On Tuesday, I received e-mails from groups that oppose a Senate bill awaiting the President’s signature. In particular, the groups want the President to veto the proposed legislation that will allow more youngsters to “vape,” or use what are officially known as electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems as well as heated tobacco products.
Proposed for veto is Senate Bill No. 2239, ratified in December 2021 along with House Bill No. 9007, on regulating vaping or the sale and use of vaporized nicotine and non-nicotine products such as electronic cigarettes, as well as heated tobacco products. The ratified bill is now with Malacañang for the President’s signature.
It is my understanding that both the Department of Health and the Department of Education are actually opposed to the vaping bill. Not that they oppose regulating vaping per se, but they question some provisions of the proposed law that seems to make vaping more accessible to a demographic younger than the current crop of smokers.
By law, smoking is allowed only for those 21 years old and up. But SB 2239 lowers the access restriction from 21 to 18 years old for vaping; allows youth-appealing flavors other than plain tobacco and menthol; and, allows online sales, claimed Social Watch Philippines in its e-mail. The bill also transfers the regulation of vaping products from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
“If passed into law, SB 2239 will continue to alter the image of vapor products, promote doubts on its harms, and mislead the public,” Social Watch Philippines said. It thus backed the DoH’s and DepEd’s opposition to the bill, quoting Education Secretary Leonor Briones as saying, “I strongly join the Department of Health in opposing the bill and humbly request the President to veto the legislation.”
Social Watch also cited a DepEd study with the Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) that “initiation for vape use” was usually at the age of 10 to 15 years old, and that the top reasons for vape use among Filipino students were “online accessibility, varied flavors, and the belief that such items are allegedly safer than tobacco products.”
Social Watch also quoted Sara Salvador, National Coordinator of Aktibong Kilusan Tungo sa Iisang Bayan (AKTIB) Philippines, as saying that based on the Global Youth Tobacco Survey, “there is a 110% increase in vape use in just four years among the Filipino youth, from 11.7% in 2015 to 24.6%. By lowering the age of access and allowing kid-friendly flavors, the bill clearly targets our youth and puts them at risk to subsequent nicotine addiction. The vape bill is not a coherent public response to the tobacco epidemic.”
On the other hand, a news report quoted Dr. Fernando Fernandez, Secretary General of the Asia Pacific Dental Federation and the past president of the Philippine Dental Association, as saying that the “Vape Bill is clearly a big win for public health. [And that] those who would like to ban vaping may indirectly be supporting smoking.”
“The logical conclusion is that vapor products will save the lives of 16 million Filipino smokers or at the very least reduce their health risks. Therefore, regulation and not prohibition is key. This is what the vape bill seeks to do,” Dr. Fernandez said. “The science has become extremely strong in recent years that e-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes,” he added.
The same news report quoted Dr. Arleen Reyes, past president of the Philippine Dental Association, as saying that “a ban on vapor products only perpetuates the use of cigarettes that endangers the lives of 16 million Filipino smokers.” She also insisted that vaping products were scientifically proven to be less harmful alternatives to cigarettes.
In my opinion, there is no debate on whether vaping should be banned or regulated. Regulation is the way to go. However, I don’t see any reason for vaping to be given more leeway than cigarettes or tobacco products. To encourage smokers to shift to a “healthier” alternative? If this is the argument, then why make vaping accessible to a younger set of people? Why allow SB 2239 to lower the access restriction from 21 to 18 years old for vaping, allow youth-appealing flavors other than plain tobacco and menthol, and allow online sales as well as advertising?
In a Jan. 12 story in The New York Times titled “That Cloud of Smoke Is Not a Mirage,” by John Ortved, the author noted that “cigarettes, once shunned, have made a comeback with a younger crowd who knows better.” He wrote that “across New York City, as the pandemic waxes and wanes, a social activity that had seemed diminished, or replaced (with vapes, cannabis and education), seems to have reappeared.”
Quoting Isabel Rower, a 24-year-old sculptor, he wrote, “Smoking is back… Weirdly, in the last year or two, all my friends who didn’t smoke, now smoke. I don’t know why. No one is really addicted to it. It’s more of a pleasure activity.” He also quoted Kat Frey, a 25-year-old copywriter who lives in Brooklyn, as saying, “We’re having a very sexy and ethereal 1980s revival, and smoking is part of that… A lot of people I know are posting pictures doing it. I’m doing it. It’s having its moment for sure.”
But Ortved also cited research by David Hammond, a professor of public health at the University of Waterloo, who noted that cigarette smoking has actually been on a steady decline among adults in the United States for 30 years. However, overall nicotine use has gone up because of vaping. Moreover, in 2020, for the first time in two decades, cigarette sales have increased.
The author also quoted Dr. Nigar Nargis, the scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society, as saying “that there was evidence of ‘a higher level of smoking’.” “It’s probably not just young people, but there are higher sales, which indicates higher consumption,” Dr. Nargis said. And this brings us to the question of whether vaping is, indeed, an effective tool to help smokers quit, or just the tobacco industry’s attempt to get new generations addicted to nicotine.
Ortved cited Ken Warner, an emeritus dean of public health at the University of Michigan, who believed that vaping was “a powerful weapon in public health’s war on smoking.” And this appears to find a basis in data. Ortved wrote that in 2019, the CDC reported that cigarette smoking among American adults had hit an all-time low, of 13.7%, in 2018. He also cited a Gallup poll that reported that 17% of Americans ages 18 to 29 vape, as CDC reported that only 8% of Americans ages 18 to 24 smoke.
Ortved added that Monitoring the Future, a pre-eminent study on youth smoking since 1975, reported that in 2020, the study recorded the first uptick in smoking in years. But by mid-December 2021, the group also released its newest findings that cigarette use was actually down in every school grade in the United States.
So, in this sense, the pro-vapers in the US may yet be right in pushing for vaping as an alternative to cigarette smoking. And despite the seeming resurgence of smoking of late, the overall picture is that cigarette smoking is on the decline in the United States. And vaping, without doubt, has taken hold among the American youth.
But locally, what are our guarantees that the vaping bill, as drafted, will actually encourage smokers to shift to a “healthier” alternative? Or, will we just end up growing rather than reducing the population that either smokes or vapes or both? After all, offering an alternative, without enticing a shift through incentives, may be for naught.
I guess only time will tell if Congress acted wisely in crafting the vaping bill as it did.
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
