Thailand’s ongoing ban on e-cigarettes, supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a policy deeply disconnected from real-world evidence and the voices of those it most affects: the consumers seeking safer alternatives to smoking.

The WHO’s endorsement of Thailand’s ban of vaping products is unsurprising, given its long-standing position under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, this approach ignores evidence showing that prohibition does not reduce vaping or tobacco smoking. Instead, bans fuel booming black markets. Anyone familiar with Thailand can attest to vapes being illegally sold everywhere, reflecting the failure of such restrictions. Australia’s experience further confirms this pattern: too strict restrictions only drive illicit trade and violent conflict, reminiscent of the US Prohibition era. The WHO’s ideological focus on banning fails to address these consequences, ignoring the complex realities on the ground.

In addition to excluding cigarette companies from policymaking—as per Article 5.3 of the FCTC—Thai authorities and the WHO also systematically exclude consumers themselves from these critical discussions. This lack of inclusion reveals a troubling disdain for nicotine consumers and a failure to respect their rights and insights. The World Vapers’ Alliance’s Des voix inaudibles campaign powerfully highlights this injustice, advocating for consumer representation and evidence-based harm reduction policies. As COP11 approaches, this fight for inclusion becomes even more urgent to shape sensible, life-saving regulations.

Claims of progress by Thai anti-tobacco advocates should be scrutinised too. Dr Prakit Vathesatogkit, president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Thailand, boasts a 49% smoking reduction over 32 years, but nearly 10 million Thais still smoke. Meanwhile, Sweden achieved a 55% reduction in just a decade by embracing harm reduction products and is almost smoke-free. This comparison demonstrates that Thailand’s slow decline results from rejecting less harmful alternatives rather than adopting them.

Health officials warn that e-cigarette marketing falsely presents vaping as less harmful, yet scientific consensus confirms e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. Denying this truth does nothing but harm public health efforts by keeping smokers trapped in more dangerous habits.

Finally, the ThaiHealth survey found that one-quarter of the students surveyed had tried e-cigarettes. If accurate, this starkly reveals the ban’s failure to prevent youth access. Instead of honest, evidence-based communication, the policy response leans heavily on scaremongering and ideological rigidity, neither of which effectively protects public health.

In conclusion, Thailand’s ban on e-cigarettes, endorsed by the WHO, ignores evidence of black market growth, excludes critical consumer voices, and fails to provide effective harm reduction compared to countries like Sweden. The World Vapers’ Alliance urges policymakers at COP11 and beyond to push back and recognise the importance of including consumers and supporting science-based harm reduction strategies.