Filipino entrepreneurs laud Quebec court’s ruling on anti-vaping law

LocaL vaping entrepreneurs welcomed the Superior court of Quebec’s recent decision that rejected key sections of the Tobacco control act adopted by the Quebec government in 2015, which sought to treat vaping products essentially the same as cigarettes.

The decision recognizes vaping as a form of harm reduction as it allows people who would otherwise smoke lethal cigarettes to get the nicotine they need, or want, without the inhalation of smoke. as the harm from cigarette use is overwhelming due to the inhalation of smoke rather than the nicotine, the decision underscores important lessons for harm reduction.

The Quebec Superior court is the highest trial court in the province of Quebec in canada. It is composed of 157 justices, including a chief justice, a senior associate chief justice and an associate chief justice.

“Like Quebec’s anti-vaping law, the recent Department of Health administrative order [ao] considers e-cigarettes as essentially the same as cigarettes and imposes punitive restrictions that will severely impact the local vaping industry. We urge the DoH to consider the emerging evidence supporting tobacco harm reduction and to be mindful of consumer rights,” said Joey Dulay, president of the Philippine E-cigarette Industry association (Pecia).

Dulay is referring to DoH ao 2019-0007 released on June 14, 2019, which, among others, bans any form of advertising, promotion and sponsorship of vaping products; bans vaping in places where smoking is prohibited; sets guidelines and requirements for designated vaping areas that are identical with those for designated smoking areas; and prohibits the purchase, sale and offering for sale of e-cigarettes in places where sale and use of cigarettes are prohibited.

The ao requires all establishments engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, sale (including online sale), offering for sale and transfer of vaping products to secure a license to operate from the Philippine Food and Drugs administration. only establishments with a valid FDa-issued LTo can apply for a product marketing authorization, such as certificate of Product Registration (cPR) or FDa Electronic Registration Number (FERN). Establishments seeking to market e-liquids and refills classified as drug products must comply with the regulatory requirements for pharmaceutical products under the center for Drugs Regulation and Research. It also mandates the FDa to, among others, set standards and necessary restrictions on flavors and additives used in the manufacture of e-liquids and refills.

“The Quebec court decision underscores the inviolable right of consumers to be provided with accurate and complete information on and access to all available products so that they are able to make informed choices. It is a strong affirmation of the validity of tobacco harm reduction and sets an important legal precedent that will have persuasive value in other countries, including the Philippines,” explained Peter Paul Dator, president of The Vapers Philippines.

among other things, Quebec’s Tobacco control act prohibited the promotion of vaping products and banned trials of such products. The Quebec Superior court declared that these prohibitions prevented cigarette smokers in Quebec from hearing about the health benefits of switching to vaping products, from learning about how to use vaping products and from finding a product that is maximally able to replace their cigarettes.

In his decision handed down on May 3, 2019, Justice Daniel Dumais accepted that cigarette smoking is a significant cause of preventable illness and death and declared that the evidence presented convinced the court that electronic cigarettes have been shown to be effective, for some people, in their efforts to quit smoking. The court was also convinced, in accordance with evidence presented, that using electronic cigarettes is less harmful to health than ordinary cigarettes; that it is better to vape than to smoke tobacco; and that vaping is a valid method to quit smoking.

The court further stated that denying smokers the option of trying vaping products in shops, or in clinics, is a violation of their rights, depriving them of access to a mechanism designed to reduce their risks and better protect their health. The court found that the legislated restrictions ignored the fact that the public, particularly smokers, do not distinguish between smoking and vaping. In effect, the court acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to educate and make people aware that vaping exists above all for smokers. Thus, those measures that prevented the display and trialing of products in vape shops and the communication of information to cigarette smokers on the relative risks of such products were violations of fundamental rights.

according to Dator, the Quebec court’s decision is part of a global trend of courts striking down measures that seek to limit access to risk reduction strategies. He cited a recent Swiss Federal Supreme court decision that used reasoning similar to the Quebec court decision in striking down a ban on snus, a low risk noncombustible Swedish tobacco product. Dator also pointed out that vaping products remain available in the US market as a result of a 2010 ruling by Judge Richard Leon of the United States District court for the District of columbia in the Sottera Inc. versus US Food and Drug administration case.