Smoke-Free or Smoke-Filled? The Case Against Blanket Vape Bans

by Peter lam August 28, 2025

Recent proposals—from Gibraltar's Tobacco-Free Generation draft to Singapore’s criminalization of vaping—highlight a persistent tension: preventing future nicotine users versus providing safer alternatives to current smokers.

In March, Gibraltar’s health minister unveiled a draft legislation banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. If passed, the prohibition would take effect in 2027 and would also apply to non-resident minors. The law stops short of criminalizing smoking; rather, it targets retailers, mandating fines up to £10,000, with repeat violators facing double that and potential loss of licence. Vending machines would be banned, and restrictions would extend to single-use vapes and tobacco-like novelty items.

While ostensibly a youth-protection measure, critics worry about economic fallout for small businesses, and more deeply, about the consequences of restricting adult access to less harmful options. Across the world, policymakers are wrestling with how to balance smoking prevention with health equity and harm reduction. History shows that symbolic wins don’t necessarily translate into better public health outcomes.

Panama has taken a stricter route, aligning vaping restrictions with traditional smoking bans. ENDS devices are now prohibited where cigarettes already are banned, marketing has been entirely eliminated, and products must be kept behind the counter. Retailers are tasked with ID verification and signage. While child protection is laudable, there’s a risk of obscuring safer options from adult smokers seeking alternatives.

Tobacco control strategy that costs lives instead of saving them
Meanwhile, Singapore has classified vaping as a drug offense, punishable by imprisonment—an extreme step, ostensibly justified by concerns over contaminated illicit products. Harm reduction experts argue this punishes responsible adult users and risks driving demand underground for untested, dangerous remedies. Notably, Singapore’s smoking rates have plateaued between 10% and 16% despite traditional control measures—suggesting that criminalizing vaping may not unlock the next drop in smoking prevalence. In contrast, nations that embrace regulated reduced-risk products—such as the UK, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden—have seen faster declines in smoking-related illness and death.

Scientific consensus is clear: combustion is the primary driver of tobacco harm, and regulated alternatives dramatically reduce exposure to toxins. Denying access doesn’t make those risks vanish—it simply ensures consumers must either quit cold turkey (a path few sustain) or find harmfully opaque alternatives.

Safer nicotine, safer lives
Perhaps the most compelling counterpoint comes from Sweden, where non-combustible products—especially tobacco-free nicotine pouches—have driven one of the world’s fastest smoking declines. Since pouches entered the market in 2016, Sweden’s smoking rate has dropped below 6%, and the country is on the brink of meeting the WHO’s “smoke-free” threshold of 5%. Women have especially benefitted, with female smoking rates falling sharply while cessation rates surged—nearly doubling, according to recent reports.

Surveys show that a sizable share of ex-smokers credit snus and nicotine pouches for their success, with many warning they would relapse without access. Nicotine pouches are discreet, smell-free, and culturally acceptable—traits that resonate with modern lifestyles, unlike the more stigmatized perception of snus or cigarettes. Moreover, comparative analyses of smoking-related mortality find that Sweden’s low death rates are strongly tied to its broader adoption of lower-risk products, rather than stronger traditional tobacco control policies.

The global crossroads in tobacco control
The diverging paths of Gibraltar, Singapore, Panama, and Sweden offer a vital lesson: restricting adult access to safer products can stall—or even reverse—smoking declines. Prohibitive laws may look tough but often ignite illicit markets, undermine consumer trust, and exacerbate health inequities. In contrast, when regulated alternatives are available, acceptable, and supported by education, adult smokers are significantly more likely to transition away from cigarettes.

Gibraltar’s draft law, Singapore’s drug framework, and Panama’s tight controls may win headlines, as well as the World Health Organization’s praise, but they risk sidelining what matters most—real-world impact on smoking. Sweden’s success demonstrates how harm reduction—when tailored to consumer preference and normalized in culture—can deliver dramatic public health gains. If we are truly serious about ending tobacco-related disease, the choice isn’t prohibition or progress. It’s time to embrace the latter.