Premiering TODAY at 12:00 MNL/KL. youtu.be/H-iF0sWy-UE

In this Episode, we’re going to use two very clear case studies to unpack why THR is losing ground in Asia Pacific : Malaysia and the Philippines. Premiering on Monday 16 February: youtu.be/H-iF0sWy-UE

CAPHRA’s position is clear. If the goal is harm reduction, youth protection, and market oversight, nicotine pouches should be regulated with strict safeguards, not banned outright. #CAPHRA #HarmReductionPolicy #NicotinePouches

Tobacco harm reduction, or THR, is losing political ground in some key countries. Now, to be clear right up front, this shift isn’t happening because the risk continuum suddenly stopped being true. It didn’t. This is about politics. Premiering on Monday 16 February: youtu.be/H-iF0sWy-UE

Adult-only sales are not a slogan. They require licensing, traceability, inspections, and enforcement that regulators can actually sustain. Prohibition removes these tools entirely. #YouthSafeguards #RegulatoryControl #PublicHealth

A compliance-ready framework means rules that work in the real world. Clear definitions. Enforceable standards. Auditable marketing. Licensed supply chains. Sanctions that matter. That is how regulation protects people. #SmartRegulation #HealthPolicy #RuleOfLaw

The US exit from the @WHO and growing political unease in countries like New Zealand didn’t create this problem; they simply stripped away the insulation. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

When products are driven underground, governments lose control over ingredients, strength, distribution, and marketing. That is not protection. That is regulatory blindness. #RegulatoryIntegrity #PublicHealthGovernance #NicotinePolicy

Blanket bans don’t eliminate risk. They displace it. When nicotine products are prohibited, use shifts underground, illicit markets grow, and regulators lose visibility. That weakens public health governance, not strengthens it. #PublicHealthPolicy #RegulationNotProhibition #HarmReduction

Prohibition is a blunt instrument. It concentrates people in higher-risk tobacco use while expanding informal markets that evade youth access controls and product standards. Good regulation does the opposite. #EvidenceBasedPolicy #NicotineRegulation

What does “good regulation” actually mean? It means clear legal definitions, measurable product standards, mandatory testing, licensed retail channels, and real enforcement. Rules must be auditable and enforceable—not symbolic. caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

How should nicotine pouches be regulated? CAPHRA recommends a stand-alone legal category, not forcing pouches into cigarette laws. Nicotine pouches have different risk profiles and usage patterns. Regulation must reflect that reality to be effective. caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Why regulate nicotine pouches instead of banning them? Clear regulation allows governments to control product quality, restrict sales to adults, license retailers, and enforce compliance. Grey-zone policies weaken oversight. Fit-for-purpose regulation strengthens it. caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

What exactly are nicotine pouches? Nicotine pouches are smokeless, tobacco-free or tobacco-derived nicotine products placed between the lip and gum. They contain nicotine, plant fibre, sweeteners, and flavouring—and offer adults a smoke-free alternative to cigarettes. caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Should nicotine pouches be banned? No. CAPHRA supports legal, tightly regulated adult access to nicotine pouches as part of a proportionate tobacco harm reduction strategy. Regulation allows governments to set standards, protect youth, and enforce the law. caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Can youth protection and harm reduction coexist? Yes. New Zealand proves you can restrict youth access while helping adult smokers switch. This is balanced policy done right. #YouthProtection #BalancedPolicy www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

How did New Zealand reduce smoking without bans? By making lower-risk alternatives regulated, accessible, and credible for adults who smoke. Behaviour change follows reality, not slogans. #PeopleFirst #PublicHealthPolicy www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Is harm reduction the same as deregulation? No. New Zealand’s THR framework is tightly regulated, age-restricted, and enforcement-backed. It’s smart regulation, not a free-for-all. #SmartRegulation #THR www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Why is New Zealand’s THR policy considered effective? Because it regulates products by risk, not ideology, and focuses on reducing smoking harm in real people’s lives. #HarmReduction #EvidenceBasedPolicy www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

International evidence is consistent: criminal markets retreat when legal, regulated alternatives replace them. NZ & Philippines show regulated vaping can cut smoking without criminal harm. #NZ #Philippines #Australia www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Does tobacco harm reduction work in New Zealand? Yes. Smoking rates fell after NZ regulated safer alternatives instead of banning them. That’s people-first public health. #THR #PublicHealth #NZPolicy www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

The fix is to move the market from criminal control to regulated control: legalise and regulate vaping as harm reduction, adult-only retail access, product standards, and strict age enforcement. #HarmReduction #Regulation www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Youth exposure hasn’t improved under prohibition. It’s worsened because uncontrolled supply is now more visible and more accessible. #YouthProtection #TobaccoControl www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

The social impacts are severe: legitimate adult-only vape retailers were forced out, while illegal stores now operate openly. Violence and arson linked to market control have increased. #CommunitySafety www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Adults haven’t stopped seeking nicotine. They’ve been pushed to unregulated products with unknown ingredients and inconsistent quality. That’s a public health failure. #PublicHealth #HarmReduction www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

More enforcement won’t fix a market built by prohibition. The cycle repeats: shut down shops, they rebrand or move online. Criminal networks adapt faster than regulators. #PolicyDesign #IllicitTrade www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

Australia’s illegal tobacco market is now widespread and highly visible: shopfronts, pop-ups, social media, encrypted apps, delivery services. Close one outlet and it reopens elsewhere. #IllicitTobacco #PolicyFailure www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

"Most people who smoke live in the Asia-Pacific region; millions die each year. Yet many of the region's governments are banning or strangling the very products that are driving smoking rates down in other parts of the world." By Nancy Loucas @caphra.bsky.social:

Chaired Program Committee 1992 3rd International Harm Reduction Conference, Melbourne. Invited Prof Michael Russell answer: ‘is harm reduction appropriate for tobacco?’ Looking forward now Warsaw GFN June @algore09algor.bsky.social @ianamossyd.bsky.social @igas2.bsky.social @mikedaube.bsky.social

What must change for effective tobacco harm reduction in Asia-Pacific? Recalibrate toward evidence, ethics, and inclusion: regulate to the nicotine risk continuum, protect youth with enforceable controls, and integrate THR alongside prevention and cessation.#THR caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

How has misinformation shaped Asia-Pacific tobacco control? Misinformation can drive symbolic regulation—policies that look “tough” but displace markets into illicit channels, eroding regulatory control and increasing youth exposure risk. #Misinformation #Regulation caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Australia’s illegal tobacco crisis didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the predictable result of policy choices that removed regulated access and replaced it with prohibition, while demand stayed steady. #TobaccoControl #HarmReduction #Australia www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO26...

How does banning safer nicotine options affect health equity? It disproportionately harms disadvantaged groups with higher smoking rates and fewer cessation resources—locking in the highest-risk option as the default. #HealthEquity #AsiaPacific caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Is nicotine the main cause of smoking-related disease? No. Combustion is the primary driver of smoking-related disease. Policies should reflect that reality by enabling lower-risk alternatives with strict safeguards. #Nicotine #THR

What is the nicotine risk continuum—and why does it matter? The nicotine risk continuum recognises that combustion drives most smoking harm. Ignoring risk differentials keeps the deadliest product dominant. #RiskContinuum #HarmReduction caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Why does consumer participation matter in tobacco policy? Excluding people who smoke from policymaking leads to mistrust, low compliance, and ineffective regulation. Evidence-based policy must include lived experience. #ConsumerInclusion #HealthPolicy caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Why do illicit nicotine markets grow under prohibitionist policy? Because demand doesn’t disappear—oversight does. Blocking regulated lower-risk products shifts supply to illegal channels with no standards or enforcement leverage. #IllicitTrade #TobaccoControl caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Do bans on vaping/nicotine pouches reduce smoking in Asia-Pacific? Often, no. When lower-risk nicotine products are banned while cigarettes remain legal, smoking persists and unregulated supply expands. #THR #PublicHealth caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

What is the reality of tobacco harm reduction (THR) in Asia-Pacific? Across many Asia-Pacific countries, bans on safer nicotine alternatives coexist with high smoking rates—fueling illicit markets and weakening regulation. #TobaccoHarmReduction #AsiaPacific caphraorg.net/wp-content/p...

Happy Holidays! Sending warm wishes and good vibes to you and yours. 🎄✨

People who smoke—and those who choose safer alternatives—have been erased from policy discussions. This dehumanisation leads to bad laws and worse outcomes. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #HealthSovereignty, #TobaccoHarmReduction bit.ly/49Nzt3F

The current FCTC process excludes scientific diversity and real-world evidence. Public health deserves more than a one-sided narrative driven by external philanthropy. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #HealthSovereignty, #TobaccoHarmReduction bit.ly/49Nzt3F

When NGOs—not governments—set global policy direction, decisions stop reflecting local realities. The result? Regulations that fail in practice and fuel illicit markets. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #HealthSovereignty, #TobaccoHarmReduction bit.ly/49Nzt3F

A treaty cannot claim legitimacy while shutting out harm-reduction experts, independent scientists, and the very consumers it claims to protect. The FCTC urgently needs transparency and balance. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #HealthSovereignty, #TobaccoHarmReduction bit.ly/49Nzt3F

The FCTC was meant to be a government-led, evidence-based treaty. Today, a handful of foreign-funded NGOs dominate its agenda. When donor ideology replaces national sovereignty, public health loses. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #HealthSovereignty, #TobaccoHarmReduction bit.ly/49Nzt3F

CAPHRA Raises Alarm over Legitimacy of WHO Tobacco Treaty. www.globenewswire.com/news-release...

With eight million tobacco deaths every year, the FCTC must make a choice: prioritise public health or continue serving prohibitionist gatekeepers. The stakes could not be higher. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #NZ, #HealthForAll bit.ly/48a0NI3

The FCTC exists for countries — not NGOs. Sovereign governments must be free to design policies for their people, not follow an enforced prohibitionist script. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #NZ, #HealthForAll bit.ly/48a0NI3

CAPHRA: Public health must be driven by evidence, not Bloomberg-funded ideology. Treating every harm reduction advocate as “industry aligned” is a tactic to silence science. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #NZ, #HealthForAll bit.ly/48a0NI3

Independent research shows nicotine pouches are 99% less harmful than cigarettes. Yet the FCTC Secretariat lets NGOs brand harm reduction as an “industry tool.” This is deliberate misrepresentation. #EvidenceBasedPolicy, #NZ, #HealthForAll bit.ly/48a0NI3