MARTIN VAN STADEN | SA need not follow Singapore on caning vapers

The billionaire-backed World Health Organisation’s (WHO) crusade against individual choice is, by now, a well-known phenomenon. But few would have thought this exclusive club of global elites would stoop to the level of potentially endorsing corporal punishment for the mortal sin of vaping.

Last August Singapore introduced obscene penalties for vapers, including fines, mandatory rehabilitation, imprisonment and, in cases involving repeat “offenders”, corporal punishment such as three strokes with a cane. This is for using a product that is far less harmful than smoking and has helped millions around the world quit cigarettes.

To any reasonable person, this is an absurd (and inhumane) policy. But not necessarily to the WHO. A bulletin from October described Singapore’s antivaping campaign as a potential “turning point” that could influence global tobacco policy over the next decade.

That the WHO did not condemn the use of state-sanctioned violence in response to a legitimate and informed consumer choice shows how warped its priorities have become. Singapore has always been known for its extreme policies towards what it regards as antisocial behaviour — even selling chewing gum can attract severe penalties.

This is nothing new. But now South Africa, the world’s supposed “miracle democracy” with its “most progressive constitution”, risks veering towards the same seemingly WHO-sanctioned authoritarianism. The country’s Tobacco Products & Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill is before the parliamentary portfolio committee for health. Its job is to decide whether these laws (drafted years ago) are appropriate for South Africa in 2026.

With the recent endorsement of the MK Party, the thought-to-be-dead bill might become law. As currently drafted it would impose sweeping and unjustified restrictions (including jail time) on vaping and other nicotine products, which have helped many South Africans quit smoking. It would grant unrestrained powers to the health minister and his “monitoring committee” of experts, thereby undermining the rule of law.

This would mean more South Africans continuing to smoke, with more than three-quarters now buying from an illegal market — the worst policy outcome. Thankfully, there is time to fix the bill before it reaches the National Assembly, and reject the authoritarian zealots who seeming to prefer coercion over informed consumer choice.

Simply put, if you remove legal channels, illegal markets take their place.

We know from experience, here and abroad, that prohibition never works. It drives consumers to black markets, run by criminals who sell untested and unregulated products. The most infamous example is the US alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, which not only failed to eradicate drinking, but fuelled organised crime, bootlegging and the proliferation of more dangerous, potent spirits, ultimately leading to the ban’s repeal.

Simply put, if you remove legal channels, illegal markets take their place. In the context of tobacco, stringent bans and high taxes intended to reduce consumption have foreseeably boosted underground economies worldwide, where cheaper, untaxed alternatives undermine health initiatives and government revenues.

South Africa’s near-total tobacco sales ban during the Covid-19 lockdown did nothing to dissuade people from smoking. Instead, it delivered 75% of smokers to an illegal market.

Australia, like us, is paying the price for its embrace of WHO zealotry. Like Singapore, it too chose to criminalise access to vaping, a product proven to be far less harmful than smoking.

Predictably, Australians turned to an illegal and unregulated market, leading to billions in lost tax revenue, the arrival of organised crime into communities and violent turf wars involving fire-bombings of rival outlets.

That approach proves bad laws will always deliver bad outcomes, regardless of where they are made. Fortunately, South Africa can change course. We must call on lawmakers, especially those on the health portfolio committee, to reject the influence of the billionaire-backed global elite who seek to dictate to us how to live our lives.

The South African constitution provides us with sufficient guidance — we are in control of our affairs. Respect the basic human dignity of every individual and adopt laws that would deliver on public health promises. The WHO and its billionaire mates can indulge their sadistic fantasies elsewhere.

• Van Staden is head of policy at the Free Market Foundation and South African policy fellow at the Consumer Choice Centre.