The rising concern surrounding the illicit trade of tobacco products and safer alternatives across the country has sparked an intense debate between two opposing sides. While one calls for a pragmatic, balanced policy response in line with international best practices as seen in nations such as the UAE, Indonesia and in the EU. These models recognize that regulating safer alternatives does not mean promoting use; it means reasonably regulating the market while keeping public health imperatives and market realities in mind. They also giving smokers who struggle to quit another middle path; as the only option right now given the current regulations is quit or die.
In contrast, the other side, which is motivated by a redundant point of view and backed by foreign funded organizations with ulterior motives, is pushing for a blanket ban of safer alternatives irrespective of local realities and a negative fallout that has afflicted all nations that have pursued such a line of action. Such a hardline approach, ironically, threatens to undermine Bangladesh's progress in creating strong public health policies and economic stability.
This debate has been at the forefront recently, due to statements made by Md Abdur Rahman Khan, Chairman of the National Board of Revenue (NBR) of Bangladesh, where he cited the considerable amount of tax revenue losses the country has faced due to illicit trade in tobacco products and safer alternatives. While he did not advocate for unregulated promotion of safer alternatives, he did urge the government to balance regulatory options in comparison to implementing complete bans. His argument is a practical recognition that total bans have the effect of pushing consumers into unregulated black markets where tax income is lost subjecting consumers to be exposed to more harmful products, as seen in countries such as Australia, India and Thailand. The thought behind his comments were that, when prohibition is implemented without realistic enforcement options or market substitutes, demand doesn't vanish but rather is diverted into dangerous, unregulated markets which benefit neither the country nor its people. Unfortunately, his words have been twisted by the opposing front, led by certain anti-tobacco NGOs, at the cost of the delicacy of his position and the global environment in which it is set.
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), to which Bangladesh has a firm allegiance, offers clear guidance for governments to guide tobacco control policy. Contrary to general misconceptions, Article 5.3 of the FCTC does not restrict governing officials from interacting with industry representatives but rather mandates such interactions to be conducted in an open manner and with precautions not to influence public health policy inappropriately. Article 1.d of the guidelines also formulates tobacco control as including harm reduction strategies, thereby encouraging governments to involve all stakeholders including industry in a governed and transparent environment. Imposing sweeping bans on tobacco alternatives, especially newer reduced-risk products, may in fact contradict the FCTC’s intent by obstructing the development of balanced, evidence-based regulations that address both public health priorities and consumer behavior. And what’s important to note is that regulating safer alternatives are the harm reduction solutions Article 1.d of the FCTC refers to, which has successfully been implemented by over 100 countries across the world today. Therefore, if Bangladesh were to truly comply with the FCTC then Article 1.d. of the guidelines should also be adhered to.
Global examples further bolster the case for balanced regulation where regulating safer alternatives has been seen as the best mitigator of illicit trade in such products. Belgium, for instance, has introduced flavor bans in e-cigarettes to deter youth usage, yet stopped short of outright prohibition. It’s a nuanced approach that recognizes the need to regulate, not eradicate, alternatives that some smokers may turn to in attempts to quit traditional cigarettes.
On the other hand, the situation in Singapore further illustrates the problem with outright bans. The country banned e-cigarettes entirely, only to watch illicit sales skyrocket. In a symbolic admission of failure, the government placed ‘vape bins’ in public spaces, asking citizens to dispose of products they were never supposed to have. The demand for vapes didn’t vanish - it was merely driven into the shadows.
Similarly, Thailand’s ban on e-cigarettes has failed to extinguish illicit trade, prompting public health experts to call for regulatory reforms rather than outright bans. A few months back, a committee formed to analyze the situation voted for regulation over outright bans. Australia's prescription-only model for vaping has also created massive illegal selling and overwhelmed enforcement, leading policymakers to doubt prohibition strategies. And India’s 2019 vape ban, though designed to protect youth, has only fueled a thriving underground market leaving over 100 million adult smokers without access to safer, regulated alternatives and no viable harm-reduction strategy.
These international experiences validate that prohibition only makes the problems it's trying to solve worse. Regulation, rather than prohibition, emerges as the more effective strategy to address the illicit trade and related public health risks. Overall bans tend to displace legal consumers into gray or black markets, eroding tax revenues and eliminating quality controls that ensure consumer safety. Regulation, by contrast, enables governments to maintain control over product quality standards, tax for the raising of public revenues, and implement age restrictions in an attempt to protect children and the youth. From an economic perspective, acknowledging the reality of illicit trade is not equal to promoting tobacco use; it is part of moving in the direction of devising practical and effective policies that minimize harm while defending the country’s economic interests as well.
Despite this, the voices that oppose regulation and propagate blanket bans invoke the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to justify these extreme bans and refuse to engage in inclusive policymaking. Yet they rarely reference the FCTC’s actual provisions, particularly Article 1.d, which clearly recognizes harm reduction strategies as an integral part of comprehensive tobacco control. Their prevailing message appears to be quit or die—an approach that ignores the reality of addiction and the humanity of people trying to quit harmful tobacco use. By focusing almost exclusively on vaping as an issue for the youth, these groups overlook the more critical and urgent issue i.e. the unmet needs of the millions of adult smokers in Bangladesh who deserve access to regulated safer alternatives.
Bangladesh now stands at a critical policy crossroads. One path aligns with global standards and leads to smart, evidence-based regulation that is not only supportive of public health, but also provides a pathway for regulated economic growth. The other leads to ideological rigidity, control through external influence, loss of sovereignty, as well as potential failure in enforcing laws which have already been proven ineffective, as seen in the cases from across the world. At this junction, Bangladesh clearly needs a progressive, realistic, and people first strategy; one that reduces harm, enables enforcement, regains tax losses, and provides adult consumers with access to safer options, leading the country towards a healthier and economically balanced future.
