In Uruguay, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Israel, Mexico, Germany, Switzerland, and Greece, both public outcry and official decrees have emerged, ranging from outright bans on electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products to partial prohibitions on disposable devices and flavored options. This global regulatory push appears poised to sacrifice the transformative potential of harm reduction, summoning age-old prohibitionist anxieties that, far from vanishing, have merely reemerged in modern guise.
Governments around the world are reviving or tightening restrictions on alternative nicotine products, ranging from total bans to partial prohibitions targeting flavors or disposable formats. By adopting policies driven more by inherited fears than by scientific evidence, these initiatives call into question the current tobacco control paradigm—and the very future of a public health strategy grounded in harm reduction.
Uruguay and Bulgaria Backtrack: Blanket Bans Without Nuance
On May 31 in Montevideo, Uruguay’s executive branch repealed Decrees 87/021 and 282/022, reinstating the ban on the sale and import of heated tobacco products, along with the reintroduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. With this move, Uruguay steps away from international experiences where heated tobacco has served as a potential bridge toward less harmful forms of consumption.
Just days later, on June 3, Bulgaria’s Parliamentary Committee on Economic Policy and Innovation approved a bill banning the sale, use, and advertising of all electronic cigarettes. This all-or-nothing approach deliberately ignores the risk gradient between smoking and vaping.
Lithuania, Israel, and Mexico: Cracking Down on Flavors and Disposables
On June 2, Lithuania's Chair of the Addiction Prevention Commission, Saulius Čaplinskas, introduced a bill to ban the sale of disposable devices, set to take effect in November 2026.
Meanwhile, on June 3, Israel announced its intent to ban both disposable devices and flavored e-liquids. While concerns about youth access to appealing products are valid, these policies overlook more balanced regulatory alternatives, such as limiting advertising or restricting sales to specialized venues, that could provide safer, more controlled environments.
In Mexico, a June 4 report from the National Addiction Commission recommended banning additives and flavors in tobacco, extending plain packaging requirements to heated tobacco products (HTPs) and vaporizers, and expanding “emission-free zones” to include these devices—a bundle of proposals still lacking a defined legislative roadmap.
Advertising and Public Use
Germany and Switzerland have opted for somewhat more targeted restrictions. On May 31, German Health Minister Nina Warken called on the Länder to align vaping regulations with those governing tobacco use in public spaces.
Shortly after, on June 4, Switzerland’s upper chamber passed two legislative motions: one to ban disposable devices and another to prohibit tobacco and vaping product advertising in media and venues accessible to minors, except in publications where at least 98% of the audience is adult.
In both cases, the strategy aims to reduce the visibility of these products. Yet it exposes a troubling lack of innovation in the face of a rapidly evolving and increasingly sophisticated market.
As Bans Multiply, Greece Opens Consultation
Greece, in contrast, launched a public consultation on May 31—open until June 16—aimed at regulating the sale of heated tobacco and vaping products.
The proposal includes mandatory age verification at all points of sale, a ban on vending machines and cross-border sales, while allowing for domestic e-commerce.
This model, which combines restrictions for minors with a degree of flexibility for adults, offers a potential path toward balance, provided it is backed by rigorous and sustained public education campaigns.
Where Is Global Regulation Headed?
By fragmenting policy into outright bans, partial restrictions, and advertising limits, governments appear to be reacting less to mounting evidence and more to a lingering historical fear—one that nicotine continues to embody in the collective memory.
This regulatory patchwork, even within the European Union, falls short of forming a forward-looking public health strategy. Instead, it reveals a disoriented landscape, uneasy with complexity and all too eager to embrace the shortcut of prohibition.
As science advances in comparing relative risks, many states retreat into binary thinking—approaches that have already failed in the past.
The danger lies not only in what is banned, but in what is left unexamined. Harm reduction demands frameworks capable of recognizing nuance—of distinguishing informed use from vulnerable use, indiscriminate access from intelligent regulation. Without that, what prevails is not protection but abdication: of innovation, of informed debate, and of the increasingly urgent task of shaping drug policies that are more humane, more effective, and more just.