Proposal for Total Vape Ban Should Not Be Mere Hot Air

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The National Narcotics Agency (BNN) made waves a few weeks ago with a transformative, even radical, proposal: a total ban on vape cigarettes.

The reason is that vape cigarettes are often misused for consuming narcotics. BNN’s proposal is not mere rhetoric but is backed by substantial and concrete evidence.

BNN stated that the total ban proposal on vapes was triggered by numerous findings of narcotic content up to anaesthetics in the liquids of vape products circulating in society. From laboratory tests on 341 vape liquid samples, there were 11 samples containing synthetic cannabinoids or synthetic marijuana. There were also 23 samples proven to contain etomidate and one sample containing methamphetamine or sabu.

In total, 30 percent of the total vape products surveyed by BNN contain narcotics. Thus, it is clear that BNN’s proposal to ban vapes is not an “asbun” (random utterance) proposal, but one based on evidence.

As expected, the proposal has elicited various defensive reactions from all directions. Economic reasons, employment reasons, and excise reasons have become slogans to attack BNN’s proposal. These multiple reasons have emerged from pro-electronic cigarette/pro-vape circles, such as electronic cigarette/vape trader associations, even vape user associations.

Not to mention the rejection from the conventional tobacco industry, which is currently also dabbling in electronic cigarette production.

So, how should we respond to BNN’s proposal, plus the rejection from the pro-electronic cigarette-vape camp? There are several crucial notes on this matter.

First, referring to the spirit of protection of citizens’ human rights from the dangers of electronic cigarettes and vapes, BNN’s proposal is a constitutionally based proposal, namely the human right of citizens to live healthily.

Electronic cigarettes-vapes are the same and akin to conventional cigarettes. Both carry several adverse effects such as causing addiction, damaging the lungs (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchitis), increasing the risk of heart and blood vessel disease, stroke, triggering cancer, especially lung, mouth, throat, and oesophageal cancer, and also causing oral and dental health problems.

What more adverse effects of electronic cigarettes on health are incomplete?

Therefore, rejecting BNN’s proposal on economic, employment, and state revenue grounds is an absurd reason. Especially when referring to data that the prevalence of electronic cigarette smokers in Indonesia has skyrocketed tenfold to three percent, from the original 0.3 percent alone. This means the growth in electronic cigarette-vape consumption, especially among children and adolescents, is very progressive.

One of the causes is the acute misconception that electronic cigarettes-vapes are considered safer or even healthier than conventional cigarettes. In fact, electronic cigarettes are used as a medium/reason to quit conventional smoking. However, the fact is the opposite; they smoke both, either electronic cigarettes and/or conventional cigarettes.

Second, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that electronic cigarettes (vapes) are addictive and carcinogenic. WHO does not recommend electronic cigarettes for consumption at all. WHO firmly urges countries around the world to ban electronic cigarettes, vapes, and the like.

Third, international benchmarking. Currently, around the world, no fewer than 38 countries have fully banned electronic cigarettes-vapes. Not just restricted, but banning imports, sales, even use. Among them are Singapore, Thailand, India, Brunei, Maldives, Bhutan, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Panama, to Ethiopia. Meanwhile, there are 79 countries that strictly control electronic cigarettes.

Fourth, a total ban on electronic cigarettes and vapes will be far easier to monitor, as they become illegal goods. Whereas if only adopting consumption control policies, monitoring is very difficult. For monitoring conventional cigarettes alone, the government (Directorate General of Customs and Excise, regional governments, police) seems overwhelmed, so illegal cigarettes are increasingly rampant in the market; their market share reaches more than 10 percent.

However, there are challenges to BNN’s proposal, namely the potential to clash with existing regulations, at least referring to Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 on Health, which does not ban electronic cigarettes and does not ban vapes.

Even the Directorate General of Customs and Excise of the Ministry of Finance has imposed excise on electronic cigarettes. This means, because excise has been imposed, electronic cigarettes etc. are legal products, like conventional cigarettes. In fact, pro-electronic cigarette groups claim that electronic cigarettes-vapes have contributed excise to the state amounting to Rp2 trillion.

The Indonesian government is indeed late in anticipating and mitigating the electronic cigarette-vape phenomenon. In the past, before becoming a new epidemic as it is now, civil society groups had strongly warned the government to ban electronic cigarettes. However, each ministry and agency just passed the buck. They claimed that electronic cigarettes were not within their tupoksi (area of responsibility).

The discourse championed by BNN should serve as a whip for the state and government, given that narcotic use in Indonesia, especially among the younger generation, has an increasingly high prevalence. Its position is already very concerning.

While the government and DPR are currently revising/amending the Narcotics Law. The instrument of amending the Narcotics Law is a strategic moment to include an article on a total ban on electronic cigarettes-vapes in Indonesia.

Moreover, the current configuration of cigarette consumption issues in Indonesia has entered an emergency level (emergency situation