In March, from Poland to Thailand, passing through Luxembourg and Paraguay, a global wave gained strength: the push to ban or severely restrict cigarette alternatives. Yet, while governments tighten regulations with no solid scientific basis, science keeps insisting: harm reduction is not only possible — it’s urgent.
Amid the constant hum of institutional machinery turning across Europe, Asia, and Latin America, a silent yet relentless current takes on a disturbing shape: the normalization of criminalizing innovation in nicotine delivery.
Where public health should be grounded in the latest scientific evidence and attuned to the complexity of social contexts, what emerges instead is a prohibitionist logic — often driven more by moral panic than by empirical understanding.
Governments that should lead a transition toward more humane and realistic health models are instead building walls against technologies that could save millions of lives.
The enemy is no longer just the traditional cigarette — that lethal artifact responsible, according to the World Health Organization, for over eight million deaths a year — but also the very tools designed to help people move away from it.
A paradox takes root: what could reduce harm is punished as harshly as what causes it.
Poland: The Taste of Repression
On March 17, 2025, Poland’s Ministry of Health confirmed its intent to propose a bill banning disposable vapes and restricting non-tobacco flavors in nicotine pouches. The initiative is expected to reach the Council of Ministers in the year's third quarter.
The draft marks a regressive turn from what could have been a balanced and sensible regulatory framework. In late 2024, the same government advanced legislation to regulate nicotine pouches, and restrictions on flavors were ultimately removed after pressure from more moderate ministers. Now, that same restraint is replaced by a prohibitionist reflex: what was once debated is censored.
The measure deliberately ignores a key fact: Flavors are neither a frivolous luxury nor a trap for children. They are vital for thousands of adults trying to leave behind combustible tobacco. By banning them, the state does not protect vulnerable consumers — it drives them back toward the only product that remains constantly available: the cigarette.
Paraguay: Regulation in the Shadows
Half a world away, on March 18, Paraguay’s Chamber of Deputies approved a bill introduced by liberal MP Luis Federico Franco to regulate vaping. While not an outright ban, the bill imposes a dense web of restrictions that suffocate its viability.
Tabled initially in August 2023, the legislation includes:
Mandatory 60% graphic health warnings;
Ban on any sensory descriptors — “fruit,” “caramel,” “chocolate,” etc.;
Nicotine limit of 20 mg/ml;
Online sales prohibition;
Mandatory retail licensing;
Ban on additives such as vitamins or stimulants;
Vaping is prohibited in closed public spaces or the presence of others;
Extended producer responsibility for post-consumer waste management.
The bill now goes to the Senate, and if passed, government agencies will have 90 days to issue implementing regulations.
At first glance, it may seem like a reasonable attempt at control. But in practice, it builds an invisible wall — a system that chokes without banning outright.
The restrictions risk discouraging adult users seeking safer alternatives while pushing legitimate retailers out of the market. The door creaks open for the illicit trade, which already dominates much of the continent.
Instead of crafting intelligent policy distinguishing between harm and risk, adult and youth access, Paraguay seems more concerned with punishment than prevention.
Luxembourg: The Ban Disguised as Regulation
Luxembourg doesn’t ban with words — it bans with numbers. And it does so with surgical precision.
On March 11, the government notified the EU of a draft law that would impose a nicotine cap of 0.048 mg per pouch — so low it would effectively remove all existing products from the market.
However, the bill goes further, introducing harsh restrictions on labeling, commercial communication, and health warnings — sometimes exceeding what the EU Tobacco Products Directive (EC TRIS database) requires.
The European Commission, Greece, and Sweden were quick to respond. They deemed the measure “disproportionate,” warning it would exclude “all relevant products from the market” and violate the principles of the single market.
Greece stated that the proposal “hinders the functioning of the internal market,” while Sweden questioned why less restrictive measures had not been considered.
The Commission also reminded Luxembourg that graphic health warnings, as proposed, only apply to smoked tobacco — not to nicotine pouches — and that this legal distinction must be upheld.
The standstill for comments has been extended until June 10, leaving room for further legal, scientific, and political objections.
However, the issue goes far beyond technical regulatory details. Luxembourg is attempting to ban a product without saying it aloud, using technical thresholds as a veto tool.
The product isn't outlawed — it’s made unviable. In doing so, under the cloak of legality, access to lower-risk alternatives for adults is silently cut off, without offering any real cessation policy in return.
Thailand: Prohibition by Inertia
On March 20, Thailand’s Parliament debated a report by a special committee assigned to explore regulatory options for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products.
The confidential report laid out three paths: reinforce the current ban, regulate only heated tobacco, or legalize both under strict controls. But the outcome was unequivocal: all forms of legalization were rejected.
The rationale—repeated like bureaucratic scripture—was familiar: “health risks,” “youth access,” and “enforcement difficulties.”
But behind the rhetoric lies another truth: fear has displaced evidence as the foundation of public health policy.
By choosing immobility, Thailand entrenches a profoundly contradictory status quo. While lower-risk products remain banned, combustible cigarettes — which are directly responsible for respiratory disease, cardiovascular harm, and millions of preventable deaths — remain legal, accessible, and normalized.
Few paradoxes in public health are more violent than denying adults a less harmful alternative in the name of symbolic protection, thus perpetuating actual harm.
Germany vs. Europe: Rational Skepticism
In December 2024, the EU Council recommended expanding smoke-free zones and restricting vaping and heated tobacco use, even in outdoor spaces.
Germany pushed back. The Bundesrat, its upper house, sent a letter raising concerns about the reliability of the data and the unintended consequences of such a broad recommendation — particularly for the hospitality sector and public life.
On March 17, the European Commission replied that the recommendations are non-binding and based on assessments by SCHEER (Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) and the World Health Organisation.
However, in the current political climate, non-binding is hardly a safeguard. Across the EU, many “recommendations” become law without meaningful public debate or proper social impact evaluation.
This time, Germany chose rational skepticism — an uncomfortable stance in a Europe that too often confuses precaution with dogma and risks closing down the civic and scientific space where the future of public health should be debated.
United States: Waste Yes, Product Also
On March 17, in New Jersey, three Democratic senators introduced a bill that took an unusual approach: regulate without banning, hold industry accountable without demonizing the tool.
The proposal requires e-cigarette manufacturers to join or create a producer responsibility organization (New Jersey State Legislature) to present a five-year plan for managing post-consumer e-cigarette waste.
Here, the logic is not moralistic — it’s environmental. The problem isn’t the product itself, but what happens after use. Regulation is driven by shared responsibility, not punishment.
At a time when many governments reach for blunt prohibitions, New Jersey offers a different path: making the industry responsible without criminalizing innovation.
This is a reminder that wise, balanced policy is possible—one that protects health, the environment, and individual choice.
March in Motion: Control With Nuance
While some countries tighten the screws to the point of suffocation, others choose more measured, precise regulation.
On March 11, the Netherlands approved a bill requiring mandatory registration of all nicotine product retailers under the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).
On March 19, the UAE adopted new standards for nicotine pouches: 20 mg per unit, 30% warning labels, and a ban on harmful additives. The rules take effect July 29.
On March 24, Malaysia postponed the enforcement of its ban on the retail display of vapes, pushing it from April to October 2025.
These are small but meaningful steps — showing that it is possible to regulate without extinguishing, to protect without suffocating.
The Future Can’t Wait
Now more than ever, we need proportionate, evidence-based, and rational regulation.
Not because we want to promote nicotine, but because we have an ethical obligation to reduce harm in a world where cigarettes continue to kill.
The tobacco harm reduction paradigm is not a fringe idea. It is a health strategy backed by decades of empirical evidence. Applying it to nicotine is not heresy — it is historical consistency.
Recent history has already shown us:
Prohibition saves no one.
Science does.