By Shrey Madaan, Indian Policy Associate, Consumer Choice Center
India’s tobacco policy is tough on alternatives but gentle on cigarettes. The products that cause the most harm remain legal and widely sold, while options that could reduce risk for adult smokers are banned outright. That is not a coherent public health strategy. It is a policy that blocks the exit while leaving the problem untouched.
That contradiction forms the foundation of India’s blanket prohibition on e-cigarettes and other smoke-free alternatives. While other nations are reassessing their tobacco frameworks, the health ministry has maintained that India’s 2019 ban will stand unchanged. The decision is hailed as a firm stand against corporate lobbying, but the real issue goes beyond any company or product.
The real question is whether India is willing to consider harm reduction at all. Across much of the world, tobacco policy is moving from blanket bans to risk-based regulation. The logic is straightforward: complete nicotine cessation is ideal, but millions of adults continue to smoke. Public health improves when those smokers switch to less harmful alternatives.
Global Examples of Harm Reduction
The United Kingdom has integrated vapes into its smoking cessation programs for smokers. In Sweden, extensive use of smokeless nicotine products has helped bring smoking rates to among the lowest in Europe. In Japan, cigarette sales declined significantly following the introduction of heated tobacco products.
These policies are not about promoting tobacco. They are about reducing the damage it causes. India, by contrast, allows the most harmful form of nicotine to remain legal while banning alternatives outright. Cigarettes continue to be sold freely across the country. A smoker looking for a less harmful substitute is left with two choices: quit entirely or turn to the black market.
The Problem with Prohibition
Prohibition does not eliminate demand. It simply pushes it underground. Since the 2019 ban, vaping products have continued to circulate through illicit markets, where quality is questionable, and safety standards and age restrictions are absent. That outcome serves neither public health nor consumer protection.
What makes the current stance more troubling is the refusal even to examine the evidence. The government often invokes “evidence-based” tobacco control, yet has shown limited willingness to examine or regulate harm-reduction products. Evidence-based policy means engaging with comparative risk data and forging rules accordingly, not excluding inconvenient evidence.
A More Pragmatic Approach
A more pragmatic approach would regulate lower-risk alternatives with clear standards and safeguards, rather than prohibit them outright. That means strict age limits, product standards, and clear labelling linked to relative risk. Such a framework would not encourage nicotine use. It would simply give existing smokers a safer, legal pathway away from combustible tobacco.
The goal should not be to protect cigarettes from competition. It should be to reduce smoking-related disease. And that requires giving adult smokers realistic, regulated alternatives, not banning them out of existence.
