrous decisions.
• Neither is less respected for their human imperfections.

When marketing tries to “airbrush” history, it cheapens both the product and the culture.

The nicotine industry should take note:
If you treat the public only as a traffic source, they’ll treat your product only as a gimmick.

3. Nicotine: Demon, Medicine, or Just a Chemical?

The public often equates nicotine = cancer = smoking. But scientifically:

• Nicotine itself is not a carcinogen.The main danger in cigarettes comes from combustion — tar, carbon monoxide, heavy metals.
• Nicotine is addictive and can increase cardiovascular risk.It must not be “whitewashed.”
• New research suggests nicotine might have surprising biological effects — but that doesn’t make it a health supplement.

The new evidence

A 2024 study by the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Advanced Science):

• Long-term low-dose oral nicotine improved mobility in aging mice;
• It stabilized gut microbiota and improved energy metabolism, giving mice “younger” biological traits.

What this means:

• Nicotine may have potential in neuroscience and metabolic research.
• It does notmean nicotine is safe for unlimited use.
• It certainly does not justify saying “nicotine equals healthy.”

Nicotine pouches: a double-edged tool

• Smoke-free, combustion-free nicotine delivery;
• Removes most toxins from cigarette smoke;
• Still addictive, still needs regulation and transparency.

The global trend

Sweden’s snus model: low-risk oral nicotine helped cut adult smoking to the lowest in the world.

UK health authorities: encourage harm-reduction tools but strictly regulate youth access.

The future race:

• Limit dosage and release rates,
• Develop de-addiction technologies,
• Build transparent safety standards.

o

The nicotine industry’s real challenge isn’t louder marketing — it’s making products safer and scientifically credible.

Conclusion: Science First, Hype Last

The Lu Xun mural dispute leaves us three lessons:

• Overprotection is not education.Youth need guidance, not blind censorship.
• History cannot be rewritten for commercial gain.
• Nicotine should be neither demonized nor blindly glorified.

As industry stakeholders, we must hold this line:

• No claims like “nicotine is healthy.”
• Use rigorous research to explain both risks and benefits.
• Push nicotine products toward safer, more transparent, less harmful directions.

This is not about hiding behind slogans. It’s about letting science, not marketing, lead the conversation.

Only then will the public see nicotine — not as a poison, not as a miracle — but as a substance that science and responsible regulation can tame.