The rise of vaping as an alternative to traditional smoking has sparked significant debate across the globe, particularly in the Philippines. In this context, Executive Order No. 26 (EO 26), which aims to regulate the use of tobacco and its derivatives, raises the question: Is vape included in this executive order? This article delves into the implications of EO 26 on vaping, the rationale behind its inclusion, and the broader impact on public health in the Philippines.

EO 26, signed by President Duterte in 2017, primarily seeks to promote a healthier environment by enforcing stricter measures on tobacco products. While the order specifically targets the sale and use of traditional tobacco products, it implicitly affects vaping by establishing regulations that indirectly encompass e-cigarettes and vape devices. The primary goal is to protect the youth and non-smokers from the adverse effects of smoking and exposure to harmful substances.

One of the critical aspects of EO 26 is the age restriction imposed on the purchase and use of tobacco products, which extends to vaping. Under this executive order, individuals must be at least 21 years old to legally purchase tobacco and vape products. This provision aims to curb access to these products among minors, aligning with global efforts to reduce smoking rates and discourage early initiation.

Furthermore, EO 26 prohibits smoking and vaping in public places, including schools, hospitals, and public transport. This regulation is designed to protect bystanders from secondhand exposure to smoke and vapor, thus enhancing public health in various community settings. By treating vaping similarly to smoking, the government aims to convey a clear message that both pose health risks and should be regulated accordingly.

However, the inclusion of vaping in EO 26 is not without controversy. Advocates for vaping argue that it is a less harmful alternative to traditional smoking, offering smokers a chance to quit or reduce their tobacco intake. They contend that the government should differentiate between combustible tobacco products and vaping, which, according to some studies, may have fewer health risks. This ongoing debate highlights the need for further research and dialogue regarding the long-term effects of vaping and how it should be treated within public health policies.

In summary, while Executive Order No. 26 primarily targets traditional tobacco products, it does include provisions that affect vaping in the Philippines. By regulating access, age restrictions, and public use, the Philippine government aims to safeguard public health and reduce smoking rates. As the vaping phenomenon continues to evolve, it will be crucial for policymakers to keep up with emerging research and trends to ensure that their regulations effectively address the complexities surrounding vaping and its public health implications.