Macau is preparing to take another step in the ban on electronic cigarettes; this time, by criminalising their use and possession in public. The stated intention is to protect public health, especially among young people. That objective is legitimate; the problem lies elsewhere: between protecting and simply banning everything, there is a political, legal and practical difference that Macao seems increasingly less interested in discussing.
Electronic cigarettes are not harmless. They carry risks, create dependence and should not be normalised among teenagers. But a serious public policy is not measured only by the severity of punishment. It is measured by coherence, proportionality and the ability to produce results. Turning possession in public into an offence may give the Government an appearance of firmness, but it does not answer the essential question: does a total ban reduce consumption, or does it merely push the practice underground?
The contrast with mainland China is difficult to ignore. Beijing did not liberalise the market without rules; it did precisely the opposite. It brought electronic cigarettes under the tobacco regulatory system, imposed licences, restricted flavours, limited sales and strengthened supervision. In other words, it chose to regulate. Macao, which so often invokes the need to align with national development, is opting for the maximalist route: no selling, no importing, no transporting; and now, no possessing in public.
It may be argued that Macao has its own scale and should adopt tougher measures. But a small scale also requires regulatory intelligence. If possession becomes prohibited, how will it be enforced? With what priorities? And what message is being sent when traditional cigarettes remain available, regulated and taxed, while an alternative product is treated exclusively as a threat?
There is also a practical issue that is not being addressed head-on. Young people who want to buy electronic cigarettes are unlikely to stop doing so simply because the product has been banned. Most likely, they will turn — as, indeed, all those who replaced conventional cigarettes with electronic ones have done — to informal channels; without age control, without oversight and without any concern for public health.
A regulated market can impose rules, verify identities, limit access and punish offenders. A clandestine market has only one objective: profit
A regulated market can impose rules, verify identities, limit access and punish offenders. A clandestine market has only one objective: profit. And the less transparent it is, the lower the authorities’ ability to protect precisely those they say they want to protect.
Macao must protect young people and public health. But it must also avoid a policy that confuses authority with effectiveness. Regulation is not surrender; it is the recognition that some social behaviours do not disappear by decree. The law will ban consumption and possession in public. But if it cannot better explain its logic, it risks becoming just another example of a city that prefers to ban before it governs.
