Tag: Prohibition

  • Azerbaijan Bans All Vape; HTPs Excluded

    Azerbaijan Bans All Vape; HTPs Excluded

    Azerbaijan officially enacted a comprehensive ban on electronic cigarettes following amendments to the country’s tobacco legislation approved by President Ilham Aliyev, to take effect on April 1. Under the revised law, the import, export, production, storage, wholesale and retail distribution, sale, and use of electronic cigarettes and their components—including devices, cartridges, refills, and e-liquids—are prohibited nationwide.

    The amendments classify nicotine-containing e-cigarettes as tobacco products and define electronic cigarettes broadly as any device that delivers vapor, with or without nicotine, through inhalation, regardless of format. Heated tobacco products are explicitly excluded from this definition and will continue to be regulated separately. The legislative changes are accompanied by amendments to the Tax Code and advertising law, removing disposable e-cigarettes and e-liquids from the list of excisable goods and updating advertising restrictions to align with the new classifications.

  • Pakistan Bill Would Treat Vape Like Cigarettes

    Pakistan Bill Would Treat Vape Like Cigarettes

    Pakistan’s Senate Standing Committee on National Health Services approved the Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (Regulation) Bill, clearing the way for its introduction in the Senate as authorities move to curb rising youth vaping, particularly in Islamabad. The bill would impose strict controls on the import, sale, marketing, and use of e-cigarettes, including a ban on sales within 50 meters of schools and colleges, a minimum purchase age of 18, and a prohibition on vape use in public transport, government buildings, parks, and other shared spaces.

    The proposed legislation would regulate vapes similarly to traditional tobacco products, banning all advertising—especially marketing aimed at minors—and requiring product standards such as nicotine caps of 40 mg/ml, child-resistant packaging, health warnings, and mandatory age verification for e-commerce sales. Penalties include fines of up to Rs 50,000 ($175) for first offenses, with escalating sanctions for repeat violations and smuggling. The bill is undergoing inter-ministerial review before formal Senate consideration, signaling tighter oversight for the nicotine and vaping market in Pakistan.

  • Nicotine Prohibition ‘Profoundly Immoral,’ Andrews Says in GTNF Closing

    Nicotine Prohibition ‘Profoundly Immoral,’ Andrews Says in GTNF Closing

    In a forceful closing keynote at the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF), Tim Andrews, Director of Consumer Issues at Americans for Tax Reform and the Tholos Foundation, called global bans on vaping and other reduced-risk nicotine products “profoundly immoral,” arguing that prohibition is fueling crime, costing governments billions, and depriving smokers of lifesaving alternatives.

    “What we have is the greatest medical breakthrough since penicillin,” Andrews said. “It has the potential to save millions of lives—and yet, these products are being made illegal.”

    Andrews described his frustration in engaging with policymakers. “I’ve talked to so many politicians. I present the science, the evidence—and the next day, they go and vote against it,” he said. “But when you start talking about the cost to their state budgets, that’s when they start listening.”

    Citing examples from around the world, Andrews said prohibition consistently drives consumers to illicit markets. “In Brazil, e-cigarettes were banned in 2009. Adult smoking rates have gone up. When legal products don’t exist, people either go to the black market or go back to smoking cigarettes,” he explained. “In Germany, 1.4 million people use despite a ban. In Mexico, usage has increased by 400%. Prohibition doesn’t work—it never has.”

    He argued that criminal organizations have been the biggest beneficiaries of restrictive nicotine policies. “Cartels have been enriched by prohibition,” he said. “We speak often about the human cost of lives lost to smoking, but now we’re seeing people murdered, and money flowing to sex traffickers and drug cartels. That’s the true cost of bad policy.”

    Andrews highlighted new research from a coalition of think tanks showing the economic toll of nicotine bans, including lost tax revenue and enforcement costs. “We launched a campaign with a dozen think tanks around the world,” he said. “Our evidence-based report on the costs of prohibition—on lost revenue and the growth of criminal gangs—has already been downloaded by 50,000 people in Germany alone. When we say prohibition doesn’t work, it’s a fact.”

    The data, Andrews said, also show that “about 80% of people say they will go to the black market or return to smoking if safer alternatives are banned—and that’s probably a low estimate.”

    Describing Australia’s recent crackdown as “profoundly immoral,” he said, “It breaks my heart that we are ground zero. But once you start taking what politicians care about—the bottom dollar—they start listening.”

    Andrews closed with a call to action: “Hundreds of millions of lives can be saved if we get this policy straight. We owe it to future generations. If we can’t convince politicians to do what’s right for human lives, then we must convince them with the economic reality. Either way, prohibition must end.”

  • Malaysian Vapers Alliance Warns Ban Risks Fueling Illegal Market

    Malaysian Vapers Alliance Warns Ban Risks Fueling Illegal Market

    The Malaysian Vapers Alliance (MVA) cautioned that uncertainty over state and potential nationwide vape bans undermines the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852) and drives consumers toward illegal channels. MVA president Khairil Azizi Khairuddin said a recent survey of 641 consumers found 74% fear bans will expand the illicit market, while 80% worry unregulated products could be unsafe. “Prohibition, in any form, is not the answer,” he said, urging consistent enforcement of Act 852 instead of new restrictions.

    The survey showed 83% of respondents were aware of the law’s implementation in October 2024, and 68% preferred buying regulated products. Yet MoH data indicates legal options are shrinking, with registered vape brands plunging from 3,200 before the law to 390 today. Khairil warned that crackdowns on illegal sales, including drug-laced liquids, prove non-compliant products stem from illicit trade, not regulated businesses.

  • The Evil Twins

    The Evil Twins

    Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    Prohibition and illicit trade

    By Clive Bates

    The remote Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan was the poster child of tobacco control for many years. It appeared that Bhutan had drawn the obvious conclusion from decades of scientific research and had finally done the right thing. In 2004, the kingdom banned the sale of all tobacco products. Tobacco control activists were delighted.

    Jump forward to 2020, and the picture is not so rosy. In a joint report by the government and the World Health Organization office in Bhutan, “The Big Ban: Bhutan’s Journey Toward a Tobacco-Free Society,” Health Minister Dechen Wangmo, sets out the situation: “The black market, one that emerged after the ban, is the number one challenge that Bhutan is faced with when it comes to tobacco control. The Global Youth Survey 2013 reports an increase in the number of school children between ages 13 and 15 using tobacco products. It increased from 24 percent in 2006 to 30 percent in 2013.”

    According to the WHO, Bhutan has high levels of ongoing tobacco use despite prohibition. The WHO representative to Bhutan, Rui Paulo de Jesus, provides a candid explanation: “So long as the demand within the country persists, it will continue to fuel the illicit market that has expanded since the ban of its sale in early 2000. Unfortunately, as studies indicate, Bhutanese youth are at the center of this growing illegal trade in tobacco and its products.”

    Prohibition as a Perturbation

    Unusually for the WHO, the words above contain some essential truths about tobacco policy and prohibitions. The first and most important insight is that while demand for a product persists, a prohibition will just change how the product is supplied. A prohibition does not make a product disappear, even if that’s what politicians and policymakers would like. Instead, a prohibition is a perturbation of a dynamic market: a disruption that reconfigures the behavior of suppliers and consumers, changing who supplies the product, what products are available and under what terms. Prices can go up to reflect the costs and risk of illicit supply. Alternatively, prices can fall as no tax is paid on illicit goods. Illicit commerce is unregulated and ultimately controlled by violence rather than by consumer protection or contract law. An unregulated illegal market creates real dangers to consumers. The 2019 outbreak of severe and often fatal lung disease was caused by adding a harmful additive, vitamin E acetate, to illicit cannabis (THC) vapes as a cutting agent. Arguably, this disaster would never have happened had cannabis vaping products been widely available legally and without excessive taxation.

    Participation in Criminal Supply Chains

    The second insight is that young people may see the opportunity to make fast money as foot soldiers in an illicit irregular supply chain. It should be a significant consideration in assessing the case for prohibitions supposedly aimed at “protecting kids.” If adolescents want access to the banned products, then a prohibition policy will likely draw young people into the illicit supply chain and an early experience of criminality. Alternatively, the illegal supply of, say, cannabis could diversify to provide prohibited nicotine products as well. For example, in the United States, the Monitoring the Future survey shows that past 30-day cannabis use among 12th grade students has been around 20 percent for the last 25 years. That means there is a ready-made illicit supply chain for providing tobacco or vaping products to young people, should that prove attractive to cannabis suppliers.

    Types of Prohibition

    Not all prohibitions are as pervasive and straightforward as Bhutan’s. Let’s consider two further categories. First, many tobacco and nicotine policies have a partial prohibition element. By this, I mean the policies are intended to deter the use of the product rather than to protect the user. For example, a ban on flavored e-liquids has a prohibitionist purpose, but a ban on a toxic ingredient in e-liquids has a consumer protection purpose—an important distinction. Caps on nicotine strength or requiring a prescription to access vaping products are partial prohibitions. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill famously equated taxes on stimulants to prohibition: “To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable.”

    The United States and New Zealand have proposals to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to a minimal “subaddictive” level. This is essentially a prohibition of cigarettes dressed up as a sophisticated regulatory intervention. Without adequate nicotine, cigarettes are worthless for most users, and they might as well be prohibited. The practical question is what would happen next: Would users quit altogether, move to illicit cigarettes or, for example, switch to vaping? The least likely outcome is any significant or sustained use of low-nicotine cigarettes.

    Second, a particular category needs to be defined for the prohibition of products that are beneficial to the user. The snus ban in the European Union has persisted since 1992 despite a mountain of evidence that snus has had a radically positive impact on public health in Sweden and Norway, where it is widely available. There may be arguments for prohibiting harmful products like cigarettes, even if there are doubts about the practicalities, perverse consequences and ethical implications for adult autonomy. But how can anyone defend the prohibition of much safer products that function as alternatives to cigarettes? Yet, there is now a lavishly funded international campaign to do exactly that. The international respiratory health organization The Union is calling for vaping and heated-tobacco products to be banned in all low-income and middle-income countries. That would cover 80 percent of the world’s smokers. This crazy logic is equivalent to campaigners against sexually transmitted diseases pressing for the prohibition of condoms in the hope that it would deter sex by making it more dangerous.

    More Enforcement?

    Although the WHO’s representative in Bhutan concisely described the problem, he still followed the eternal prohibitionist playbook and called for more enforcement effort. “WHO shares the country’s concerns, and it appears timely that Bhutan embraces the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products the country is yet to ratify.”

    But this idea, embracing hi-tech track-and-trace technology, seems implausible in the environment of a developing country and an informal economy in tobacco products. Further, more enforcement muscle brings problems of its own. It is expensive, violent and prone to bribery, corruption and abuse of office. Drug prohibition in the United States is notoriously associated with racism. As the Drug Policy Alliance puts it, “People of color experience discrimination at every stage of the criminal legal system.”

    Prohibition by Trial and Error

    Perhaps the big policy questions cannot be answered until a prohibition has been tried and experience gained? Beware! The danger is that temporary prohibitions may have irreversible effects. Prohibitionists should turn to the 2020 experience in South Africa in which the government banned tobacco sales with a justification based on a Covid-19 response. Research by independent economists at the University of Cape Town concluded that the legal supply had been replaced by illicit supply with a substantial loss of tax revenue. But now that tobacco users have found illegal suppliers to evade prohibition, what is to stop them from continuing to avoid tobacco taxation?

    Responsibility and Accountability

    One characteristic of prohibition advocates is a reluctance to assess the consequences of their work. The prohibition policy is their real goal, but the real-world consequences are of lesser concern. For example, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has dogmatically resisted calls to conduct a thorough assessment of the benefits and detriments of the drug prohibition treaties it oversees. This mindset is already evident in the tobacco and nicotine field. In 2019, India’s federal government imposed a comprehensive ban on vaping products. In 2021, the WHO awarded India’s former health minister, Harsh Vardhan, its highest tobacco control medal “for spearheading the government of India’s legislation to ban e-cigarettes and heated-tobacco products”. However, this award was made without any evaluation of the impact of the prohibition on illicit trade, no consideration of the likely perverse consequences leading to more smoking or any reflection on the ethics of denying India’s 100 million smokers lawful access to much safer alternatives.

    Proposals for prohibitions, in all their forms, need a much stricter assessment of the likelihood of illicit trade, perverse but easily foreseeable consequences and the ethics of using the force of law to control individual risk behaviors. That has been a conspicuous failure with illicit drugs and alcohol. Let’s hope that policymakers learn those lessons and don’t repeat the mistakes with nicotine.

    Finally, a postscript. Following a temporary lifting of Bhutan’s tobacco ban in 2020 for Covid-19-related reasons, Bhutan’s National Assembly passed the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill 2021 and Tax Bill of Bhutan 2021. This lifts the ban and legalizes the selling, buying, possession, distribution and transportation of tobacco and tobacco products. The signature prohibition of tobacco control has officially failed.