Finally, without prejudice to what has been stated above, it is necessary to clarify that, given that the Peruvian State, in order to protect public health, has established rules that allow for the control of the use of so-called “social toxins,” and has specifically implemented measures aimed at preventing and controlling the risks associated with tobacco consumption—warning the population about the health harms caused by smoking or exposure to tobacco smoke—regulation in matters of tobacco consumption, insofar as it poses a serious risk to public health, will have the immediate effect of reducing cigarette consumption among the population.

This undoubtedly has an economic impact on companies engaged in the sale of tobacco, as it necessarily leads to a reduction in the sales of this product, resulting in decreased revenues and business profits. Therefore, any measure aimed at discouraging the population from consuming tobacco, in any of its forms, does not, per se, constitute an arbitrary measure or a violation of the right to free enterprise held by companies in this sector, since the State has chosen to prioritize the protection of a greater good: public health. In any case, if, as the claimant argues, the mandatory sale of packs containing no fewer than ten cigarettes promotes smuggling or the use of loose cigarettes—which has not been scientifically or technically proven—it will be the responsibility of the State to adopt measures of a different nature to suppress such effects, which would undoubtedly fall within a scenario of illicit tobacco trade.
The alternative proposed by the appellant—promoting the sale of cigarettes in packs of five in order to maintain its sales, profits, and earnings—is therefore not valid.