Together with his colleagues Alex Wodak and Wayne Hall, Dr. Mendelsohn discusses the current regulatory approach in Australia from a medical standpoint in their latest article published in the Drug and Alcohol Review journal. In “How Nicotine Vaping Should Be Regulated in Australia,” the authors argue that the current policy has inadvertently fueled a thriving black market, leaving children and adults exposed to the risks of unregulated vaping products. They propose a rigorously regulated consumption model that ensures age verification and aligns Australia with Western nations, demonstrating commendable practices and promising outcomes.

Amid growing concerns and contrary to its initial objectives, the medical prescription model for vaping adopted in Australia has left adult smokers in the dark. In our conversation, Dr. Mendelsohn addresses the need for a regulatory balance that meets exemplary international standards while protecting public health interests.

This revealing interview highlights the urgency of a paradigm shift in both mindset and political practice as governments worldwide grapple with the complex interplay of discourses and narratives around the risks and benefits of nicotine vaping. This is especially pertinent in a global context where smoking remains a formidable adversary, with a staggering 1.3 billion users, and causes 8 million deaths annually.

Your recent study suggests that nicotine vaping products should be sold without prescription in Australia. Could you explain the key findings of your research that led you to this conclusion?

Australia is the only country in the world that requires vapers to have a medical prescription to possess and use nicotine. The regulations were intended to prevent vaping among youth and allow access for adult smokers as a quitting aid. However, after 18 months, they have clearly achieved neither of these objectives. Consumers and prescribing doctors themselves have rejected the prescription model. As anticipated, this has created a thriving black market selling illegal and unregulated vaping products to both youth and adults.

You mentioned that the current prescription model has been rejected by doctors and consumers, leading to a thriving illicit market. Can you provide examples or case studies that illustrate the extent of this issue in Australia?

It’s difficult to find a doctor who will prescribe nicotine in Australia. Less than 1% of general practitioners are publicly registered as nicotine prescribers. Additionally, doctors are skeptical about vaping. They are constantly exposed to negative advice from the government, health organizations, and mainstream media. Moreover, only a handful of Australian community and online pharmacies dispense nicotine liquids.

It’s no wonder that only 8% of vapers have a nicotine prescription. It’s much easier to buy deadly cigarettes. Most vapers purchase their devices on the black market, which sells unregulated products to both adults and children. The uptake by youth is generating significant concern in the community, fueled by sensationalist reports in the media.

In your opinion, what are the most significant challenges lawmakers face in trying to find an optimal balance between making vaporizers accessible to adult smokers and restricting access to minors?

Vaping should be readily accessible to adult smokers. Period. Nicotine vaping is a lifesaver for many smokers. Those who switch experience dramatic improvements in their health and quality of life. The main challenge for policymakers is restricting access to young non-smokers. Vaping products should only be sold in licensed retail establishments where reliable age verification is available, such as vape shops and outlets where tobacco is sold.

Vaping products should not be especially appealing to youth. Flavor names should have generic descriptions, e.g., “caramel.” Packaging should not include colors, images, and language targeted at children and appealing to youth. Public education should present vaping as a quitting tool targeted at adult smokers. A clear message should be conveyed that vaping is not for youth or non-smokers.

How do you envision the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and organized civil society in regulating nicotine vaping products as consumer goods?

In Australia, nicotine vaporizers are regulated as medicines by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the drug regulatory agency. However, nicotine vaporizers are consumer products designed to replace another consumer product, deadly combustible cigarettes. It’s more appropriate for them to be regulated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which regulates consumer goods and can provide good protection for users. The ACCC would be responsible for setting and enforcing comprehensive standards for vaping liquids, packaging, labeling, health warnings, and advertising. It would also establish a pre-market notification system for nicotine liquids and a post-market surveillance system to report adverse events and defective products.

Your study suggests that nicotine liquids should be sold in specialized vape shops, pharmacies, and general retail stores. How do you propose these retailers obtain licenses and be supervised to ensure compliance with regulations?

All retailers would need a license to sell nicotine liquids, just as is required for cigarettes. The state Health Departments would organize licensing. Strict age verification at the point of purchase would be required, with severe penalties and license revocation for sales to minors. Mandatory CCTV recording of sales could be considered as a condition for obtaining a sales license. Retailers would pay an annual license fee, submit annual reports, and be subject to compliance checks. Under this model, the black market would become less profitable, and illicit sales would decrease over time. A legal and regulated market would largely replace it, providing safety for consumers.

Can you discuss the possible negative consequences of well-intentioned but harsh measures to discourage vaping among youth, such as flavor bans and tax increases?

Poor policy formulation can have unintended and negative consequences in vaping regulations. For example, flavor bans aimed at reducing vaping among youth have often been counterproductive. We know that a ban on flavored tobacco and vaping products in San Francisco in 2020 resulted in more than a doubling in cigarette smoking among high school students. Among adults, vaping decreased, and tobacco smoking increased.

Raising taxes on vaping products has led to an increase in tobacco use among minors, young adults, and adults. Efforts to reduce youth vaping through legal age restrictions have paradoxically led to an increase in tobacco use among this age group. Bans and strict regulations push drugs into the black market and often cause greater harm. The prohibition of vaping in various jurisdictions has led to continued use, an increase in cigarette sales, and a shift towards illegal markets and more sales to youth.

You recommend updating Australia’s vaping standards to ensure only safe and high-quality products are available. What improvements would you like to see in the current TGO 110 standards?

The current TGO 110 standards are rudimentary and need to be updated. Other international standards, such as the European Union’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), are much more detailed and comprehensive.

Minimum standards for the manufacture and safety of vaping liquids and devices are required. These should include electrical, thermal, mechanical, and chemical safety, standardized testing regimes, purity standards for ingredients, a comprehensive list of prohibited ingredients, dose limits for problematic ingredients, laboratory testing, and possibly emissions testing. Reasonable limits for nicotine are 20 mg/ml for freebase nicotine and 50 mg/ml for nicotine salts (as in New Zealand).

In your proposal, you mention the importance of public communication and targeted advertising to communicate the relative risks of vaping. How would you ensure these messages are accurate, effective, and not appealing to minors?

Public messages should communicate the absolute and relative harms of nicotine vaping compared to smoking and present vaping as a less harmful alternative for adult smokers. Messages aimed at youth should emphasize that no nicotine-containing product is completely safe to use. They should inform young people that vaping can lead to addiction and that they should never start using any tobacco or nicotine products. All messages must be accurate and avoid exaggerating risks.

Restricted and responsible advertising with a “switch” message could be used to target smokers who cannot or do not wish to quit entirely. However, any advertising that could appeal to youth, such as lifestyle ads associating vaping with positive imagery and adventures, should be prohibited. Advertising should be placed and scheduled to minimize exposure to underage youth.

What kind of system would you propose for reporting adverse effects and withdrawing unsafe products in a regulated vaping market?

As with other consumer products, a post-market reporting system is needed to report any adverse effects after products enter the market. This would also allow for the withdrawal of unsafe products. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would be the most suitable agency.

Can you provide examples of similar regulatory models successfully implemented in other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada?

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada have adult consumer models similar to what we recommend for Australia, but slight differences exist.

In the UK and Canada, the nicotine limit is 20 mg/ml, and currently, there is no maximum limit in the United States. In New Zealand, the limit is 20 mg/ml for freebase nicotine and 50 mg/ml for nicotine salts. The minimum sale age is 21 in the United States and 18 in the other countries. Advertising is not regulated in the United States but is restricted to varying degrees in other countries. The UK has a limit of 10 ml for nicotine liquids and 2 ml for tanks or cartridges. New Zealand has a maximum bottle size of 120 ml.

The tax rate is 15% in New Zealand, 20% in the UK, and around 30% in Canada. Taxes vary by state in the United States. New Zealand and the UK have a pre-market notification system. Manufacturers notify the regulator of compliance before marketing. The United States has a pre-market authorization system requiring regulatory approval of each product before marketing.

In the long term, how do you foresee a carefully regulated consumption model for vaping affecting tobacco-related death and disease in Australia?

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Australia. Many smokers cannot quit smoking despite repeated attempts. Two out of three continuous smokers will die prematurely due to smoking.

If smokers had better access to vaping devices, more people would quit smoking, with significant improvements in public health. A modeling study in Australia estimated substantial public health benefits if vaping were made more widely available.

How do you propose to address potential opposition or concerns from public health organizations and advocacy groups that might argue that more accessible vaping products could lead to an increase in nicotine addiction or dependency and potential health risks?

We must remember that vaping is not risk-free, but it is much safer and less addictive than smoking. For smokers who transition, there are substantial health improvements. Any risks associated with vaping must always be compared to the alternative, which is continuing to smoke. While evidence increasingly supports vaping, these counter-arguments are often raised to hide underlying political, ideological, or particular interests.

What measures would you recommend to ensure that nicotine vaping products do not disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations?

Actually, there’s a strong argument for targeting marginalized and disadvantaged groups with vaping. These populations have high smoking rates and low cessation rates with conventional treatments. There’s growing evidence that vaping could be particularly beneficial here and help reduce health and financial inequalities.

How would the proposed regulations on vaping products affect the tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) industries in Australia? Do you anticipate any resistance from these sectors, and how would you address it?

Vaping is a substitute for smoking. We’ve seen in other countries that as vaping rates increase, cigarette sales decrease. Similarly, vaping is the most popular method for quitting smoking in Western countries and has led to a decrease in sales of NRT products.

Big pharmaceutical companies oppose vaping because it poses a threat to the sale of their products. Big tobacco companies are slowly transitioning towards safer nicotine alternatives, such as vaping products, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, which is a positive move.

In your study, you mention risk-proportional taxes, similar to those on nicotine gums and patches. How do you propose determining the appropriate tax levels for various vaping products to ensure they remain accessible to adult smokers looking to quit?

Tobacco taxes are high to discourage the use of deadly combustible cigarettes. However, vaping is a vital, tobacco-free, and combustion-free quitting tool, and its cost should be kept as low as possible. The Royal College of Physicians in the UK recommends a tax of 5% of the tobacco tax, that is, proportional to the relative risk of vaping compared to smoking.

Tobacco use is increasingly concentrated among disadvantaged and low-income populations, so lower prices could be a powerful incentive to switch to the safer alternative. The lower the price of vaping products, the more likely it is that more people will transition.

How can the government monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed regulations to reduce tobacco-related death and disease and minimize youth vaping over time?

The government should monitor compliance with age-of-sale laws and compliance with standards and regulations in vaping products. Regular surveys on smoking and vaping rates would monitor the success of the regulations. We would expect to see an increase in vaping rates as smoking decreases.

How would you address concerns that increasing access to vaping products might renormalize smoking behavior or create a perception that vaping is an alternative to tobacco for everyone, not just for smokers looking to quit?

The main indicator of renormalization would be the stabilization or increase in smoking rates. In fact, the opposite is happening. Smoking rates have decreased more rapidly in the UK, the US, and New Zealand since vaping became widely available.

According to Public Health England, I quote, “There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are undermining the long-term decline in cigarette consumption among adults and young people, and in fact, they may be contributing to it.”

Vaping is largely limited to smokers and ex-smokers. Use by adults who have never smoked is rare. Vaping must be positioned as a smoking cessation aid for adult smokers, I repeat. However, it can also play a role for non-smokers who might otherwise start smoking.

What strategies would you recommend for educating the public, especially minors, about the relative risks and harms of vaping without inadvertently promoting its use?

The key message here is that vaping is a smoking cessation aid for adult smokers and is not recommended for non-smokers, especially the youth. It should be emphasized that vaping is not risk-free and poses potential dangers to non-smokers. However, the message should be clear for smokers: it is a much, much safer alternative to smoking. Vaping users should only attempt to quit vaping when they are confident they will not relapse into smoking.

As vaping technology and products evolve, how do you imagine the regulatory landscape will adapt to these changes to ensure public health and safety are maintained?

I believe vaping products will become safer and more effective over time. Any harmful substances identified can be removed, and improvements in technology will result in more sophisticated and safer products. However, ongoing monitoring and research will be needed to identify potential health issues and minimize risks as much as possible. Standards must be updated regularly as new information becomes available and new risks emerge.

Considering all the challenges and considerations discussed, what would be your key recommendations for Australian lawmakers in the future to ensure effective regulation of nicotine vaping products? And, finally, what are your thoughts on the potential long-term impact of these proposed changes on public health, the vaping industry, and society in Australia?

Policymakers in Australia must find a balance between allowing easy access to nicotine vaping devices for adult smokers and restricting access to the youth. Concerns about vaping among the young are legitimate, and strict measures should be taken to minimize their use by them, especially non-smokers.

However, the risks of vaping among the youth are relatively minor compared to the enormous potential benefits for their parents and grandparents who have quit smoking through vaping. We should not let exaggerated concerns about youth vaping undermine the potential of vaping to help adult smokers quit. If we find the right balance, there are huge potential benefits for public health and society at large by finally eliminating the scourge of smoking.

Mendelsohn C, Wodak A, Hall W. How should nicotine vaping be regulated in Australia? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2023 Apr 18. doi: 10.1111/dar.13663. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37071577.

More information about the book Stop Smoking Start Vaping at www.colinmendelsohn.com.au/book. The book and the eBook are available on Amazon and other online stores.

This interview was conducted in May 2023.

In a global study conducted in 2019, 62 percent of respondents felt that there was a large amount of fake news on websites and online platforms. And it is easy to perceive that they are right.

There are more than 1 billion smokers worldwide, and eight million preventable deaths from tobacco use each year. In this context, many of the most critical social actors who could promote change towards a smoke-free world, such as politicians, government agents, doctors, lawyers, journalists, and those responsible for various health organizations, continue to deny the empirical evidence. And scientific. They continue to avoid dialogue and cooperate with the spread of misinformation to which we are subjected every day.

To understand this, we spoke with Jena Fetalino about tobacco harm reduction (THR) information. Fetalino is a respected public relations consultant based in Parañaque, Philippines.

She has worked in the publishing world for two decades. As president of Mosman NewMedia, she received recognition for the health professional publication The Medical Observer. In 2002, she beat out magazines such as TIME and Newsweek in the category of Best Cover from the Society of Publishers in Asia Award. In 2014, she was named Executive of the Year in the Business Services category at the Stevie Awards for Women Entrepreneurs in New York.

~ Disinformation, misinformation, and fake news try to circulate erroneous, inaccurate, and incomplete information, almost always undermining the veracity and credibility of the journalistic format. Is there a conceptual and impact distinction between these modalities?

Jena Fetalino: Discerning the truth has become more challenging in the Internet age because almost everyone has an opinion on every issue. Social media enable users to express and share their views—whether they are true, half-true, or untrue. Unfortunately, what is true to some may not be to others. A coin has two sides, after all.

How can we then determine if the information is accurate? I think it is time to revisit journalism’s basic tenets— accuracy, objectivity, and fairness. The journalism profession has established some rules for objectivity. For centuries, this is how journalists have delivered the news. Sadly, many newspapers have folded up and been replaced by bloggers and influencers who have yet to learn the principle of objectivity—presenting all sides to a story and letting facts speak for themselves.

Facts are natural occurrences that are best verified by scientific evidence. Facts are what remain after you strip information of opinion, bias, emotion, ideology, morality, or intent. In the legal field, intent or malice is what distinguishes murder from homicide. In the same way, intent can slay the truth and can exacerbate the lies.

And the enemy of truth is misinformation and disinformation. While both refer to inaccurate information, one is more deliberate than the other.

I put it this way: Misinformation occurs when someone tells a rumor casually, while disinformation occurs when someone repeatedly spreads a lie intentionally to discredit someone or something. In other words, intent is what separates disinformation from misinformation.

A misinformed individual, however, is equally guilty as the bearer of disinformation for spreading lies. The legal doctrine «Ignorance of the law excuses no one» is also applicable in this case.

Fake news can be either a product of misinformation or disinformation in the news format, which quickly spreads through social media because of its attention-grabbing headlines. Fake news can take many forms—it can be false or inaccurate, invented, half-baked, stretched, outdated, bereft of evidence, wrongfully interpreted, or simply unscientific.

The impact of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news can be devastating to a person or an entire society, especially if it involves public health, such as the demonization of tobacco harm reduction.

~ Is there a way to defend, counter-attack, and eliminate them?

Jena Fetalino: Eliminating misinformation, disinformation, and fake news won’t be possible as long as there are people who foster them. Freedom of information is a human right in democratic nations, after all.

The best way to address them is not only to defend or counterattack but also to present factual information more often and more aggressively than the opposite sides present theirs so that we can gain more allies, supporters, and believers.

This is now a war of information—in traditional media, Twitter, Facebook and other media. And it may take time to win the war.

For many centuries, people had believed the world was flat, no matter what Greek mathematicians, early geographers, and navigators said. It was only in 1959 when the first image of the round Earth came out that most people knew what a planet looked like. A picture was solid evidence in this case.

I believe that science has its own way of showing the truth. If THR products are really less harmful than combustible cigarettes, more and more scientific evidence will come out to support it in such a way that this can no longer be denied. Our role is to make sure the evidence is clearly and accurately disseminated to the public.

~ Tobacco Control Advocates, Science Deniers, Prohibitionist Ideologues, National Health Agency Bureaucrats, and Funding Billionaires. Who Are the Major Players Against Smoke-Free and Low-Risk Nicotine Products? Are the enemies of truth in the universe of harm reduction from smoking?

Jena Fetalino: You are right in saying that a broad range of critics opposes THR, from pro-tobacco to anti-tobacco. Why is that?

This is because, like other disruptive technologies, THR has threatened the traditional tobacco industry and offended the ideology of anti-tobacco industries.

We would not go to the extent of questioning the intention of prohibitionists, moralists, anti-tobacco groups, public health officials, healthcare professionals, and politicians who may also truly want to save smokers from the dangers of smoking. While their intention might be laudable, their opposition to THR products could do more harm than good because it would deprive smokers of the most effective means to quit smoking.

Sadly, they are so opposed to THR products that they perpetuate lies and misinformation against THR and distrust the research produced by experts in the field.

Instead of producing research to find out the truth, they conduct studies to support their prejudgment. In other words, they are not being objective.

~ Could it be said that their motivations are moral, ideological, economic, or an assemblage of motives? What are their goals?

Jena Fetalino: Their motivations also vary, from moral to opportunistic. Tobacco companies want to discredit the innovative products to perpetuate the existence of the traditional industry. At the same time, anti-tobacco groups oppose anything that has to do with nicotine, which is the wrong target based on various scientific studies. It is the smoke, and not the nicotine, that is responsible for diseases, according to these studies.

Some smokers also discredit THR products because they simply don’t want to quit and switch to other options.

Prohibitionists and moralists, on the other hand, will always oppose things that they don’t like or understand. Sadly, the quit-or-die approach proved ineffective among millions of smokers.

Meanwhile, there are well-funded groups that spread not only misinformation but also disinformation to malign and demonize THR products. These groups push for a ban on THR products while refusing to endorse similar restrictions on combustible cigarettes.

Finally, there are highly cautious health authorities, led by the World Health Organization (WHO), that wait for more years of evidence before acknowledging the substantial scientific evidence presented in favour of THR products. Unfortunately, the regulators’ indecision results in 8 million deaths among smokers each year.

~ From the demonization of nicotine, popcorn lungs, and EVALI (outbreak of lung disease related to marijuana vaping from illegal markets) to the allegation that vaping is a risk factor for COVID-19. How to face so much misinformation, half-truths, and false news and bring the truth on all those issues?

Jena Fetalino: As mentioned above, various groups are out to circumvent or stretch the truth about THR.

Amid all the confusion caused by misinformation, disinformation, and fake news, we need more people who genuinely believe in THR to speak up about the unvarnished, ungarnished truth.

Exposing the unvarnished, ungarnished truth means entirely relying on scientific evidence to do the talking. Sometimes, we get so emotional or affected that we forget to cite the basic facts—what the evidence shows.

In Journalism parlance, there is a saying about letting the numbers speak for themselves. This means avoiding descriptive language such as «few» or «many» and replacing them with real numbers like «2» or «100».

This is why, in the case of THR, we continue to cite studies showing that e-cigarettes are at least 95 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes. That is precise messaging that hopefully most people will understand.

~ How could such a technically complex and empowered body as the World Health Organization act to combat misinformation? And what would be the reason for this inaction?

Jena Fetalino: The WHO has been heavily criticized for declaring the COVID-19 pandemic too late, in January 2020. It also took some time before the WHO endorsed the use of face masks as a shield against the virus.

With a tarnished reputation, the WHO attempted to rectify its shortcomings by issuing more assertive statements in the subsequent months.

While the smoking epidemic is not as critical as the coronavirus pandemic at this point, it could be as lethal because of the 8 million people who die each year of smoking-related illnesses.

As I have said before, the WHO is being highly cautious or calculating in terms of making a definitive stance on THR products. Sadly, its obstinate refusal to acknowledge THR as an effective health strategy gives way to a lot of lies to spread even among the healthcare community.

In some cases, the WHO was the source of misinformation, followed in black and white by some countries.

This is why we must continue to cite the results of studies on THR published in peer-reviewed journals as our best tool to debunk misinformation and urge the WHO to explain why it refuses to acknowledge THR in the face of undeniable evidence.

~ What could you tell us about the role of disinformation and fake news in the BREXIT process? And, in that sense, in your opinion, what are the impacts and what could be the consequences in the short and medium-term of Brexit on the policies of THR in the European Union and the rest of the world?

Jena Fetalino: Unfortunately, I would love to be enlightened more about the Brexit issue, as I live in the Philippines.

What I know is that the UK has the most advanced regulations on THR products, particularly e-cigarettes. Many of the studies, policies, regulations, and information on THR originated from the UK. Its well-informed society has led to a broad public acceptance of vaping, which subsequently resulted in a decline in the smoking rate.

As part of the European Union, the UK implements various EU measures, such as the Tobacco Products Directive and the Tobacco Advertising Directive. In case the UK withdraws from the EU, such law will no longer apply to the UK.

Aside from regulation, Brexit is also expected to affect the trade and distribution of e-liquids between the UK and the EU.

I believe that while there might be changes in UK policies and regulations on vaping in the case of Brexit, the UK is expected to remain the model country for THR regulation in the years to come, as no other country currently matches its progressive health policy.

The interview took place on April 8, 2021.

Presenting complex issues related to the political, social, and anthropological universe of legal and illegal drugs objectively, sensibly, and sensitively, Filter has gained respect and admiration among the public and her peers.

With an approach that combines depth and pop didactics, always grounded in human rights, Filter can be perceived as 'purifying’ and bringing to light and maturity issues that are often marginalized in the press. This direction has much to do with the paradigms and personal qualities of its editor, Will Godfrey, who spoke with us and shared the entire story.

~ Filter magazine transits virtuously between humanitarian activism and the practice of excellent opinion journalism. Tell us a little bit about the magazine’s origins and trajectory until today. What is Filter’s story?

WG: Filter evolved from some past harm reduction-oriented publications that I founded and ran, but which were owned by interests in the abstinence-based addiction treatment industry, creating natural conflicts. A group of us decided that a nonprofit model would better fit a mission-driven publication, so we formed The Influence Foundation in 2017. Its mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights.

The Influence Foundation began fundraising and then launched Filter in September 2018. Since then, we’ve published a diverse body of work, and been positively received in the harm reduction community and well beyond. We’ve seen both our readership and our recognition in other media grow rapidly, and I’m proud of our impact so far. But this is only the beginning.

~ The magazine’s sections are divided into an exciting number of categories, which gives the reader an idea of complementarity, of sum, of subjects that cannot be understood in isolation. How did structuring the magazine with this multidisciplinary focus come about? And how does content selection work?

WG: Our core subject is drugs, but drug issues never occur in a vacuum. It is impossible to cover drug policy meaningfully, for example, without also centering areas like incarceration, racism and inequality, housing, policing, mental health and much more. Similarly, the marginalized population groups who suffer the worst impacts of hostile, targeted drug policies and related abuses have to be at the forefront of our coverage.

So we’re always willing to step away from drugs to cover intersecting areas. At the same time, we’ll stay anchored in drugs to maintain the specialization and harm reduction sensibility that make our publication unique. Although many harms are associated with drugs, most of them derive from the contexts of use inflicted by societal stigma and punitive policies. Most people who use drugs do so without experiencing problems, and much drug use is beneficial. We refuse to be part of the knee-jerk negativity about drugs that’s still pervasive in media and political circles.

~ How is the Filter’s relationship with the authors? It is noticed that there are always new authors, and many publish with some frequency. How does this dynamic work? Are the themes proposed by the authors themselves or commissioned by the magazine?

WG: I love working with our writers, who have a wide variety of personalities, interests and firmly held opinions! They range from directly impacted people who have never written for an audience before but have powerful personal stories to tell, to advocates, researchers, clinicians, or other experts who can share their knowledge and perspectives, to investigative reporters whose work shines light on our subjects and platforms other important voices. That’s the kind of mix we want, although we’re constantly seeking to expand and diversify our contributor list. Different people require different levels of editing, but I always work as collaboratively as I can within our time constraints. Above all, I’m grateful to everyone who writes for us.

Idea-generation happens organically and flexibly. Writers frequently come to us with their ideas, which we often help them to develop or adapt. We regularly generate ideas in-house, too, which we might assign to others or take on ourselves. So it’s a two-way street. I think we can come up with a much better, more representative range of stories by listening to hundreds of allies and contributors than we can by trying to generate all of our ideas internally.

~ Who is Filter’s readership? And what links are established with this public or with the community?

WG: English-speaking countries are overrepresented in our readership, which is why we’re delighted when publications like yours translate our work and republish it for new audiences. Approximately 75 percent of our current readership is based in the US, although we hope that several international projects and connections will broaden our reach.

We consider ourselves part of the harm reduction movement to which many of our readers belong. It’s a close-knit community, and many of our stories are generated in partnership with advocacy organizations and our other allies. I love it when our articles prompt productive debates, change people’s minds, or are cited in “real-life” scenarios from court briefs to policy platforms.

~ We know the enormous challenge of achieving the sustainability of an independent journalistic project, especially one that deals with complex and practically outsider topics of the traditional media. In recent years, we have seen several newspapers and magazines gain popularity among readers. Has the reading public contributed to the project? How has Filter managed to support itself?

WG: People contribute to Filter just by reading it, and all the more so by publicly sharing and discussing our work. Financially, too, we have received an increasing number of generous donations from our readers.

The bulk of our funding comes from grants from both nonprofit human rights foundations and for-profit companies. We’ve always been transparent that these include both vaping and tobacco companies. To some, that invalidates our work. Most, I hope, will judge us on the merits of what we publish. Our organization has editorial independence and donor transparency policies, and if I ever believed that an article didn’t make a legitimate case or was commercially motivated, I wouldn’t publish it.

~ How do you perceive the circulation of information on harm reduction in general and concerning smoking in particular in your country? Have we made any progress in recent years? Do we have the same problems and challenges? Or are we in a different scenario?

WG: In the US, where I’ve lived for the past 10 years, I’ve seen a real mixture of significant progress and stubborn obstacles. The US is the most incarcerated nation on earth and the primary driver of the global drug war. Those injustices will take a huge amount of work to heal. The recent presidential election result and specific drug policy reform wins will move the dial favorably, but at the same time, nowhere near far enough. Luckily, the US is also home to vibrant, growing movements for change that have achieved, and can achieve, great things.

In England, where I’m from, harm reduction sometimes enjoys a better landscape, and abstinence-only attitudes are less entrenched—the UK’s vaping policies, in particular, are among the world’s best. But we have many problems all the same, with drug prohibition and other abuses ongoing.

“SOME PEOPLE ARE SWITCHING FROM VAPING TO SMOKING DUE TO DISTORTIONS FROM PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS.»

~ 2019 was the year of a false vaping epidemic, with the disastrous distribution to the world of all the false information that the numerous cases of severe lung injury (EVALI) that led many consumers to hospital admission and even death were related to electronic cigarettes or nicotine consumption. How have you experienced this situation within the US, and how do you see the role of the CDC and FDA today?

WG: EVALI was a public messaging disaster—or perhaps a success, per the intentions of those responsible. A lot of people and organizations are just waiting to attack vaping at any opportunity—we saw it again more recently, with the unsubstantiated assumptions that vaping was a risk factor for COVID-19.

It’s unconscionable when smoking kills millions every year worldwide and when vaping has the potential to save more lives than any other harm reduction intervention. Some people are switching from vaping back to smoking because of the distortions of public health authorities and others.

One thing I notice is that when I mention my work to people I meet, not harm reductionists, just people I encounter in my general life, they tend to be enthusiastic about drug policy reform and other issues we cover. But the attitude tends to change if I bring up vaping. Isn’t that really bad? The kids are all doing that now. That’s one anecdotal reflection of the power of anti-vaping messaging in the US.

And of course, the people who are dying of smoking-related causes—almost half a million a year in the US, disproportionately of marginalized, low-income backgrounds—don’t get platformed and are completely abandoned by the disingenuous teen-vaping-epidemic narrative.

~ What are the projects for Filter in the future? How do you see the development of the magazine?

WG: Right now, we’re mainly trying to continue and accelerate our early growth, in terms of readership, impact, standards, and the number and breadth of articles we publish. We’re just now expanding our small in-house team to try to do that. We also hope to engage increasingly with in-depth projects, in-person advocacy and multimedia projects like video production. We seek to be a harm reduction hub, supporting the movement and helping it to grow.

~ Who is Will Godfrey?

WG: I’m someone who’s lucky to do work that I care deeply about. I’m a parent juggling school closures and other challenges, like so many others during the pandemic. I’m an immigrant who misses the people back home I haven’t been able to see this year. My emotions depend more on the fortunes of Tottenham Hotspur than is healthy.

~ Do you vape? What are you vaping now?

WG: I don’t — I hope that isn’t disqualifying! I have done in the past.

The interview was carried out on April 6, 2021.
Follow Filter on Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to their Newsletter.

Dr. Ehsan Latif, a key architect of Pakistan’s National Health Policy, has built a distinguished career serving on the boards of various public health organizations and international coalitions dedicated to lung health and tobacco control.

His work has been closely aligned with the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tob…

Read more

Hailing from the colorful and vibrant city of Corrientes—a place marked by the scars of tobacco use on both the body and society—Mara has evolved into a prominent activist and entrepreneur in a cause that many prefer to avoid: harm reduction associated with tobacco consumption and the pressing need to educate and inform.

As the CEO of Buddha Vape Corrientes and an independent consultant, she has dedicated her career to promoting safe and responsible practices in an industry that is predominantly male and as controversial as it is essential in the fight for public health. However, her work goes beyond her roles as an activist and entrepreneur.

Mara has been selected by the prestigious KAC’s THR Scholarship program, a global recognition aimed at training future leaders in tobacco harm reduction.

Through her “Reliable Store Manual” project, she has taken on the mission of raising awareness among vape shop retailers and advisors about their crucial role in their customers’ health and trust.

With the support of medical experts and sociologists, she is developing a manual that aims to ensure product quality and user safety and incorporates sustainable practices and responsible waste management.

Moreover, her vision extends beyond Argentina’s borders; she aspires to establish quality standards that vape shops worldwide can adopt.

In this interview, we explore her motivations, the challenges she anticipates, and her vision for the future of an industry that, from her perspective, has the potential to transform the relationship between commerce and public health.

~ You’ve been deeply involved in the vaping industry in Argentina, both as a user and a consultant. What initially attracted you to this field, and how has the direction you’ve taken in your career shaped your personal and professional trajectory?

MM – My journey into vaping started with a direct recommendation from my primary care physician, who also became a pivotal mentor in my life. I owe him countless hours of selfless education, which allowed me to have a successful and enjoyable experience.

I was a heavy smoker with multiple failed attempts to quit tobacco. Moreover, I belonged to a community entirely unaware of this harm-reduction tool.

Like any unknown method, vaping initially stirred a mix of emotions in me: intrigue, fear, and skepticism, especially since the WHO itself questioned its effectiveness.

However, a crucial factor rarely mentioned… my daughter’s right, then very young, to live in a safe and healthy home and have a mother in good health.

This motivated me to try it, especially because the information came from a trusted person who cared about my health—a dedicated professional.

Realizing the potential and effectiveness of vaping in helping people quit smoking, I decided to become more involved in the community, sharing my experiences and knowledge.

This involvement led me to take on an empathetic role with other users like myself who had tried to quit smoking with many methods but without success. I learned the importance of advising others on the best practices and products.

Working in this field has shaped my career, guiding me toward a blend of education and activism.

I’ve focused on promoting awareness, safety, and informed use of vaping while also trying to advocate, in my modest capacity, for regulations that protect both consumers and responsible manufacturers—something that, unfortunately, has yet to be achieved in Argentina.

~ As the CEO of Buddha Vape Corrientes and an independent activist, how do you balance the commercial challenges of running a business with your strong commitment to tobacco harm reduction (THR) and the well-being of users?

MM – From the outset, I committed to ensuring that Buddha operates responsibly. I understand that balance is achieved by maintaining a focus on ethics, education, the individual needs of each user, and adaptability while prioritizing the mission of harm reduction.

This approach has allowed Buddha to be more than just a place to buy products; it’s also a space where information, support, and proper guidance are provided to ensure that the chosen method is used correctly.

Additionally, we raise awareness even among those who don’t need vaping, recognizing that historically, any prohibition tends to spark a challenging interest, and prohibitionist methods have never been successful.

~ Your project focuses on creating a “Reliable Store Manual” to raise awareness among retailers and advisors about their responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of products. Could you elaborate on the challenges you foresee in implementing these guidelines in stores with different levels of knowledge and contextual realities?

Vape shop advisors can have varying levels of knowledge about vaping, harm reduction, and current regulations. Some may be experts, while others could be new to the industry.

Unfortunately, this often leads to users having poor experiences or making choices unsuitable for their needs.

Implementing new guidelines might meet with resistance, especially if advisors are unaware that they are working directly with users’ health and psychological well-being.

It’s disheartening that the lack of proper regulation allows advisors without the necessary knowledge to harm consumers directly.

Changing established practices requires effort and persuasion. A proactive, flexible, and collaborative approach can overcome these significant challenges.

The ultimate goal is for all stores to offer safe and quality products while promoting proper harm-reduction practices, which will benefit both businesses and users.

~ One of the goals of your project is the challenge of establishing a network of reliable stores that adhere to safety standards. How do you plan to implement and ensure compliance with these standards, especially in regions with varying levels of regulation and oversight?

Yes, establishing a network of reliable stores that meet safety standards in the vaping industry is indeed a significant challenge, especially as we are part of an industry that has historically been neglected and left to self-regulate, mainly with the help of scientists dedicated to public education.

Without clear legislative regulations, this requires a structured and adaptive approach, particularly given the varied regulatory contexts across different regions.

Thanks to the information provided by scientists, I’ve created a set of safety and quality standards that are clear, specific, and applicable to any vape shop, regardless of location.

These standards will cover aspects such as product authenticity, safe storage, staff training, and the information provided to users.

Regardless of each user’s level of knowledge, it is our duty as advisors to educate.

The goal is to unify this information in multiple languages to maintain consistency and establish an effective communication structure.

To this end, I will provide both printed and digital support materials to each store or industry entrepreneur who wishes to participate in the project.

~ Your project also emphasizes the importance of proper waste management and recycling. How do you plan to integrate these environmental practices in an effective and appealing way to store owners and consumers?

Integrating environmental practices like proper waste management and recycling into vape shops is essential to protect the environment and enhance business sustainability and consumer perception.

Projects aimed at recycling and creating a circular economy are currently ongoing, and I want to support those working in this area.

Integrating these practices can become a competitive differentiator, attracting environmentally conscious customers.

By combining education, incentives, and collaboration with the community, we can ensure that store owners and consumers feel motivated to participate actively in these initiatives.

~ You mention collaboration with sociologists and doctors, like Dr. Diego Verrastro, to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in your manual. How do you envision this interdisciplinary approach contributing to the effectiveness and impact of your project?

The combination of medical evidence with a deep understanding of social behavior can serve as a foundation for raising awareness about the advisor’s role and supporting future regulations that are effective and grounded in harm reduction.

Working with experts enables the implementation of more robust evaluation systems that consider both health outcomes and the social impacts of vaping.

Having doctors like Dr. Diego Verrastro collaborate ensures that the information related to health, harm reduction, and vaping usage is based on the latest evidence. This increases the credibility of the manual and guarantees that users receive safe and reliable information.

As you mentioned, this interdisciplinary approach enhances the quality of the manual’s content and ensures that the recommendations are practical, applicable, and tailored to the realities of the stores and their customers.

This increases the project’s effectiveness in its goal of creating a network of reliable and safe stores, significantly contributing to harm reduction in society.

~ Given the global scope of your project, what strategies do you plan to use to adapt your guidelines and practices to different cultural environments and regulatory frameworks?

As I mentioned, adapting a global project like creating a “Reliable Store Manual” for the vaping industry to different cultural environments and regulatory frameworks is a complex challenge, but not impossible.

I intend to develop communication strategies that resonate with the cultural sensitivities of each region.

This includes adapting language, images, and messages to be culturally appropriate and appealing.

It’s also crucial to be flexible in implementation, designing the manual with sections that can be customized or adapted according to each region’s specific needs.

This way, stores can maintain a global standard while complying with local nuances.

~ What metrics will you use to evaluate the success of your project? Could you share some specific indicators that will allow you to measure whether your goals, such as improving user health and implementing responsible practices, are being met?

One of the metrics to develop would be an open platform for both users and advisors.

This platform would generate evidence through user self-reports about improvements in their health and a reduction in the number of vaping-related incidents, such as a decrease in reports of adverse events (inadequate nicotine dosing, device failures, etc.).

Another key indicator would be the percentage of stores actively implementing and maintaining recycling programs for devices, cartridges, and batteries, as well as the number of stores that have joined the “Reliable Stores” network and maintained their certification over time.

Additionally, the number of employees who have completed training on responsible practices, safety, and harm reduction will be measured.

These indicators would provide reliable support for users and demonstrate the industry’s seriousness.

~ In the long term, how do you expect your project to influence the broader conversation on tobacco harm reduction and the role of vape shops in public health?

In the long term, I hope my project will significantly impact the global conversation on tobacco harm reduction by establishing a reference model for how vape shops can be key players in promoting public health.

My goal for this project is to drive the implementation of rigorous standards, responsible practices, and greater recognition of vape shops as safe spaces where users receive proper guidance and quality products that contribute to reducing health risks.

The project could establish a regulatory model and best practices that other regions or countries might adopt by creating and disseminating the “Manual” and certifying stores.

This model could undoubtedly serve as a foundation for regulatory frameworks, equipping both consumers and shop owners with the knowledge and tools necessary to make informed and conscious decisions about using harm-reduction products.

~ As vaping and tobacco harm reduction tools continue to be debated globally, what ethical considerations guide your work, particularly when it comes to promoting these products as safer alternatives to traditional tobacco?

Ethical considerations are fundamental in any work related to public health, especially in controversial fields such as vaping and tobacco harm reduction tools.

Being completely transparent about these devices’ benefits and true purpose as risk-reduction tools is crucial.

This means communicating clearly and accurately that while vaping may be significantly less harmful than combustible tobacco, it is not risk-free.

Therefore, providing balanced information in all educational materials and interactions with customers is essential, ensuring they understand the advantages and that it is not a healthy habit.

It is a tool intended for adult smokers who want to minimize the risks and harm to themselves and their surroundings.

All potential users should have equal access to accurate and evidence-based information about vaping, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location. Freedom of choice is a global right.

~ How do you respond to the concerns of critics who argue that promoting vaping could lead to unintended consequences, such as increased use among youth or the normalization of nicotine use?

It’s a complex and much-debated issue, but it’s crucial to implement and enforce strict regulations to prevent minors from accessing vaping products.

Just as with tobacco (which unfortunately isn’t always adequately controlled), laws must ensure that vaping is not accessible to youth.

In my view, the key lies in education about the risks and proper use of vaping products, and this should be a priority.

Ensuring that young people are well-informed about the potential risks of vaping can help prevent misuse.

Prohibitionist actions only foster misinformation, an uncontrolled market, and leave young people even more unprotected, underestimating their intelligence and awareness.

I suggest we look at it from another perspective.

We talk about protecting young people and our fear of normalizing nicotine use, but we overlook the fact that many young people and children live in homes with smokers, constantly exposed to health risks.

We don’t allow them to raise awareness among their peers and elders.

Providing information is not endorsing consumption; it’s akin to banning bakeries because childhood and adolescent obesity rates have quadrupled globally between 1990 and 2022.

Instead of banning, we should promote education and awareness of healthy habits.

Let’s respect the rights the WHO reminds us of, such as access to information, education, and a healthy and safe life. This also applies to their environment.

On September 19, Congress took a decisive step by approving bills n° 3412, 3732, 4178, and 4747, which introduce new restrictions on the sale and consumption of “nicotine products,” such as electronic cigarettes and their accessories, and “tobacco products,” including heated tobacco and traditional cigarettes.

These initiatives, reviewed and endorsed by the Health and Consumer Defense Commissions and later modified by the Economic Commission, aim to tighten regulations on access to these products, particularly concerning minors.

A World Health Organization survey revealed that, by 2019, 6% of Peruvian students between 13 and 15 years old had already used electronic cigarettes.

The recently approved reforms reflect the State’s commitment to reducing the growing accessibility of minors to these devices while also seeking to establish stricter control without compromising lower-risk alternatives for adults in a context where smoking remains a significant issue among the adult population.

According to data from the Ministry of Health, in 2019, the prevalence of smoking among adults was 11.8%, which equates to approximately 3.8 million smokers in the country.

Jorge Palma, president of ASOVAPE, expressed concerns about certain aspects of the legislation.

Although he acknowledges that it is a great first step in protecting public health, which is “the most important thing,” Palma warns that excessive restrictions could have counterproductive effects.

According to Palma, a strict ban could push consumers toward the black market, where unregulated products pose greater health risks.

“What we need is a balance between protecting minors and allowing regulated access for adults seeking a less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes,” he commented.

“We believe that there is still much to regulate, especially regarding product quality controls. Furthermore, in the aspects that are already being addressed, it is crucial to define them more precisely, clearly differentiating us from tobacco. This would make the law much more understandable and effective in its implementation.”

~ Jorge, from the perspective of the Peruvian Association of Vapers, what is your overall assessment of the recently approved bills in Congress regarding electronic cigarettes?

JP: This project is the only one approved in Congress for vaping. However, it encompasses several different bills, selecting the best from each to achieve proper and sensible regulation. An example is the ban on sales to and by minors. At the same time, it removed parts of other unreasonable proposals. It leaned toward excessive prohibition, such as banning all flavors or requiring products to be sold only in packs of 20 units.

~ One of the key points is the ban on the sale of vapes to minors. However, the bill does not include clear penalties for violating this provision. What is your opinion on this omission, and what impact do you think it will have on the effective enforcement of the law?

JP: No penalties have been established for now because several steps are still required for this project to become law. Among these steps is the creation of regulations, which will define the sanctions and their application more clearly.

~ How do you consider the balance between advertising restrictions and the need for adult smokers to access clear information about less harmful products, such as electronic cigarettes?

JP: From Asovape, we believe that providing information about vaping as a harm reduction method is one of the most critical points. People who cannot quit traditional cigarettes or do not want to stop consuming nicotine must be informed about the different methods that can help them. We hope that when the regulations are created, our voice as interested users will be heard and that an agreement will be reached to provide accurate information about these products without it being considered advertising.

~ How do you think this legislation will affect the vaping market in Peru, both for consumers and for manufacturing and importing companies, considering the lack of clear penalties and the limited regulation on product composition?

JP: At Asovape, we believe this bill represents a great step forward in regulating a rapidly growing market, which has the potential to save many lives. Unfortunately, many aspects still require attention. Still, we trust that with ongoing dialogue between users and legislators, all the points that have not yet been considered can be regulated in the future. This would greatly benefit consumers, as it would provide certainty that the products entering our market are of optimal quality for consumption. At the same time, it would provide the industry with a clear regulatory framework regarding what they can and cannot offer.

Learn the Key Points of the Bill

Restrictions on commercialization

The law establishes several clear restrictions regarding the commercialization of tobacco, nicotine products, and their substitutes to protect minors.

The sale of any product related to tobacco or nicotine, including electronic devices and their accessories, to individuals under 18 years of age is prohibited.

Additionally, packages containing fewer than ten units are not allowed to be sold, as this would make more accessible and affordable products more attractive to young people.

The distribution of samples, promotional products, or any gift containing tobacco, nicotine, or substitutes, including electronic devices, to minors is also prohibited.

The sale of products through vending machines is equally restricted. These machines are not allowed to be placed in locations with unrestricted access to individuals under 18, ensuring that such devices do not facilitate the acquisition of products by minors.

Lastly, the regulation prohibits using names that may appeal to minors, particularly those referring to sweets or desserts, in tobacco, nicotine, and substitute products that use flavorings or aromas.

Ban on use in public spaces

The recently approved legislation bans smoking and vaping in various locations, including health and educational establishments, government offices, workplaces, enclosed public spaces, and public transportation. These areas will be declared 100% smoke-free and vape emissions-free zones.

The definition of an enclosed public space covers any area with a roof and at least two walls, regardless of the material or the permanence of these structures.

Additionally, affected locations must display signs in visible places that state: “Smoking and vaping are prohibited in this establishment. 100% smoke-free and vape emissions-free environments, as they are harmful to health.”

This ban may also extend to other public-use spaces that, due to their characteristics, may be considered for inclusion under this regulation in the future.

The law mandates that all places subject to this restriction post visible notices informing users of the prohibition. The signs must carry the following message: “Smoking and vaping are prohibited in this establishment. 100% smoke-free and vape emissions-free environment, as they are harmful to health.”

Advertising and Promotion Control

The law prohibits the advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of tobacco products or their substitutes, covering the national sphere and any activity with a cross-border reach.

The legislation imposes various restrictions on nicotine-containing products, limiting their promotion. Advertising on open television, radio, and similar platforms is prohibited. Additionally, no advertisements are allowed in health establishments, educational centers, public offices, or within a 500-meter radius of schools that serve minors.

The law also bans any communication promoting the use of nicotine products among minors, both in printed media targeted at this group and in activities or events where minors may be present. Furthermore, all advertising for these products must include a clear warning: “Sale to minors under 18 is prohibited. This product contains nicotine.” This warning must occupy at least 15% of the advertising space, placed at the bottom in black capital letters on a white background.

Finally, the regulation prohibits the use of images or messages that associate the consumption of nicotine products with personal success, sexual attraction, or popularity, to prevent these products from being perceived as aspirational or desirable, especially by young people.

Note: The provided sources detailing the bill on controlling tobacco, nicotine, and related products address advertising regulations but do not explicitly mention the prohibition of advertising on the internet, digital platforms, or similar media.

Article 8 establishes a complete ban on advertising, promoting, and sponsoring tobacco products or their substitutes, including cross-border reach.

Article 9 imposes restrictions on nicotine products, prohibiting advertising on open television, radio, and similar media.

However, neither article explicitly mentions the internet or digital platforms, which may create ambiguity about the law’s application to these channels. A legal interpretation of the term “similar media” would be necessary to determine if it includes the internet and digital platforms.

Packaging and Labeling

The measures related to the packaging and labeling of tobacco and nicotine products are stringent and aim to inform consumers about the health risks associated with these products.

Tobacco products must carry graphic and textual warnings that cover 70% of the main surfaces of the package, featuring shocking images and phrases warning about health damage.

The Ministry of Health (Minsa) defines the graphic standards for these warnings. Additionally, the packages must include the phrase: “Sale to minors under 18 is prohibited.”

For nicotine products, a textual warning is required to cover 30% of each of the main sides of the packaging. This warning must inform about the presence of nicotine and the dangers associated with its consumption, along with the phrase “Sale to minors under 18 is prohibited.”

The regulation also bans the use of terms that may downplay the risks of consumption, such as “light,” “mild,” “ultra-light,” or any other synonym suggesting the product is less harmful. This ban aims to prevent consumer confusion about the actual risks associated with tobacco.

Finally, labels must include mandatory information such as the expiration date, nicotine content, tar, and carbon monoxide (in the case of tobacco products), as well as any other data required by specific labeling laws for industrial products.

Education and Public Policies

The Ministry of Education (Minedu), in coordination with the Ministry of Health (Minsa), will implement prevention actions within the national curriculum to raise students’ awareness about the risks of using tobacco products and vapes.

These educational activities, designed by Minedu and approved by ministerial resolution, aim to build awareness from an early age.

Additionally, Minsa will provide technical assistance to other government entities to help them integrate policies that control tobacco consumption and related products.

It will also develop educational programs, diagnostics, and treatment for dependencies, and oversee compliance with the new regulations.

Enforcement and Adaptation Deadlines

The Ministry of Health (MINSA) will enforce these new regulations in collaboration with local governments and civil society organizations.

Municipalities will oversee the commercialization and use of tobacco, nicotine, and related products, while advertising and labeling regulation will be managed following Legislative Decree 1304.

The industry will have two years to adapt packaging to the established requirements. It is important to note that products acquired before the law takes effect will be exempt from complying with these new standards.

The regulation outlining the specific details will also be published within 120 days. With the implementation of this legislation, Laws N° 28705 and N° 29517 will be repealed.

This interview took place in October 2024.