電子煙的法律管制──從「浮士德公司進口電子煙油案」相關行政判決談起

Legal Control of Electronic Cigarettes: From the “Faust Company Imported e-liquid Case” Related Judgements of the Administrative Court

電子煙的問世與風行，對於各國既有的菸品管制法令亦造成了相當的衝擊。在我國，若查獲之電子煙含毒品，則依毒品危害防制條例處理。若含有尼古丁，則屬偽劣假藥，依藥事法處理；倘電子煙產品宣稱具「幫助戒菸」、「減少菸癮」或「減輕戒斷症狀效果」等醫療效能詞句，即使不含尼古丁成分，亦違反藥事法有關廣告之規定。若未含有尼古丁，然認為電子煙「形似菸品形狀」，則依菸害防制法第14條，亦即「任何人不得製造、輸入或販賣菸品形狀之糖果、點心、玩具或其他任何物品」之規定處罰。然而，如此法律適用方式是否妥適？不無疑義。本文爰以「浮士德公司進口電子煙油案」所涉及的兩個相關行政訴訟判決，進行評述。本文並認為基於法律保留原則，非菸品形狀的電子煙油，應不屬於菸害防制法第14條管制範圍。

 

The development of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have caused considerable impact on the existing tobacco control laws and regulations in various countries. In Taiwan, if e-cigarettes contain narcotic drugs, it should be regulated in accordance with the regulations by Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. If nicotine is contained, it is a counterfeit drugs or misbranded drugs and it should be regulated in accordance with the regulations by Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; if e-cigarettes allege to have “medical help quitting smoking,” “reduce tobacco addiction,” or “reduce the effect of withdrawal symptoms,” even if it does not contain nicotine, it still violates the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act concerning advertising. If no nicotine is contained, it should be punished according to Article 14 of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, “No person shall manufacture, import or sell candies, snacks, toys or any other objects in form of tobacco products.” However, Taiwan’s current regulatory model requires further clarifications and revisions. This article reviews the two related judgements of the Administrative Court in the case of Faust Company Imported e-liquid. This article considers that based on the principle of legal reservation, e-liquid is not in form of tobacco product, should not be the subject matter of Article 14 of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act.