Just weeks after Britain’s new vaping tax takes effect, another major set of nicotine regulations will take effect, adding to what is becoming one of the biggest transformations of the UK’s vaping market in years.

The Government itself has recognised the importance of maintaining a price advantage for vaping over smoking. When designing the duty, it explicitly provided for an accompanying tobacco-duty increase to preserve the financial incentive for smokers to choose vaping rather than cigarettes.

Another layer of regulations is added on October 29th

Adults will also be prohibited from buying—or attempting to buy—these products on behalf of someone under 18. Proxy purchasing can result in a £200 fixed penalty in England, Wales and Scotland and £250 in Northern Ireland, while retailers caught selling directly to minors can face larger penalties if prosecuted.

The new restrictions cannot be considered in isolation

The more difficult question concerns the cumulative effect of Britain’s new vaping policies. The previously discussed October tax does not arrive in isolation. The Government is also considering restrictions affecting vape displays, flavour descriptions, packaging and device appearance. Together, these policies could change not only how much vaping costs, but how easily smokers notice, understand and choose products as alternatives to cigarettes.

ELFBAR extrapolated that response across Britain’s vaping population and estimated that as many as 550,000 adults could potentially increase or resume smoking. Using estimates of smoking’s wider economic burden, the company calculated a theoretical maximum cost of approximately £4.5 billion annually.

That figure should not be interpreted as a prediction. It assumes stated intentions translate into behaviour and that all those affected are former smokers who subsequently resume smoking. Nevertheless, it highlights an unintended consequence policymakers need to consider.

Are lawmakers forgetting what actually matters?

Against that background, the key question surrounding restrictions should not be whether they reduce vaping, but whether they reduce smoking.  Preventing underage sales, proxy purchasing and irresponsible promotion can be pursued without undermining adult access. The 29 October measures largely illustrate that approach.

Timing matters here. From October 1st, vaping becomes more expensive through the VPD. Four weeks later, wider age and promotional controls arrive, while further restrictions on product presentation remain under consideration. Each measure may have a different objective, but smokers experience their cumulative effect.

The test for Britain’s evolving nicotine strategy should therefore be broader than whether fewer people vape. Youth uptake should fall, illegal sellers should face meaningful enforcement and regulated businesses should comply with strict age controls. But adult smoking should fall too – and this should be the priority

If Britain can strengthen youth protections while keeping regulated smoke-free products sufficiently affordable and accessible to compete with cigarettes, the two objectives can reinforce one another. If cumulative restrictions instead discourage switching, encourage relapse or drive consumers towards illicit markets, reducing vaping could come at the expense of reducing the behaviour responsible for vastly greater harm: smoking.

The UK’s Disposable Vape Ban One Year Later: Rising Smoking Rates and Illicit Markets, as Predicted

Source link

The WNBA seems positioned to join the ranks of sports leagues that have revised their marijuana policies, with details about negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)—which has now reportedly been agreed to in principle—indicating that the women’s basketball league is moving to eliminate cannabis testing for players.

As part of the negotiations between the Women’s National Basketball Players’ Association and WNBA, the league has reportedly put forward a number of potential policy changes, with proposals that touch on everything from salary caps to revenue sharing to travel expenses to drug testing rules.

ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne posted screenshots of slides which were reportedly presented to players during a meeting with league representatives last month. In one slide titled “WNBA CBA Proposal: Summary of CBA Improvements,” a list of 37 potential compromises includes an item that says simply, “Elimination of Marijuana Testing.”

Current WNBA policy treats cannabis significantly more restrictively compared to the NBA—and multiple other professional sports leagues beyond basketball that have also adopted reforms amid the state legalization movement. Marijuana remains listed as a “prohibited substance” for WNBA players, who are still tested for THC metabolites. First-time offenses generally result in treatment referrals, but repeated violations can lead to fines and suspensions.

After last month’s WNBA CBA presentation, the players association came back with a counterproposal that included certain concessions around issues such as revenue sharing and housing, ESPN reported, but the latest version of the deal that was agreed to in principle this week hasn’t yet been released so it’s unclear what it specifically proposes as far as marijuana testing rules are concerned.

The league did give some indication about its willingness to accept the changing tides around cannabis in 2024, when the WNBA team New York Liberty entered into a partnership with a CBD beverage company.

But CBD, a non-intoxicating cannabinoid, is federally legal—and the sponsorship arrangement didn’t change the fact that players would still be tested and potentially penalized for testing positive for THC.

Meanwhile, Brittney Griner—a WNBA player who was previously incarcerated in Russia over possession of marijuana—pulled out of an appearance at a cannabis event last year after discovering what she felt was a threatening message in her hotel room.

Conference attendees had hoped to hear from Griner about the nature of her incarceration in Russia, which helped fuel international debate about cannabis prohibition laws domestically and abroad.

How other sports leagues have navigated marijuana policy for players amid the reform movement.

NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies.

The NFL, meanwhile, reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players.

The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

In October, Nevada regulators officially adopted a rule change that will protect athletes from being penalized for using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification.

WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother.

While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules.

UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February.

The New York-based clubs are partnering with Mynd Drinks, a hemp-based CBD sparkling beverage company that also made history in 2024 when it became an official partner of the Major League Baseball (MLB) team the Chicago Cubs.

That year, NFL announced it was partnering with Canadian researchers on a clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of CBD for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions—key issues for many football players who experience injuries as part of the game.

Separately, NFL and the Denver Broncos in 2024 asked a federal court to reject a player’s lawsuit alleging discrimination over penalties he incurred due to positive THC tests from his prescribed use of a synthetic cannabinoid.

In a joint motion to dismiss filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the league and team defended their marijuana policy for players, affirming it’s their view that use of cannabis can lead to on-field injuries, poor job performance and “alienation of the fans.”

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

Source link