The public hearings on the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill are giving our lawmakers an important opportunity to listen before making decisions that could affect thousands of people trying to move away from deadly cigarettes.
At the Campaign for Safer Alternatives (CASA), we support strong tobacco control. We support protecting young people from nicotine use and tougher enforcement against retailers who break the law.
But we are concerned that parts of this Bill could produce consequences that run directly against its public-health objectives.
Our greatest concern is the proposed restriction on flavours in vapes and nicotine pouches.
The argument behind such restrictions is understandable. Products should not be designed, packaged or marketed to attract children.
But protecting young people and helping adults quit smoking are not competing objectives. Kenya can and should do both.
CASA’s latest member survey offers an important warning.
Half of respondents said they use vapes or nicotine pouches to help them quit smoking. More than half (53 percent) said flavours help them stay off cigarettes entirely, while 43 percent said flavours help them reduce how much they smoke. Only 14 percent identified tobacco as their preferred flavour.
Most concerning is what respondents told us they would do if flavours were removed.
One in three (32 percent) said they would return to smoking. Another 18 percent said they would smoke more. And 33 percent said they would seek flavoured products through alternative sources.
This is vital feedback from precisely the consumers whose behaviour Parliament needs to understand – adults who are using alternatives to cigarettes or considering doing so.
International evidence raises similar concerns. Yale University research involving more than 17,000 adults found that people using flavoured vaping products were more than twice as likely to quit cigarettes than those using tobacco-flavoured products.
The Bill also threatens to fuel illicit trade. Prohibition does not automatically eliminate demand. It can simply change where consumers buy their products.
That means potentially pushing people towards suppliers operating outside age-verification rules, product standards and regulatory oversight.
This should concern lawmakers in a country already struggling with a rampant illicit economy. Illegal traders avoid licensing fees, product approvals and inspections while compliant businesses carry those costs.
CASA is not asking Parliament to leave nicotine products unregulated.
We support strict age limits, meaningful penalties for retailers who sell to minors, controls on marketing and packaging aimed at children and restrictions on clearly youth-oriented flavour categories.
But there is a major difference between targeted safeguards and a blanket approach that could make alternatives less attractive to adults while leaving cigarettes readily available.
That is why these hearings matter.
Parliament should listen carefully to consumers, health experts, retailers and other affected groups, and judge every proposal against one simple test: Will this Bill, in its current form help fewer Kenyans smoke cigarettes?
If regulation protects children while helping adults move away from smoking, it deserves support.
If it risks pushing people back to cigarettes or towards the illicit market, it deserves another look.
The public hearings offers Kenya the chance to ensure it gets this right.