We have sent this letter to health ministry ahead of the crucial global tobacco conference to be held in Panama where key decisions on vaping will be taken. The attachment is a series of excellent evidence briefs, here: https://t.co/Iphlvai7SD
#COP10#COP10FCTC#THRsaveslives
It is unfortunate the court has failed to recognise genuine consumer interest in this litigation and wanted to impose a six-figure penalty for challenging criminalisation of people who have quit smoking through vaping. Our response:
1) We learn this writ was filed to oppose Union health ministry's ad hoc claim that possession of vapes is banned, which if allowed to stand, criminalises atleast 20 lakh (2mn) Indians for trying to reduce harm (our estimate is based on modest 35% annual increase – 60% is considered avg in emerging markets – from 2016 GATS 2 which found 2.6 lakh vapers). Vapes are now available in every small town of India.
2) The 'cost to society' from tobacco use is over 1% of India's GDP and 13.5 lakh deaths/year. Smokers struggle to quit: 95% quit attempts fail. E-cigarettes (vaping) are not only a 95% safer substitute (UK govt), they are 2x more effective than NRTs in helping smokers quit (Cochrane Review). Transitioning India's 12 crore (120mn) smokers to vaping – UK is giving free vapes to 10 lakh (1mn) smokers to help them quit – will significantly reduce cost to society.
3) The respected judge said assurances not to criminalise people who vape, given verbally in Parliament by then health minister and thereafter through circulars by Union health and home ministries, was an interim relief. We find this to be again an ad hoc interpretation since if that was really the intent it could well have been codified in the law. It wasn't. From which date did possession become illegal? Under which Act? Are we a nation of rule of law or a banana republic where an additional health secretary can overnight decide 20 lakh Indians are criminals?
4) What is the punishment for this crime? Do we have the right to know, or are we subject to police harassment and paying whatever bribe cops demand as there have been innumerable instances of vapers having to pay from Rs 2,000 to Rs 1 lakh in bribes. We find it disheartening the court refused to even engage on this point of law and instead sought to penalise the petitioner itself for raising the issue.
5) We believe this could have only been possible if the respected judge was convinced the litigation was proxy led by commercial interests of the tobacco/vaping industry. This is a genuine concern as most cases involving tobacco have indeed been found to be industry led. But do consumers have to pay the price?
6) Finally, does anyone realise how weird this situation is – all manners of toxic tobacco products, from pan masala, gutka to smuggled cigarettes like Esse are banned for sale in India, but only the 'users' of e-cigarettes, the least deadly of them all, have been deemed to be committing a crime?
We have also learnt the original petitions challenging the ban on carrying e-cigarettes on flights were to be heard the next day in Delhi HC, but have been adjourned to Feb 13 as the respondents (the aviation authority) failed to turn up. Hence, the headline of this article is incorrect as the issue is yet to be settled.
@arjunrammeghwal@ICLU_Ind@barcouncilindia@barandbench@LiveLawIndia@kharge@digvijaya_28@FCTCofficial@RSSorg@NitishKumar@mamataofficial@ArvindKejriwal@UNHumanRights@MalathyIyerTOI@RamblingBrook@TOIEditor@ETHealthWorld@thewire_in@ANI@PTI_News
https://t.co/PozEmDbgoI
Tobacco control is fixated on demonizing nicotine when tobacco remains the real villain.
Making NRTs prescription-only (especially when >90% of our doctors believe nicotine is carcinogenic) will only worsen cessation rates.
What's the real goal?
@MoHFW_INDIA@mansukhmandviya
WHO & tobacco control are trying to end nicotine use while more sportspeople, the most health-conscious lot, are consuming it as it can now be had without deadly consequences. @DeptHealthRes
https://t.co/HrnI2DYr1g
Thank you @vapers_alliance for highlighting India's misguided tobacco policies where the most deadly bidis are being exempted from higher taxes while users of least harmful vaping are being criminalised.
@PMOIndia@nsitharaman@mansukhmandviya
https://t.co/vjdk304tyV
Bidis stay poorly taxed despite killing most no. of Indians coz trade is run by politicians. Even ITC, which enjoys monopoly status through govt backing, is unaffected as people don't have choices. Great tobacco policy! @PMOIndia@nsitharaman@MoHFW_INDIA
https://t.co/ViFj5OqX0K
After then health minister assured Parliament & @HMOIndia issued circular use/ possession of vapes is NOT banned comes this adhoc criminalization of Indian smokers reducing harm by switching to vaping. @narendramodi@RahulGandhi@MamataOfficial@kharge
https://t.co/y65f1FT7oC
Today marks 4 years since India banned safer alternatives to smoking, which has caused immense damage to tobacco control efforts. AVI Board member Kanav Rishi Kumar has a message for vapers, vendors and legislators. (1/3) #endvapeban
Vapes being much safer than smoking is not up for scientific debate. Arguing over precision of 'estimates' (PHE reiterated it in 2020, btw) is just nitpicking. The 'leads to smoking' claim also doesn't hold up: where is the parallel rise in smoking? @mohfw_India@DrBharatippawar
White paper by UK group @CDP_innovation finds startling misconceptions about tobacco harms, and little knowledge of relative risks and safer alternatives. More needs to be done to equip India's 270mn tobacco users with correct information and resources.
https://t.co/Um5OlZ128n
In context of India's ENDS ban, Prof David Sweanor, Canada, writes: When consumers cannot access information on relative [tobacco] risks, or readily access lower-risk products, there is a failure of basic rights.
https://t.co/0ZLtZUDtWE
Tackling tobacco harms by encouraging substitution with less harmful, more effective alternatives can help bring down health and economic burden. Especially beneficial for moderate income nations with stretched resources.
https://t.co/gmGZLaP4zX