My article for the Brazilian political commentary service Poder360 – article in Portuguese, translation below.
Sem regulação, Congresso entrega o controle do vape às redes criminosas
Without regulation, Congress hands over control of vaping to criminal networks
Banning e-cigarettes does not eliminate the product from the country; it shows irresponsibility on the part of the government.
Text in the English original below
Brazil’s vaping regulator hands over control to criminal networks
In a sophisticated country, citizens should expect their government and regulators to prioritise their rights and safety. In the case of vaping products, people should be able to buy products that they want to use, knowing that they are far safer than the dominant nicotine product, cigarettes. They should expect controls on product safety (electrical, chemical, and thermal). They have a right to expect the products to have realistic packaging and labelling that accurately describes the contents. No one wants young people smoking or vaping, so the public and politicians should expect age restrictions on retailing and restrictions on marketing and branding that appeal to youth. Above all, they should expect a well-regulated market in products that people want to use as alternatives to cigarettes to protect their own health, on their own initiative, and at their own expense.
However, when a regulator declares an outright prohibition, none of these aims are achieved. All prohibitions are based on a logical flaw: prohibitions do not cause the banned products to somehow disappear. A prohibition changes who supplies the products and how. It drives out responsible, law-abiding suppliers, replacing them with informal markets or criminal networks. There is no mystery about this, as we know from 50 years of the war on drugs.
On 20th April, Brazil’s National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) decided to extend a prohibition on low-risk alternatives to smoking. Its new resolution 855/24 prohibits all types of “electronic smoking devices”, which include e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and similar products.
Prohibitions replace regulation with “enforcement”. However, enforcement often leads to heavy-handed policing and corruption, excessive penalties, and diversion of border control resources. Illicit markets are controlled by violent gangs, leaving consumers with no protection or rights. By implementing a prohibition, the regulator, ANVISA, is not being “tough”. On the contrary, it is walking away from its responsibilities to consumers.
Brazil’s vaping prohibition will have three main effects. First, it will mean more people will smoke because not everyone will access illegal markets. Second, it will nurture a lucrative, uncontrolled, unlawful market run by criminals who will supply anyone with anything. They don’t care about age and will even engage teenagers as suppliers. Third, people who want to use vapes will try risky workarounds, such as making their own e-liquids. A prohibition does far more harm than good.
ANVISA’s prohibition is now under scrutiny in the Senate. Hopefully, wiser political minds will recognise the dangers, overrule the regulator, and insist that ANVISA does the regulator’s job it is supposed to do.
Clive Bates is a former anti-smoking campaigner who now runs a London-based public health and sustainability consultancy. He has no affiliations with tobacco or vape industries.