Kenya’s Treasury Cabinet Secretary, Ukur Yatani, has proposed to change the excise tax on liquid nicotine to Sh70 ($0.60 cents) per milliliter in a bid to make it less accessible to users, including school children and the youth.
Vaping industry advocates warn the new proposals to raise excise tax on nicotine products will push safer alternatives for smokers out of reach and help the black market thrive, according to The Standard.
Campaign for Safer Alternatives (Casa), a lobby that aims for smoke-free environments in Africa, said the tax changes would result in higher prices of e-cigarettes and negatively impacting those who rely on them to help them stay off cigarettes.
“Doubling the tax on vapes and nicotine pouches is the opposite of a cash cow. If anything, it will drain more money from the Treasury by forcing vapers into the black market,” said Casa chairman Joseph Magero on the proposals contained in the Finance Bill.
“Already, Kenya’s sky-high vaping taxes have created a thriving black market for vape products, with many shops selling un-taxed vapes in broad daylight.”
He said the tax increase will also raise the healthcare costs for Kenya’s government by leaving vapers with no choice but to revert to smoking or using unregulated black market vapes.
Kenya has struggled in regards to helping combustible cigarette smokers quit. According to recent research by Dr. Michael Kariuki, an epidemiologist, two-thirds of the country’s smokers want to quit but lack alternatives to replace traditional cigarettes.
Credit: Zero Photo
In an interview with TUKO.co.ke, Kariuki stated that as much as smoking is an addictive habit, most smokers expressed a desire to quit but admitted that they find it difficult. “The addictive product in cigarettes is nicotine, however, what kills people are the other carcinogenic products that are medically referred to as Group 1 human carcinogens,” he told Hillary Lisimba.
Kariuki added that his research was aimed at offering solutions that would make it easy for smokers to quit. He said offering them alternative products that have nicotine but are not combustible. “You see, smoking [cigarettes] gives a calming effect due to the nicotine, yet the majority of smokers who want to quit find it difficult because of the addiction,” he said.
Vaping products are not regulated in Kenya. There is no law addressing the use of e-cigarettes in indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport. The desire of cigarette smokers to stop smoking are complicated because nicotine replacement therapies, such as e-cigarettes, are too expensive for most smokers, according to Kariuki.
He also stated that, as a country, Kenya is not doing enough to help smokers quit. The country needs to offer products that can gradually assist struggling smokers.
An international consumer group released a position paper today that claims blanket bans on vaping and heated tobacco products (HTPs) are a detriment to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organisations (INNCO), a global advocate for sensible tobacco harm reduction (THR) says bans on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are an overly simple solution that make the problems that come with combustible cigarette use far worse.
“The hundreds of millions of people who smoke in these countries should have the ability to make decisions about safer nicotine products, particularly when their own health is on the line,” said Samrat Chowdhery, president of INNCO’s governing board. “Overly simplistic policy solutions, such as proposed bans on all ENDS and THR products by the Bloomberg Philanthropies-funded The Union, are being offered as a blunt and impractical tool for a situation that requires pragmatism and nuance, making meaningful and sustainable change more difficult.”
Samrat Chowdhery
The report, “10 Reasons Why Blanket Bans of E-Cigarettes and HTPs in low- and middle-income Countries (LMICs) Are Not Fit for Purpose,” sends a strong warning to organizations and governments that limiting options to reduce harm will only increase the number of people smoking tobacco, inevitably leading to illicit markets and increases in crime. The paper lists the Top 10 reasons the bans don’t work as the following:
Bans are an overly simplistic solution to a complex issue and will not work.
Prioritizing the banning of reduced harm alternatives over cigarettes is illogical.
Reduction and substitution are valid goals for smokers in LMICs.
People who smoke have the right to choose to reduce their own risk of harm.
Reduced harm alternatives can significantly contribute to the aims of global tobacco control.
Lack of research in LMICs is not a valid reason to ban reduced harm alternatives.
The prohibitionist approach in LMICs is outdated, unrealistic and condescending.
Bans will lead to illicit markets with increases in crime and no tax revenue.
Banning reduced harm alternatives leads people back to smoking and greater harm.
• Blanket bans in LMICs are a form of “philanthropic colonialism.”
INNCO estimates that that there are scores of LMICs in jeopardy of increasing the number of people who smoke cigarettes in their countries unless pragmatic approaches to tobacco harm control are adopted, including the availability of a wide selection of safer nicotine products. Leveraging the paper’s findings, INNCO states that it will work with its global membership to inform policy makers in developing nations to help achieve risk-relative regulations and access to safer THR products, according to a press release.
“Africa is home to some of the highest-ranked smoker countries on the planet,” said Joseph Magero, chairman of Campaign for Safer Alternatives, a pan-African non-governmental member organization dedicated to achieving 100 percent smoke-free environments in Africa. “While improving overall public health has made great strides in these regions, efforts to directly address smoking cessation and harm reduction strategies have lagged due to limited or no access to safer, non-combustion nicotine products. By denying smokers access to much safer alternatives while leaving cigarettes on the market, policymakers would leave only two options on the table – quit or die.”
Several other THR groups also agree with the paper’s position. Nancy Loucas of the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates, a grassroots alliance of THR advocacy organizations, said a blanket ban in LMICs is a form of philanthropic colonialism, suggesting that these countries and their citizens cannot be trusted with any level of self-determination. “Inhabitants are treated as second-class citizens, which is offensive,” she said. “There is no benefit in limiting choice of safer nicotine products, but only the potential for increasing harm.”
Francisco Ordóñez of the Asociación por la Reducción de daños del Tabaquismo Iberoamérica, a network of consumer organizations in Latin America, says that very few low- and middle-income countries have adopted even the most basic prevention measures suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Policymakers should embrace harm reduction as a valid goal, particularly in LMICs where access to cessation programs is extremely limited,” said Ordóñez. “Replacing combustible tobacco with alternative nicotine products can significantly reduce the risk of harm by at least 95 percent. It works in industrialized nations and can do the same in LMICs.”
