Tobacco Banned, Vapes Imported

The full numbers

Bhutan was one of the first countries in the world to enact a near-total ban on tobacco sale through the Tobacco Control Act of 2010. The Act was a global benchmark for prohibitive tobacco regulation. It was subsequently amended in 2014, then again in 2021 (after COVID-19 forced regulation due to the surge in illegal imports), and revised in 2024.

The 2026 reality (per National Health Survey 2023 and import statistics):

• Cigarettes containing tobacco: ~107.4 million sticks imported in 2023 → >204.2 million sticks in 2025 (nearly 2× in 2 years)
• Electronic cigarettes/vaporizing devices: 25,533 units in 2023 → 448,086 units in 2025 (~18× growth in 2 years)
• National Health Survey 2023: 91.2% of youths aged 15-24 engaged in traditional smoking; 20.2% using emerging products (vapes, e-cigarettes, electronic nicotine delivery systems, heat-not-burn products)

The Tobacco Amendment Act of 2026 (currently in Social and Cultural Affairs Committee deliberation, scheduled for 15 June 2026) attempts to bring vapes, e-cigarettes, electronic nicotine delivery systems, heat-not-burn products, and e-hookah devices under the existing regulatory framework. Recommendations include strengthening Section 11(b), adding Section 60(s) defining “Novel and Emerging Nicotine and Tobacco Products.”

Imagine this

A 16-year-old in Thimphu has never seen a Bhutanese-produced cigarette pack in a legitimate store. The Tobacco Control Act has worked at the level of traditional cigarettes — they’re banned. But the same 16-year-old has multiple vaping devices in his backpack, ordered through the same network that smuggles tobacco. Vapes are cheaper, more colourful, easier to conceal from his parents, and easier to bring to school than traditional cigarettes. He is one of the 20.2% of his cohort using emerging products. He is also probably one of the 91.2% using traditional tobacco — the two are not mutually exclusive. The 2010 prohibition was a regulatory triumph at the time. In 2026, vape imports have grown 18× in two years to nearly half a million units annually — and the regulatory framework that succeeded against traditional cigarettes has been outflanked by product innovation in the global tobacco market.

Where this came from

The 2010 Tobacco Control Act was designed for the tobacco-product technology landscape of 2010. It addressed:

• Tobacco-containing cigarettes
• Smokeless tobacco (snuff, chewing tobacco)
• Smoking in public/religious places
• Sales to minors

It did not, and could not, anticipate:

• E-cigarettes (which only emerged commercially around 2007)
• Heat-not-burn products (introduced ~2015)
• Vape pen technology that has dominated the market since ~2018
• Disposable vape products that have driven the 18× import growth
• Online sales/social-media-driven youth marketing

The 2014, 2021, and 2024 amendments tried to update the framework but never fundamentally addressed the structural shift from combustible to vaporized tobacco products.

Why this matters now

The vaping market in Bhutan is at a critical inflection:

• Public health: 91.2% youth traditional smoking + 20.2% emerging products = enormously high combined tobacco exposure in the 15-24 cohort
• Regulatory credibility: The country that pioneered tobacco prohibition is now visibly losing ground to vape products — undermining the broader credibility of public-health regulation
• Market reality: 448,086 imported vaping devices a year in a country of ~780,000 means more than 1 vaping device per 2 Bhutanese citizens annually — a market that has clearly exceeded any plausible “personal use” justification
• Enforcement gap: Customs is interdicting some imports but the 18× growth indicates that interdiction is far behind the import flow

What it should be

• Acknowledge that the 2010 framework is no longer fit for the post-2018 product landscape
• The Tobacco Amendment Act 2026 should specifically address: importation interdiction at scale; retail enforcement; age verification (digital ID); school-zone restrictions; sentencing for distribution vs personal use
• Recognize that prohibition without enforcement creates market opportunity for criminal networks
• Consider whether a regulated-sale + age-restricted-purchase + tax framework would deliver better public-health outcomes than continued prohibition with rising imports

How others do it

• Singapore — ban on import, sale, and possession of all vaping devices (including for personal use); enforcement substantially better than Bhutan
• Australia — prescription-only for nicotine vapes; substantial illegal market but regulated framework
• United Kingdom — regulated sale + age restriction + flavor restrictions; enforced
• EU member states — varying frameworks from regulated sale to outright bans; varying enforcement effectiveness
• Bhutan — formal prohibition + 18× vape import growth in 2 years = structural enforcement failure

The question we should be sitting with

The 2010 Tobacco Control Act was rightly celebrated as one of the world’s most ambitious prohibitions. But in 2026, with 91.2% of youth smoking traditional tobacco and vape imports up 18× in two years, the policy outcome has clearly failed. Do we double down on prohibition (and what enforcement structure could match the import flow)? Or do we shift to a regulated framework? And what does the answer say about Bhutan’s broader theory of public-health policy?