By Joseph Thavaraja
A widely discussed topic in Sri Lanka presently revolves around whether to ban vape products. A main concern is children’s access to these products.
There is no doubt that children’s access to vapes must be prevented and sensible regulation can help achieve this important goal. However, a total prohibition of vapes with the aim of protecting children, makes little sense.
A key reason a total prohibition may not be helpful, is the spread of black market vapes. Often, the spread of black market is unavoidable since the mere act of banning does not prevent the consumer demand buildup! The 1920–1933 U.S. prohibition is a case in point. When the U.S. Constitution banned the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages (due to moral and public health concerns), it did not stop people from their ‘search for the drink’ and resulted in a lucrative black market. This led to the rise of organized crime, which in turn led to increased corruption as organized crime began bribing officials and law enforcement for their profiteering. Ironically, the ban also led ‘some customers’ to specifically seek the banned product as an act of rebellion against the moral dogma ‘seemingly imposed’ on the society by the government! In modern times, Australia offers a cautionary tale of how prohibitionist policies can be counterproductive. Through a consortium of legal requirements, Australia has instituted a de facto prohibition on vape products. According to a report titled ‘Vape product regulation in Australia: A case study in failure,’ this de facto prohibition has resulted in 93% of their vaping demographic resorting to buying products illegally, with legal sales accounting for just 1 in every 1,700 transactions. Smoking rates, which had been falling for decades, as well as under-aged vaping have both surged.
Another example is “films and other recreational items”, the video games. Their access is regulated to certain types of films and video games that may be inappropriate for children where graphic violence or sexually explicit content is present, as we acknowledge that some recreational acts portrayed in games need to be age regulated. But that does not mean we prohibit and ban all video games (with adult content) to everyone. Instead, regulating access to such items is what’s implemented. Another aspect to consider is that the creed “prohibition of vapes is to protect children” implies that they are otherwise easily/readily available to children, which is not realistic.
Vapes are less harmful than combustion-based tobacco smoke and in fact, some top level healthcare institutions such as UK’s National Health Service, go to the extent of saying that “Nicotine vaping is not risk-free, but it is substantially less harmful than smoking.”.
Regulation is society’s way of saying ‘this isn’t for children, but adults can decide for themselves’. This logic can be applied to vape products as well. It is intended for adult consumption and should not be made available to children. Therefore, the answer to the concern about children accessing these products is rather simple: Sensibly regulate the product so retailers are prohibited from selling them to children.
The other concern is the potential loss of revenue from decline in tobacco sales as a result of the rise in sale of vapes. This line of reasoning, to justify a ban on nicotine-based vape products, needs to be re-examined.
The purported link between the decline in revenue from tobacco taxation and the rise in vape circulation, recognizes the pivotal role vape products can play as a mechanism of tax revenue, and as a potentially less harmful alternative to tobacco based combustion products such as cigarettes.
Vape products do not contain tobacco and operate at far lower temperatures than cigarettes. This means that smokers can still get the same nicotine experience they crave, without the harmful combustion of cigarettes, similar to playing a child-safe version of a video game originally designed for adults.
Sensibly regulating vape products along risk proportionate taxation could open ways for adults to choose viable alternatives to combustible cigarettes. Consequently, these products are regulated in a way that provides access to smokers to switch while ensuring prevention of access for children.
A total ban of vape products will only send this market deeper into the underground. Age-appropriate regulation would, by contrast, subject the products to a legal protocol, standardization, and yes, taxation.
Ultimately, the lesson to be learnt is that we must strike the right regulatory balance that meets multiple policy goals while maintaining fiscal revenue targets. Preventing children from accessing products meant for adults, is among these goals and balanced regulation on vape products serves such policy objectives.
ENDS
