“There are issues in the bill, which from my point of view can actually be carried out, but the changes are very radical. Therefore, radical changes are always difficult for execution because of the drastic change in habits, which are rather difficult to be changed in humans at once, right away.

As a result internal protest arises, so the people easily violate these prohibitions. I’d be more in favor of restrictions to be carried out step by step, rather than all to be done at once, “- said Khmaladze.

According to him, it should not be prohibited so-called tobacco and electronic cigarettes in the same way as the latter one is less harmful to human health.

“For instance, from my point of view it is wrong to set the limit equally of tobacco and e-cigarettes. There is a simple reason for this. In fact, electronic cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco. In case the chain smoker of tobacco has a desire to give up this bad habit, electronic cigarettes play an alternative key role in reducing smoking thus health starts improving. Then, why it should be banned the usage of electronic cigarettes in the same way as tobacco?

Initially, it might be better to not to ban and somehow to find the most effective way to support smokers quitting.

Then we can start thinking about the prohibition of electronic cigarettes. This is an attitude, why I did not support such radical restrictions”, – explained Khmaladze.

He also added that for the one who is into this business such kind of bill will incur losses.

“As for the economic side, of course, all restrictions for those who are engaged in this business field will be harmful. But when there is an alternative between health, or lack of restraint, I will support health. Thus for me the economic aspect is less important.”

According to him it must actively promote to reduce tobacco consumption and to reduce the harm for those who do not consume it all. But this should be done wisely, not in such a step that may remain only on paper and in reality unrealized.