Smoke-Free Generations, But No Way Out: The Fallacy of Total Prohibition (Europe and Asia, May–June 2025)
When the global crusade against nicotine overlooks those who most need alternatives, public health becomes a mirage.
On a global stage where legislations compete to outdo each other in severity, harm reduction fades like a forgotten note. Paris tightens nicotine limits, London bans disposable vaping, Madrid camouflages cigarette packs, and Jakarta silences social media. Yet amid this regulatory noise, who thinks about the adult smoker trying to escape deadly smoke?
The echo of a single melody resonates from Europe to Asia: governments, in the name of public health, impose increasingly stringent restrictions on alternative nicotine products. Bureaucratic whispers in Paris, parliamentary deliberations in Madrid, decrees in Bucharest, regulations in Jerusalem and Jakarta — all tuned to a regulatory score that seems unchangeable.
Yet beneath this façade of regulatory coherence, deeper tensions stir: the urgent narrative of protecting youth, the latent fear of rising nicotine use, and the political yearning to align with international dictates. And in the background, almost inaudible, lingers the unsettling threat for many: the logic of harm reduction — a strategy that has saved, and could continue to save, thousands of lives, but one that rarely finds a place on the grandiose stage of contemporary public policy.
France: From Nicotine Limits to a “Tobacco-Free Generation”
Starting July 1, the French government will ban smoking in outdoor public spaces frequented by children — beaches, parks, gardens, school surroundings, bus shelters, and sports facilities.
The measure, announced by Minister Catherine Vautrin, imposes a fine of up to 135 euros for violations, arguing that “the right of minors to breathe clean air must prevail.” The exact perimeter around schools will be defined by decree, with the Council of State providing guidance and local municipalities responsible for enforcement. The ban will also cover schools and high schools, aiming to prevent students from smoking near their premises. However, for now, café terraces and the use of electronic cigarettes are excluded from this restriction.
Simultaneously, in Paris, Vautrin announced that the government plans to “lower the permitted nicotine level” in vaping liquids, currently set at 20 mg/ml under the European Union’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). According to the minister, the aim is to rely on “scientific and technical advice” to define the details of the measure, which is expected to take effect “before the end of the first half of 2026.”
In parallel, senators from the ruling Renaissance party have introduced a bill to regulate nicotine pouches, setting a limit of 16.6 mg of nicotine per unit, banning sales to minors, prohibiting additives that alter nicotine absorption or suggest energizing properties, requiring graphic health warnings (with the exact format yet to be determined), and forbidding any descriptors that could create “a misleading impression about the product’s characteristics, effects, or risks.”
This legislative move reveals, on one hand, a recognition that alternatives to cigarettes exist with therapeutic potential for adult smokers; on the other, a fear that these same options could fuel the gray market or entice young people. The paradox is evident: while aiming to lower nicotine levels, some critics had already warned back in February 2025 that the government decree was essentially seeking to ban nicotine pouches altogether — a move that, they argued, would only encourage the black market.
Regarding a possible tax increase on tobacco, Vautrin stated that no new hikes are planned, citing concerns about smuggling and the need to support tobacconists in diversifying their business activities.
Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, the government also plans to lower the permitted nicotine levels in vaping products and reduce the number of available flavors. However, the specifics will depend on future scientific and technical recommendations. These measures are part of the National Tobacco Control Program 2023–2027, which pursues the ambitious goal of “freeing an entire generation from tobacco by 2032.”
Anti-tobacco movements had long been demanding concrete action: 1,600 French municipalities, on an experimental basis, extended local bans to around 7,000 outdoor spaces. A survey conducted by the Ligue contre le cancer shows that 62% of French citizens support the expansion of smoke-free areas.
The French regulatory agenda takes an even more radical turn with the initiative of Green Party deputy Nicolas Thierry, who proposes banning the sale of tobacco and heated tobacco products to anyone born on or after January 1, 2014.
Backed by the organization Alliance Against Tobacco (ACT), his proposal aims to create, in effect, a “tobacco-free generation.” Although it has yet to be formally introduced, the initiative pushes traditional boundaries: it’s no longer enough to regulate content or packaging — the goal is to prevent nicotine from ever reaching those who, ideally, will grow up immune to its risks.
Spain: The Fading Colors of Tobacco Packs and the Silent, Heavy Blow Against Vapers
In Madrid, Pedro Gullón, Director General of Public Health at the Ministry of Health, has confirmed that the government is in the “intermediate phase” of a bill that will mandate plain packaging — a measure poised to redraw the landscape of cigarette packs in Spain.
In its initial version, the draft submitted to the European Union in January also sought to ban all flavors other than tobacco in vapes, pouches, and heated herbal products. However, after receiving legal advice, the government decided to temporarily withdraw the plain packaging provision and refocus the reform within the main tobacco control law.
While plain packaging represents a logical step within the prohibitionist tradition of tobacco control — soon to be followed by the elimination of flavors — giving Spain regulatory coherence with countries enforcing stricter measures, its implementation is not without hidden costs: penalizing those smokers who have found in combustion-free alternatives an absolute path to quitting conventional cigarettes.
The Spanish Ministry of Health seems to overlook two pivotal studies led by Abigail Friedman that examine the effects of flavor restrictions on these devices.
The first study (2023) analyzed retail sales data from more than 375 localities and seven U.S. states that implemented permanent restrictions on the sale of flavored ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) devices. By cross-referencing local policies with sales figures, the authors detected a paradoxical effect: for every 0.7 mL ENDS pod that stopped being sold due to flavor restrictions, an additional 15 combustible cigarettes were sold. Moreover, they observed an increase in sales of cigarette brands that are particularly popular among minors.
These findings suggest that the public health benefits from reducing ENDS use could be offset by the rise in traditional cigarette consumption, whose health consequences are well-known and devastating.
An earlier study (2021), also led by Friedman and focused on the ban on flavored e-cigarettes in San Francisco, confirmed a similar phenomenon. Using a difference-in-differences analysis approach, the study showed that, far from decreasing, youth smoking increased in San Francisco compared to areas where no similar restrictions had been implemented.
Additionally, a joint study by the University of Bristol and the UK government agency Office for Health Improvement and Disparities concludes that flavor restrictions could affect smokers and vapers in unforeseen ways, making smoking more appealing than vaping. Nevertheless, the current Spanish administration appears to be moving toward a homogenizing regulatory framework that disregards the most robust and recent scientific evidence.
Taken together, these studies reveal a potential unintended consequence of flavor bans: by limiting access to less harmful nicotine products, restrictive policies may be pushing certain groups, including younger populations, back toward combustible cigarette use —a troubling irony that raises serious questions about the actual effectiveness of these initiatives in reducing harm.
United Kingdom and Scotland: The End of Disposables and the Utopia of a “Smoke-Free Generation”
On June 1, 2025, a ban on the sale of disposable vapes came into effect in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (see individual links for the specific regulations in each country).
The British government enthusiastically welcomed the measure, citing a clear rationale: to curb the so-called “youth vaping epidemic,” as these devices — affordable and available in a wide range of flavors — had become particularly appealing to teenagers.
On May 21, the Scottish Parliament approved a legislative consent motion allowing the application in Scotland of the provisions contained in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which includes a future generational ban on tobacco and heated tobacco products. The bill, still under review in the House of Lords, grants the government broad powers to regulate the content, packaging, design, and marketing of all nicotine-containing products.
However, behind the grandiose announcements, scientific data urges a more nuanced view of this supposed “crisis.” The real nicotine market remains firmly in the hands of adults.
In Great Britain, the ratio of adult to youth vapers is overwhelming: eleven adults for every one young person. The gap widens even further when traditional smokers are included. In this context, any serious discussion about youth vaping must be framed within this demographic scale, reminding us that the phenomenon, far from being a youth epidemic, is primarily an adult practice.
Efforts to eradicate youth vaping through prohibitive policies reveal not determination, but rather a naïve view of social reality. Some of these young people, deprived of vaping, will seek refuge in more harmful practices, such as conventional cigarette use or illicit markets. Others may simply be passing through, exploring a fleeting habit they will abandon as quickly as they adopted it.
To what extent is it legitimate to impose severe restrictions on an entire adult population in the name of protecting those who may not even need saving? The issue transcends the boundaries of public health and ventures into deeper territory: that of justice and freedom. Without a transition strategy grounded in harm reduction — for instance, by promoting regulated nicotine vaping — many young adults could be pushed to the fringes of the market, into gray areas where products lack health controls and the risks are, at best, unknown.
Moldova and Bulgaria: Diverging Paths Toward the Regulation of Vaping and Heated Products
In Chișinău, the Moldovan Parliament approved a government bill on May 29 banning the sale of nicotine pouches and flavored heated tobacco products. The initiative also mandates graphic health warnings covering 65% of the packaging. It imposes new restrictions on labeling, public communication, and the use of vaping devices and heated products in public spaces. The bill now awaits either presidential veto or approval; if enacted, the government will have 12 months to issue the corresponding secondary regulations.
Meanwhile, in Sofia, the health committee of the Bulgarian Parliament rejected on April 4 a legislative initiative that sought to extend the restrictions applicable to conventional tobacco to vapes and heated tobacco products in public spaces. The bill, backed by several opposition parties, proposed banning vaping in outdoor areas frequented by minors, such as playgrounds and sports facilities.
Although the committee’s decision was merely advisory, it exposed an internal debate: is it more urgent to protect young people or to preserve a regulated space for adult consumers who have chosen harm reduction?
The dichotomy between Moldova and Bulgaria reveals two opposing visions: one that advocates for comprehensive control, trusting that cutting off all pathways to consumption will be effective; and another that acknowledges the value of preserving less harmful options for adults within strict regulatory frameworks.
In Moldova, the implementation of 65% graphic warnings on packaging stands in stark contrast to Bulgaria’s rejection, illustrating how a small European country can fully embrace the hardline stance of the World Health Organization. However, international experience shows that when prohibition is enacted without offering safe alternatives, consumers tend to revert to conventional cigarettes or migrate toward the fringes of the market, where regulation does not reach and risks increase.
Israel and Iraq: Labels, Bans, and Contradictory Openings
On May 28, Israel’s Knesset, through its Economic Affairs Committee, approved a regulation that will impose graphic warnings covering 75% of the packaging for vapes and tobacco products, including heated tobacco. The figure represents a reduction from the originally proposed 90%, aiming to leave space for branding and ensure that slim cigarettes (cigarras) are not exempt. These new provisions, based on the March 2024 law, will come into effect in June 2026.
Although graphic warnings are a validated tool in public health policy, Israel’s rigid approach leans more toward visually sanctioning the consumer than promoting balanced information on risk reduction. When labeling relies on dramatic images but fails to guide users toward less harmful alternatives, the effect can be paradoxical: consumers, overwhelmed by negative stimuli, may tune out the message and, in some cases, turn to prohibited products through clandestine channels.
In contrast, in Baghdad, the Council of Ministers agreed on May 27 to lift the ban on the import of vapes and heated tobacco products, which had been in place since May 2025 as an amendment to the Tobacco Harm Protection Law. This easing is surprising in the context of a global trend toward increasing regulatory tightening. Iraq’s Ministry of Health itself acknowledged that the total ban did not curb consumption; instead, it drove up prices and encouraged counterfeiting.
Iraq’s decision reopens a window of hope for the harm reduction paradigm: to test, in a challenging environment, whether the controlled introduction of alternatives can indeed reduce the consumption of traditional combustibles.
Indonesia: The Stealth of Communication and Digital Control
In Jakarta, the Ministry of Health is preparing a regulation, set for late 2025, that will restrict digital communication about vapes, relying on a comprehensive framework approved in July 2024. Although the details are still in draft form, the official intent is clear: to limit advertisements, social media promotions, and any messaging that could “glamorize” vaping.
This digital siege on vaping exposes one of the most unsettling paradoxes of contemporary communication: in an environment where access to information should empower citizens, censoring evidence-based messages risks leaving users at the mercy of simplistic and alarmist narratives.
When debate is restricted in open forums, scientific communities, and educational platforms, consumption doesn’t decrease — it merely shifts. Deprived of reliable information, consumers migrate to closed groups and opaque spaces where content circulates without scientific rigor, and myths, half-truths, and misinformation flourish.
Thus, rather than protecting, excessive control weakens: it turns knowledge into contraband and, in doing so, erodes the possibility of an informed public debate on harm reduction and less harmful alternatives.
May: Between Morality and Science
At first glance, these regulations seem disparate: nicotine limits in Paris, generational bans in London, plain packaging in Madrid, graphic warnings in Jerusalem, digital restrictions in Jakarta. Yet when woven together, a common logic emerges: regulate, prohibit, stigmatize.
The shared denominator is a punitive view of nicotine, conceived as a poison that, they insist, “admits no nuance.” But science tells a different story: nicotine, isolated from combustion, is considerably less harmful; its primary risk lies in its potential for dependence, not in causing cancer.
When a state arbitrarily decides to lower nicotine levels, ban flavors, formats, and advertising — and does so without establishing a robust program of education, counseling, and health supervision — it creates a vacuum.
And in that vacuum, proliferate sellers of adulterated pouches, contraband liquids with toxic levels, and clandestine devices of dubious origin. Worse still, many users, stripped of their transition tools, end up returning to the deadliest enemy they once sought to leave behind — the conventional cigarette.
Paris, Madrid, London, Chișinău, Sofia, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Jakarta draw a map of prohibitions and restrictions that, though seemingly diverse, share a conviction: that controlling nicotine is akin to exercising social control.
But nicotine is no monolithic enemy; bodies, personal histories, and socioeconomic environments shape its effects. Ignoring this complexity is akin to turning a deaf ear to decades of interdisciplinary research that implores for responses that are situated, ethical, and scientifically informed.
The path, we know, is not simple. It requires acknowledging that for each adult smoker, nicotine can be both a poison and a relief: poison when inhaled through the fumes of combustion; relief when administered without fire or tar.
Defending this perspective means embracing complexity, compassion, and the possibility of a health redemption that does not drive users underground. It means recognizing that zero-tolerance vapor policies do not achieve their goals; instead, they push the most vulnerable into unsafe, marginal markets.
Perhaps the greatest lesson is learning to hear the whisper of evidence amid the clamor of public morality. Because if we persist in demonizing everything that carries the scent of nicotine, we risk closing the only possible exit for those who need it most. And every shuttered exit translates into lives mortgaged by preventable diseases.