In November 2024, the government raised cigarette import duties significantly. The intent was to discourage smoking through higher prices. But within months, reports indicated that the higher prices had an unintended effect: people shifted to cheaper alternatives. Some to illicit markets with smuggled or counterfeit cigarettes sold at lower prices. Others sought different products entirely.
Now, eighteen months later, the government has reduced cigarette import duties. At a press conference explaining the decision, the President stated: "People who are habituated to smoking started using alternative products that pose a much greater risk to their health. We had to take this step to put a stop to that trend."
So when the President said alternatives are riskier, what exactly was he referring to? Illicit cigarettes with unknown contents? Unregulated products? Or does he mean all alternatives to cigarettes carry greater risk? The distinction matters.
Some work by burning and releasing smoke. Others heat without burning it. Some contain nicotine without any tobacco. These are fundamentally different processes. When something works differently, does it carry the same level of risk?
Around the world, different countries have made different regulatory choices about these products. Some restrict them heavily. Others allow them in regulated markets. Some tax them at different rates. If all alternatives posed exactly the same risk, why would regulatory approaches vary so widely across different countries?
Health authorities globally, including the World Health Organization and some of the world's strictest regulatory bodies, classify these products separately. They distinguish between them based on how they function and what exposure results. If they're all equally dangerous, why would these systems make such distinctions?
This matters because understanding risk is foundational to making informed choices. If alternatives do carry different risk levels—if some are genuinely lower risk than cigarettes—that changes what people know about their options. If consumers don't have access to this information, how can they understand what they're choosing?
The evidence on this exists. The question is whether it reaches the people who need to know it.
