Excise Department officials who attended a recent Committee on Public Finance (COPF) meeting may have declared the use of e-cigarettes illegal in Sri Lanka, but the reality is far less clear. Despite the statement, vapes remain widely available, used openly, and even advertised across social media. 

If they are truly illegal, how has an entire market been operating so freely? The statement has raised more questions than answers, exposing gaps in enforcement, inconsistencies in regulation, and a legal grey area that has left both businesses and consumers uncertain about what this means in practice. 

Is vaping actually illegal or is this just another case of unclear policy-making?

No law, no charges

Speaking to The Sunday Morning Business, Deputy Commissioner of Excise Channa Weerakkody acknowledged that no formal approval had ever been granted for vaping products in Sri Lanka. However, he confirmed that there was no law at present under which users could be charged.

“At the moment, users cannot be charged because there is no law,” he said. “But I think they will introduce legislation very soon because it is now a big issue in Sri Lanka.”

Weerakkody explained that vapes were not categorised as tobacco products, adding to the legal ambiguity. Since they contain artificial nicotine rather than tobacco-derived nicotine, they do not fall under existing tobacco regulations. This loophole has allowed vapes to be widely sold and used across the country despite the absence of regulatory approval.

The Government is expected to introduce legislation to address the issue, but questions remain regarding how such laws would impact tourism, given that vaping is popular among international visitors. Weerakkody suggested that Sri Lanka could follow the model of cigarette taxation by legalising and taxing vapes instead of enforcing an outright ban.

“What we can do is give legal approval. Then we can impose taxes as in the case of cigarettes,” he stated. He also noted that major tobacco companies were pushing for regulation and import approval, as vaping had begun to affect the sales of traditional cigarettes.

Lack of awareness and expertise

The Sunday Morning Business also reached out to a former senior employee of the Excise Department, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, for further insights into the issue. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he elaborated on the complexities surrounding the regulation of tobacco substitutes in Sri Lanka.

He explained that, according to the National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol (NATA), tobacco products such as beedi, cigars, cigarettes, and pipe tobacco were considered tobacco substitutes and were therefore subject to licensing requirements in the country. 

However, the legal stance becomes unclear when it comes to nicotine derived from tobacco versus artificially manufactured nicotine. Under the current legal framework, only natural tobacco-based products can be produced and manufactured under a licence. Artificially manufactured nicotine, under which vapes/e-cigarettes fall, on the other hand, is not explicitly covered by existing regulations.

He further noted that manufacturers of nicotine alternatives, such as vaping devices or e-cigarettes, had requested the Government to impose a tax on these products and permit their importation in order to make their business legal. 

Excise officials have previously seized shipments of these products and taken legal action against importers. However, the Attorney General ruled that there was no legal basis for prosecution and instructed that the cases be withdrawn.

Following this ruling, some importers initiated legal proceedings against the Excise Department, seeking damages for losses incurred due to the seizures. However, instead of formally withdrawing the cases, the department appears to be delaying legal proceedings in order to avoid potential liabilities.

According to the former Excise Department official, one of the key issues contributing to the regulatory ambiguity is the lack of senior personnel within the Excise Department who possess the expertise to navigate these legal and policy complexities. 

“The highest-ranking officers within the department do not hold positions above the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), resulting in a gap in knowledge and decision-making authority on such matters,” he observed.

He stressed that while authorities had the power to seize vaping products and even arrest individuals possessing such products, they ultimately could not pursue legal proceedings due to the lack of clear legal grounds. 

Legal grey area: NATA also confused

When contacted by The Sunday Morning Business regarding the legal provisions for arresting individuals in possession of e-cigarettes/vapes, former Chairman of NATA Dr. Alan Ludowyke, speaking in his personal capacity, stated that while there had been regulations banning these products since 2016, the legal framework surrounding arrests remained unclear.

“We have regulations banning them from 2016, but as far as making arrests is concerned, I am not quite sure. My legal officer had some issues with the fact that the Police found it difficult to make arrests because it needed to be a crime. The law can be broken and a product can be seized, but whether the person can be arrested is debatable,” Ludowyke explained.

He noted that determining whether possession alone constituted an offence serious enough for arrest rather than just a fine was a matter that needed further clarification. “That is something that has to be sorted out with authorised officers, the Police in this case. Whether the person in possession of these items can also be penalised in some way needs to be discussed, because sometimes there is just a fine for the possession of these products, which are illegal,” he said.

“This needs to be understood in order to understand the difficulties we have, because we have requested amendments to the NATA Act. This is a 2006 act, which we amended again in 2016 in relation to certain provisions. 

“E-cigarettes/vapes were never on the horizon at the time the act was written – these are new products. The industry keeps putting out all sorts of different devices and products, and the act does not specifically mention these,” he said. 

Dr. Ludowyke added that the proposed amendments had been submitted to the previous Parliament, but progress had stalled when Parliament was dissolved. “It is a 40-page document that involves several other ministries besides our own, each proposing amendments to their acts so that protection of the public can be better carried out in this regard,” he said.

2016 amendments 

Gazette Extraordinary No.1982/33, published on 1 September 2016, under the NATA Act No.27 of 2006, introduced regulations prohibiting the manufacture, import, sale, or offering for sale of specific tobacco-related products in Sri Lanka. These regulations were issued by the Minister of Health, Nutrition, and Indigenous Medicine under Sections 30 and 33 of the act.

The regulations classify prohibited tobacco products into different categories. Schedule I specifies that any smokeless tobacco product or mixture containing tobacco falls under the ban. Schedule II extends this prohibition to include flavoured, coloured, or sweetened cigarettes containing tobacco, as well as electronic cigarettes that contain tobacco.

The regulations define ‘smokeless tobacco products’ as any tobacco product that does not generate smoke. Under these provisions, the manufacture, import, and sale of these items are not permitted within Sri Lanka.

However, the dilemma here is that while e-cigarettes/vapes do not contain tobacco leaves like traditional cigarettes, they may contain nicotine, which can be either tobacco-derived or synthetically produced.

The key distinction lies in the source of the nicotine:

• Tobacco-derived nicotine – some e-cigarettes and vape liquids extract nicotine from tobacco plants, meaning they are technically connected to tobacco products.
• Synthetic nicotine – some newer vaping products use lab-manufactured nicotine that does not come from tobacco, meaning they are not classified as traditional tobacco products.

Laws apply even to tourists: SLTDA

Concerns were expressed following the COPF meeting as e-cigarettes/vapes are widely used by tourists who come to Sri Lanka. However, the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA) notes that laws cannot be amended to facilitate tourists in particular.

A senior official of the SLTDA, who did not want to be named given the sensitivity of the matter stated: “We welcome tourists and we need tourism for our economic development, the development of the country, and for its future. However, that doesn’t mean we have to do everything that tourists like or want.” 

Citing international examples, he pointed out that in Germany, certain substances were legally permitted in small amounts, despite concerns about their societal impact.

He further noted that Sri Lanka had already enforced public health policies, including banning smoking in public spaces. He recalled how public smoking had once been common, but laws had been introduced nearly a decade ago to prohibit it.

The official added that even tourists were not allowed to smoke in public places, reinforcing that Sri Lanka had designated smoking areas, including at airports.

“As a health-conscious community, we must make neutral, balanced decisions that prioritise the well-being of our people,” he stated.

The absence of clear regulations on vaping in Sri Lanka has not only created legal ambiguity but also resulted in lost tax revenue for the Government. With vape products widely available despite the lack of formal approval, sales continue without taxation or regulatory oversight, depriving the State of potential earnings that could be generated through import duties and excise taxes, similar to those imposed on traditional tobacco products. 

While authorities debate whether to ban or regulate vaping, the unregulated market continues to thrive, allowing untaxed imports and informal sales to expand unchecked. Until a structured policy is introduced, Sri Lanka will continue to forgo a colossal amount in tax revenue.