Cigarettes – Smoke Master

Britain’s Tobacco Policy Paradox: Legal Vape Shops Squeezed as Illicit Cigarettes Thrive

admin — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:54:30 +0000

There is an ever-increasing contradiction facing Britain’s strategy for controlling tobacco: while the authorities are investing heavily in putting a stop to illegal cigarettes, the new taxes and business expenses faced by legitimate vape businesses will likely result in the regulated alternatives to smoking being less competitive.

The extent of the problem with illegal tobacco is already considerable. From April 2025 to March 2026, HMRC and the Border Force reported seizing about 1.9 billion illicit cigarettes, with an estimated revenue value of around £1.1 billion. Moreover, the Government’s own strategy on illicit tobacco admits that cheap illegal cigarettes give smokers access to an unregulated supply that can weaken the deterrent effect of high tobacco prices.

This is important since one of the reasons taxation exists is to make smoking progressively less affordable; the beneficial public-health impact of higher excise taxes can then be reduced if smokers are able to get considerably cheaper cigarettes via illegal channels.

Industry research recently brought to light by Convenience Store has also raised concerns among independent retailers, since JTI’s Pack Swap data indicates that a high percentage of the cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco inspected were not subject to UK duty payment. Although these estimates are based on industry sources rather than official market data, they support what the government’s enforcement statistics have already shown: illegal tobacco remains deeply embedded in certain areas of the retail sector.

Illicit tobacco: much more than a revenue issue

For many years, Britain adopted a fairly practical attitude towards vaping – one that had proved successful. The government still holds the view that vaping is less harmful than smoking and that it can assist adult smokers to quit.

The effects extend past the loss of tax revenue. The government states that the illegal tobacco market is controlled by organised crime groups who are also engaged in drug trafficking, money laundering, violence and exploitation. In its 2024 strategy, it pledged over £100 million in extra funding over a five-year period and clearly acknowledged that enforcement on the supply side alone is unlikely to eliminate the trade as long as consumer demand remains strong.

This raises an important question regarding tobacco harm reduction: if there is continued demand for nicotine, then what legal alternatives are smokers being advised to select? For many years, Britain adopted a fairly practical attitude towards vaping – one that had proved successful. The government still holds the view that vaping is less harmful than smoking and that it can assist adult smokers to quit. Strong evidence supports this. The most recent Cochrane living review, which included evidence up to January 2026, once again concluded that nicotine vapes are more effective at helping people to stop smoking than conventional nicotine replacement therapy. Despite this, sadly, the economics of this kind of substitution are now changing.

New vape tax pressures the wrong recipients

From 1 October 2026, all vaping liquids will have to pay a new flat-rate Vaping Products Duty of £2.20 for every 10ml, regardless of nicotine content. The Government states that the aim is to make vaping less affordable and less attractive to young people and to non-smokers while at the same time providing a financial incentive for smokers to make the switch. Tobacco duty will also increase to maintain this difference.

The difficulty lies in whether the legal market can remain sufficiently attractive after additional taxes and regulatory costs. The UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) has strongly criticised separate proposals that would also remove business-rates relief from specialist vape shops, even though qualifying pubs, clubs and live music venues would receive a 20% reduction starting in April 2027.

Director General of UKVIA, John Dunne, says that viewing compliant vape retailers as businesses which contribute little to their local communities is difficult to square with Britain’s own acknowledgement of vaping as a means of quitting smoking. The association is not asking for less stringent action against illegal sellers; rather, it is urging policymakers to distinguish between responsible specialist retailers and companies that sell illicit products or supply them to minors.

A licensing scheme would be the way to go

The UKVIA is therefore advocating licensing retailers as a more appropriate solution, something it has long pushed for. With such a system, companies that meet the requirements for age verification, product standards and marketing could continue doing business, while those who repeatedly break the rules might have their licences suspended or removed altogether. The association says this would let authorities focus enforcement on misconduct rather than impose financial disadvantages on the whole sector.

That distinction is likely to matter more when duty stamps are introduced alongside the new vaping tax. Starting in October, compliant products entering the market will need stamps, and from April 2027 almost all vaping products not in duty-suspension arrangements will need one. The Government says the scheme should make it easier to identify legal products and help enforcement against illicit trade.

Safer options should remain affordable and accessible

Britain has seen substantial cuts in smoking over the last ten years, and tax measures may have been a key factor, but so have been vaping products. Meanwhile, the government itself admits it cannot deal with continued illicit demand by relying on enforcement alone.

From the point of view of tobacco harm reduction, the reasonable course of action is not to relax cigarette regulations, but to make sure that legal, lower-risk alternatives are easier and more appealing to get than combustible tobacco from the black market.

If genuine vape shops face excise duties, higher operating costs, and stricter regulation, while illegal cigarette sellers escape all three, the imbalance will, of course, become counterproductive.

A coherent tobacco policy must therefore include three interrelated components: rigorous enforcement against organised illicit trading, effective safeguards for young people, and a viable regulated market for adult smokers who want to move away from combustion. Success should not be judged merely by the extent to which nicotine products are taxed or restricted; it should be judged by whether smokers are giving up cigarettes and by whether the legal market makes it easier to make that switch than the black market does. And surely, the relevant authorities must already know all this.

Source link

Australia’s Backwards Nicotine Policy Leaves Cigarettes Legal and Safer Alternatives Restricted

admin — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 15:32:07 +0000

Australia has created one of the strangest nicotine markets in the developed world. Combustible cigarettes—the product responsible for the overwhelming majority of tobacco-related disease—remain legally available through ordinary retailers, while access to lower-risk alternatives has become progressively more difficult. The latest example is nicotine pouches.

From 24 July 2026, the Therapeutic Goods Administration removed the remaining consumer pathways for accessing nicotine pouches. Personal importation is no longer permitted, doctors cannot prescribe them through the Special Access or Authorised Prescriber schemes, and pharmacists cannot compound them. No nicotine pouch is currently included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, meaning there is effectively no lawful consumer supply.

The contrast could hardly be clearer: cigarettes remain on shelves while a tobacco-free product that produces neither smoke nor aerosol has effectively disappeared from the legal market. For tobacco harm reduction advocates, this represents Australia’s central policy problem—not insufficient regulation, but a risk hierarchy turned upside down.

Sweden shows what Australia is missing

Sweden is renowned for moving in the opposite direction. Instead of expecting every smoker to abandon nicotine entirely, it has allowed non-combustible alternatives to compete with cigarettes. Longstanding snus use has been joined by tobacco-free nicotine pouches, helping create a diverse market of products that avoid combustion.

Recent Swedish data put daily smoking at exceptionally low levels, while Smoke Free Sweden’s Power in a Pouch report argues that nicotine pouches have become particularly important among former smokers, especially women. Its survey found 26% of male and 28% of female ex-smokers identifying pouches as their most effective quitting aid. While a 2025 Cochrane review found no short-term serious harms in the small studies available and reductions in some biomarkers of tobacco-smoke exposure among smokers allocated to pouches.

Britain shows why consumer choice matters

The UK provides another useful example of a diversified harm-reduction market. Vaping remains the dominant alternative, supported by strong evidence for cessation. The latest Cochrane living review examined 104 studies involving more than 30,000 adults and concluded that nicotine vapes help more people quit smoking than conventional nicotine replacement therapy.

Nicotine pouches mostly attract smokers and recent ex-smokers. Action on Smoking and Health’s 2026 survey found current pouch use at 5.1% among smokers, 2.1% among ex-smokers and just 0.3% among never-smokers. Among people who had quit smoking during the previous year, pouch use reached 5.8%.

These figures suggest that the product currently appeals disproportionately to people with smoking histories rather than never-smokers. That matters because smokers tend to prefer vaping because it replicates inhalation and hand-to-mouth behaviour. But others clearly prefer an oral product that requires no device, produces no vapour and can be used discreetly. The more acceptable alternatives available, the greater the chance of finding something that can replace cigarettes for everyone.

Australia’s restrictions are feeding a massive black market

Australia is moving in the opposite direction while also experiencing an extraordinary shift toward illicit supply. Experimental modelling published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that total nicotine consumption increased by almost 40% between 2017 and 2025, despite population growth of only 14%. Over the same period, the estimated proportion supplied through illicit sources rose from 12% to 80%.

The ABS stresses that these estimates are not definite because wastewater can measure overall nicotine consumption but cannot determine which products produced it. Administrative and survey data must therefore be used to allocate consumption across cigarettes, vapes and other nicotine products.

Nevertheless, the underlying signal is difficult to ignore. Legal tobacco quantities fell to less than one-third of their 2017 level while total estimated nicotine consumption rose. The ABS concludes that substitution towards cheaper illicit products has more than offset declining legal consumption. Against that background, eliminating another lawful smoke-free option looks less like consumer protection and more like handing an established illicit market another product category.

New Zealand provides the most relevant comparison

Australia does not need to look as far as Sweden for an alternative regulatory model. Neighbouring New Zealand has historically regulated vaping as a legal consumer product rather than forcing consumers through Australia’s much narrower system. A 2025 study in Addiction compared smoking and vaping trends in the two countries between 2016 and 2023.

Daily smoking in New Zealand declined from 14.5% to 6.8%, compared with 12.2% to 8.3% in Australia. The researchers also found faster smoking reductions among lower socioeconomic groups and Indigenous populations in New Zealand.

The observational study cannot prove that vaping regulation alone caused this difference. But it provides a valuable natural comparison between neighbouring countries with similar conventional tobacco-control policies and sharply different approaches to safer nicotine alternatives. Importantly (and in this case mostly overlooked), consumer accounts indicate that Australia’s harsh restrictions on safer alternatives are where the problem lies.

Meanwhile, New Zealand itself does not yet operate an unrestricted legal nicotine-pouch market; oral nicotine products remain subject to specific medicines and psychoactive-substance rules. The stronger lesson from New Zealand is therefore about vaping: legal, regulated alternatives can coexist with faster declines in smoking.

Australia needs to put risk back at the centre

Australia’s problem is not that cigarettes are insufficiently regulated. It is that its nicotine framework repeatedly makes safer legal alternatives harder to obtain while illicit suppliers remain willing to provide whatever consumers want.

No one is implying that nicotine pouches should be sold freely and free of regulations. They should have enforceable standards covering nicotine content, ingredients, packaging and youth access. Manufacturers should be required to substantiate claims, and regulators should continue gathering long-term oral-health and epidemiological evidence. But none of that requires eliminating legal access.

A rational tobacco harm reduction strategy would put combustible cigarettes under the greatest regulatory and fiscal pressure, while creating controlled pathways for lower-risk products capable of replacing them. Australia has instead preserved the easiest legal route to the most dangerous product, restricted vaping and now effectively closed legal access to nicotine pouches—all while an enormous illicit nicotine economy has developed around those restrictions.

Sweden demonstrates the potential value of consumer choice. Britain shows different alternatives can appeal to different smokers. New Zealand shows that regulated vaping will lead to rapid declines in smoking. Australia’s approach remains the reverse: make safer products difficult to obtain, leave cigarettes readily available, then fight the black market that predictably fills the gap. If the objective is genuinely to reduce smoking-related disease, that hierarchy needs to be turned the right way up.

Australia Insists on Opting for Nicotine Prohibition, Despite Failing Miserably

Source link

Nicotine Pouches Are Not Cigarettes. Regulation Should Reflect the Difference

admin — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 02:01:17 +0000

There is a marked contradiction in the global nicotine market: while combustible cigarettes—the products responsible for the vast majority of tobacco-related illness—are still available in nearly every convenience store, smoke-free alternatives have to go through lengthy regulatory reviews, meet with political opposition and are frequently the subject of calls for prohibition.

Nicotine pouches are now finding themselves involved in the same debates that had earlier concerned vaping. Since these products do not contain tobacco leaf and produce neither smoke nor an aerosol, critics are increasingly referring to them as the ‘next Juul’. Tobacco harm reduction experts have consistently highlighted that this way of putting it is inflating legitimate worries regarding youth use and leading to exaggerated restrictions which will ultimately only benefit cigarette companies by removing lower-risk alternatives from the market.

The latest decision by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding ZYN provides an opportunity to redirect the debate towards evidence.

What does the reduced risk status by the FDA mean for the pouch market?

Last June, Swedish Match USA received the FDA’s modified-risk status for 20 of its ZYN nicotine pouch products. The licence enables the company to claim that using ZYN rather than cigarettes reduces the risk of mouth and lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

The FDA specified that the approval does not imply that nicotine pouches are harmless, appropriate for people who have never used them or approved as medicines to help people quit smoking. Furthermore, the decision does not automatically extend to every pouch currently on the market.

The order does, nonetheless, show a significant regulatory recognition of the fact that adults who wholly substitute cigarettes for prescribed nicotine pouches are able to lower their risk of disease. The FDA has determined that the claim is scientifically accurate with respect to the approved products, understandable to consumers, and likely to contribute to better population health. The importance of the ZYN ruling is partly because progress has been slow.

Nicotine pouches have had to go through the FDA’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application process, a system that was originally designed with quite different products in mind. Manufacturers and retailers have objected to the lack of detailed, pouch-specific guidance, the lengthy review times, and the uncertainty regarding how the agency evaluates flavours, nicotine delivery, and effects on the population.

A guideline for Asia

Yet, the FDA’s order should likewise draw attention in the Asia-Pacific region, since cigarette smoking is found there together with the widespread use of hazardous traditional oral tobacco products. Nicotine pouches are used similarly to local products like gutka, khaini, and zarda, but their makeup is essentially different. They do not contain tobacco leaves and can be produced according to controlled standards regarding the ingredients. On the other hand, some of the local smokeless products contain high levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines and may be mixed with areca nut, which in itself is linked to cancer.

The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) has recently reiterated that regulators should not classify cigarettes, traditional smokeless tobacco and tobacco-free pouches as being in a single, undifferentiated category. A reasonable regional response should therefore be neither simple approval nor a complete ban of alternative products. Governments could establish a separate product category with restrictions on nicotine concentration, requirements for testing contaminants, rules regarding manufacturing, mandatory health warnings, child-resistant packaging and post-market surveillance.

Nicotine pouches’ growing popularity in the UK

The Haypp and Northerner Nicotine Pouch Report 2026 looked into the experiences of 2,082 UK customers and examined purchasing data from over 50,000 individuals. Nicotine pouch sales at the two retailers rose by 60% in 2025. Almost one in two of those surveyed stated that they had started using pouches as part of an effort to quit smoking, and a large number said that they were using them as they moved on from vaping or that they were alternating between lower-risk products.

Convenience and discretion were major selling points. Since pouches need no batteries, do not have to be refilled or inhaled and can be used in places where smoking and vaping are not allowed, purchases by female customers increased more than three times in 2025. This indicates that the unobtrusive format may be attractive to those who do not like to carry visible nicotine products or feel judged for using them in public.

Will Costa Rica choose prohibition?

Meanwhile, a proposal in Costa Rica to limit most oral nicotine products, despite their risk level, shows how easily regulation can lose sight of comparative risk. People’s advocacy groups have stated that the measure might include tobacco-free pouches and could thus reduce access to certain medicinal nicotine products, although cigarettes would still be allowed. This policy discussion once again raises an important question: what outcome occurs when a government removes safer products but continues to allow the most hazardous one to be sold?

The demand for nicotine will never vanish; people might start smoking again, buy unregulated pouches or resort to informal cross-border suppliers. As a result, prohibition will substitute regulated products with ones that have looser age checks, uncertain ingredients, and no reliable supervision during manufacturing – a pattern we have sadly become all too familiar with.

Regulation should follow the continuum of risk

Sure, nicotine pouches are addictive, and therefore measures need to be in place to protect young people and/or never users. Marketing should focus on adult nicotine users rather than on those who do not currently use nicotine, and the regulators should keep an eye on the oral effects, the safety of the ingredients, and the patterns of dual use.

Yet the fact that there are such concerns is no reason for pretending that pouches and cigarettes pose comparable risks. The way the FDA has handled its modified-risk assessment, albeit taking way too long, provides a more suitable approach—evaluating each product separately, requiring supporting evidence, and allowing comparisons between products if the science supports doing so. This type of information enables consumers to realise that switching completely makes a difference and that continuing to smoke means they will still retain most of the risk.

Public health ought to make the most dangerous nicotine products as unattractive and difficult to buy as possible—not the other way around. Although nicotine pouches will not be suitable for every smoker, they should serve as a complement to, not a replacement for, effective alternatives such as vaping and medicinal nicotine. Nevertheless, by expanding the range of acceptable substitutes for cigarettes, they can help to advance tobacco harm reduction and provide more adults with a practical means of giving up combustion.

Nicotine Pouches and Oral Health: The Latest Evidence on the Risks and Their Solutions

Source link