The Global Wave of Tobacco and Vaping Restrictions: Private Interests, Moralism, and Blind Prohibitionism—All at Once
The history of tobacco regulation is also the history of a struggle between science and dogma, between empirical evidence and the moralistic impulses of the ruling classes who, through the state apparatus, have disguised social, political, and economic control as public health policy.
For decades, nicotine consumption has been shaped by a punitive logic—punishing taxes, increasing restrictions, and stigmatization campaigns that do not just target smoking itself but aim to regulate pleasure, dictating which substances people can consume and under what conditions.
From the earliest anti-smoking campaigns to fiscal engineering that artificially raised cigarette prices under the guise of discouraging smokers—but with the certainty of continuing to milk a captive market—regulation has been marketed as an act of collective protection, a public health tool.
But when new technologies emerge that disrupt this balance of power, when people find ways to move away from cigarettes without total abstinence or passing through the filter of the pharmaceutical industry, the narrative becomes contradictory. The paradigm shifts, and with it, the response of states: instead of recognizing the harm reduction potential of alternatives like vaping, heated tobacco, snus, and nicotine pouches, authorities demonize them, impose suffocating regulations, and, in many cases, punish them with outright bans, equating them with combustible cigarettes.
This is not just about public health—it is about control over bodies and their pleasures, about the right to make personal consumption choices without top-down impositions. The real question is not who quits smoking but who controls nicotine and under what conditions most people can access it.
An Unprecedented Acceleration of Nicotine Restrictions
As previously reported (in The Vaping Today), the first months of 2025 have witnessed an unprecedented surge in nicotine product restrictions. From South Africa to Canada, from Chile to Turkey, this wave of regulations seems less driven by evidence and more by an ideological crusade against nicotine in all its forms.
The justifications are the same as always: protecting youth, reducing consumption, preventing the “vaping epidemic”. But the uncomfortable questions remain unanswered:
What happens when the least harmful alternatives are eliminated or severely restricted?
Does this reduce harm, or does it just push consumers back toward cigarettes or the illicit market?
A Growing Map of Restrictions
Regulatory crackdowns are nothing new, but 2025 marks a turning point. Bans are no longer isolated measures—they are part of a coordinated movement that erroneously equates all nicotine products.
South Africa Sets a Continent-Wide Precedent
On February 3, South Africa will hold public hearings on the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill. This law will impose strict restrictions on selling, advertising, and labeling tobacco and vaping products. Modeled after strict European regulations, this could set a precedent for other African nations despite no clear evidence of its effectiveness in harm reduction.
The Americas: Regulatory Push Without Scientific Consensus
Across the Americas, policies conflict and contradict each other:
Canada opted not to ban vape flavors this year, signaling that regulatory decisions are often driven by political and electoral calculations rather than public health concerns.
The U.S. postponed its plan to reduce nicotine levels in conventional cigarettes while states like Oregon and California pushed new restrictions on disposable vapes.
Chile and Panama tightened packaging and advertising regulations, while Guatemala proposed banning vape sales to minors.
In Washington, a bill seeks to ban all flavored nicotine products, ignoring the black-market consequences of similar measures in other countries.
The pattern is clear: governments are fixated on restricting these products without a coherent strategy.
Asia & the Gulf: Contradictory Approaches to Regulation
Malaysia debated banning vaping but admitted there is no political will for a total ban.
Turkey unexpectedly announced it would reconsider its stance on nicotine products, a surprising shift for a country with a historically prohibitionist approach.
Saudi Arabia proposed stricter sales regulations for tobacco and vaping but stopped short of an outright ban.
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries approved new flavors, packaging, and health warnings restrictions, though implementation remains uncertain.
Europe: The Vanguard of Prohibitionism
Europe continues to lead in strict tobacco control—and, in some cases, outright prohibitionism.
France banned disposable vapes with near-unanimous political support without considering less extreme regulatory alternatives.
Poland banned flavors in heated tobacco and imposed new rules on nicotine pouches.
Despite no clear evidence of its effectiveness, Norway implemented plain packaging for vaping products.
The Isle of Man’s House of Keys is considering banning tobacco sales for anyone born after 2008, following New Zealand’s failed strategy, which was later repealed.
Europe fails to differentiate between combustible cigarettes and lower-risk alternatives, applying restrictions that may cause more harm than good.
Public Health or Black Market Boom?
Regulation is not inherently bad. Restricting sales to minors, ensuring product quality, and controlling advertising in specific settings are reasonable policies. The problem arises when regulation becomes absolute prohibition, ignoring the risk hierarchy among nicotine products.
The science is precise:
Combustible cigarettes are the most harmful form of nicotine consumption.
Vaping, nicotine pouches, snus, and heated tobacco are significantly less harmful.
Yet governments seem more concerned with nicotine itself than actual health risks.
Does Banning Reduce Use or Push It Underground?
History shows that prohibition does not eliminate consumption—it shifts it to illicit markets.
In Thailand, where vaping is banned, 40% of users get their products from the black market.
What Happens to Harm Reduction?
The UK was once a leader in harm reduction, encouraging smokers to switch to safer alternatives. However, this approach is being abandoned as more countries opt for punitive regulations, putting years of public health progress at risk.
Who Benefits from Prohibition?
If these restrictions continue, the biggest winners will be illicit producers and black-market distributors—operating without quality control or age restrictions.
The Need for Science-Based Policy
Tobacco and vaping regulations should be driven by science, not ideological prohibitionism.
Harm reduction is not “pro-vaping” or an industry concession—it is a pragmatic public health strategy to reduce smoking-related deaths. Suppose governments continue to treat vaping and heated tobacco as if they were cigarettes. In that case, the result will not be a nicotine-free generation—it will be widespread access to unregulated, lower-quality products.
History has repeatedly shown that extreme prohibitionist policies rarely achieve their goals. The question remains:
Will we repeat past mistakes, or will we finally recognize that saving lives requires smart regulation—not ideological bans?