DOJO today announces the launch of the BLAST10K Fresh, the first device in the UK market to feature proprietary INSTA-JUICED technology. Utilising a unique 0+10ml freshness-locking structure, this innovative vape isolates e-liquid from the coil until activation. Unlike traditional devices where prolonged contact with the coil can lead to oxidation and stale flavours, INSTA-JUICED keeps the liquid pristine. This ensures that the flavour profile remains locked at its peak—delivering vibrant sweetness and sharp cooling—effectively providing a “just-opened” experience with every puff. This design addresses consumer concerns regarding flavour degradation, retaining over 70% more freshness than other products even after long-term storage.

At the heart of the BLAST10K Fresh is DOJO’s advanced COREX BLAST technology paired with a Dual Mesh coil design. This combination guarantees consistent heat distribution and optimal wicking, delivering a True Fresh Flavour that remains vibrant from the first puff to the last. By eliminating flavour drop-off across its 10,000-puff lifespan, the device ensures a Long-Lasting experience where every draw tastes as authentic as the beginning. Supporting this performance is a robust 1000mAh rechargeable battery, offering up to three days of use on a single charge, alongside SSS Leak-Resistant Tech for superior leak protection.

The launch introduces eight exclusive, nature-inspired flavours, headlined by the industry-first Matcha Strawberry. This sophisticated profile is inspired by the delicate balance of British Malling Centenary strawberries and Japanese Okumidori matcha, capturing their authentic essences with a smooth, creamy finish to offer a premium café-style experience. Other notable launches include Pina Colada, which evokes the tropical notes of Costa Rican pineapple and coconut, and Berry Lemonade, a zesty fusion reminiscent of strawberries, raspberries, and Meyer lemons. These join existing favourites like Rhubarb Custard Sweet and Blackcurrant GB, expanding the BLAST series portfolio to 40 distinct options.

Crucially, the BLAST10K Fresh maintains full compatibility with the broader BLAST ecosystem, supporting both new 0+10ml pods and existing 2+8ml pods for seamless user transition. “The BLAST10K Fresh redefines premium vaping by solving flavour stagnation,” stated a DOJO spokesperson. “We invite consumers to experience unparalleled consistency and freshness.”

The DOJO BLAST10K Fresh will be available at selected UK retailers soon.

For more information, please visit:

https://www.dojovape.com/blast10k-fresh
https://www.dojovape.com/
https://dojovape.co.uk/

About DOJO

DOJO is dedicated to providing adult vapers with innovative, high-quality devices that prioritise flavour integrity and user satisfaction through cutting-edge technology.

Source link

For tobacco harm reduction advocates, the central question is no longer whether vaping should be regulated—it should—but whether new policies will continue encouraging smokers to switch away from cigarettes or inadvertently make combustible tobacco more competitive.

New duty could spell disaster

Unlike the original proposal for nicotine-based tax bands, the flat-rate model taxes all liquids equally regardless of nicotine strength. Heavy users of lower-strength refillable liquids may therefore pay more than consumers using smaller quantities of higher-strength products.

The broader concern is whether higher prices narrow the financial advantage vaping currently holds over smoking. Multiple international economic studies have shown that cigarettes and vaping products can act as substitute goods. When vaping becomes substantially more expensive, some smokers postpone switching while some former smokers relapse. The latest Cochrane living review continues to find that nicotine e-cigarettes help more adults stop smoking than conventional nicotine replacement therapy, suggesting that maintaining affordability remains an important component of tobacco harm reduction.

Flavours seem next on the list

Research presented by UKVIA indicates that non-tobacco flavours remain important for adult smokers trying to distance themselves from cigarettes. Similar findings have emerged from local authority stop-smoking services, where fruit flavours are widely supplied to smokers attempting to quit. This distinction matters.

Specialist vape shops? Totally underrated

The regulatory challenges extend beyond products themselves.

Recent government statements suggesting that relief for businesses “that do not make a positive contribution to local communities, such as vape shops” should be reviewed have generated strong criticism from harm reduction advocates.

The implication that specialist vape retailers contribute little to society sits uneasily alongside evidence that millions of former smokers rely on these businesses for advice, product selection and ongoing support.

Licensing goes hand in hand with enforcement

Rather than targeting legitimate businesses, many industry representatives favour a comprehensive licensing system.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act already provides powers for retail licensing in much of the UK. If implemented effectively, licensing could improve market oversight while allowing regulators to suspend businesses repeatedly found selling to minors or distributing non-compliant products.

Digital tax stamps introduced alongside the Vaping Products Duty could reinforce this approach by making legal supply chains easier to trace. However, licensing will only succeed if enforcement focuses on illicit operators rather than imposing additional administrative burdens on compliant retailers.

Plain packaging risks sending the wrong message

The difficulty is that packaging performs several functions beyond marketing. For adult smokers considering switching, product appearance, brand recognition and clear information help distinguish legitimate products from counterfeit alternatives. Removing these features may unintentionally reinforce the misconception that vaping carries risks comparable to smoking.

Public perception is already moving in the wrong direction.

Recent surveys consistently show that many adults now believe vaping is as harmful as—or even more harmful than—combustible cigarettes despite repeated evidence reviews by Public Health England, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Royal College of Physicians concluding that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking. If regulation further blurs this distinction, fewer smokers may see value in switching.

A defining moment for UK tobacco harm reduction

Children should not vape. Illegal products should be removed from the market. Manufacturers should meet rigorous product standards, while retailers should verify age and comply with environmental obligations. Yet regulation must also preserve the accessibility, affordability and attractiveness of lower-risk alternatives for adults who would otherwise smoke.

Success should not be measured by declining vape sales alone.

The challenge facing policymakers is therefore not whether to regulate vaping, but how to do so without losing sight of the ultimate objective: replacing combustible cigarettes with substantially lower-risk alternatives and continuing to reduce the enormous burden of smoking-related disease.

Can the UK Britain Tackle Illicit Vapes Without Hurting Adult Smokers Trying to Quit?

Source link

The debate on vaping policy in the United Kingdom is at a critical juncture. A motion to expand indoor smoking restrictions — also called “smoking bans” — to include vaping has, of course, sparked outrage from harm reduction advocates, public health experts and business leaders. Emerging research indicates that restricting access to certain vaping products has unintended consequences, including a potential resurgence in smoking.

Inaccurately lumping vaping with smoking

The government’s proposal would treat vaping in the same way as smoking, across indoor public spaces — workplaces, pubs and clubs, even specialist vape shops. This, critics say, is a fundamental misunderstanding of these products’ risk profile. In fact, public health messaging has been grappling with a fundamental problem for ages: relative risk. Combustible cigarettes continue to be one of the largest preventable causes of death, yet vaping is broadly recognised as a far lower risk option for adult smokers. That distinction disappears when both are regulated the same way.

Experts say the proposed restriction would contribute to a misconception gaining ground among the public — that vaping is just as dangerous as smoking, a belief that has been associated with slower switching rates among smokers.
It is also important to note that several independent assessments — including one by Public Health England (PHE) — have concluded that second-hand vapour poses little risk to those around the user.” This begs a critical question: In the face of very low exposure risk, what is the scientific basis behind expanding smoke-free laws?

Encouraging former smokers to revert to smoking?

The proposal arrives at a moment when advances in driving down smoking rates have been closely linked with greatly reducing accessibility to lower-risk alternatives. A grassroots campaign led by the New Nicotine Alliance reiterates that limiting where people can use vape products may prevent smokers from switching — or, worse still, drive former smokers back to cigarettes. This concern is not theoretical. Research from the University of Bristol, published in PLOS Global Public Health, suggests that such a policy restricting access to certain vaping products could lead to adverse outcomes. And some young adult vapers say they might smoke more cigarettes or relapse to smoking as a result of the UK’s disposable vape ban.

Although many participants reported they would switch to reusable devices, the findings point to an important risk: When barriers are raised for safer alternatives, not all users make a smooth transition. Some default to the most available, even if that is the most damaging choice. For harm reduction advocates, this highlights a key principle: the demand for nicotine does not evaporate when products are banned. On the contrary, behaviour is modified — at times in ways that thwart public health objectives.

Economic costs and no health gains

Besides serious public health concerns and scarce evidence that such restrictions would offer measurable health benefits, the proposed ban also has serious economic implications.

Besides serious public health concerns and scarce evidence that such restrictions would offer measurable health benefits, the proposed ban also has serious economic implications. The government’s own impact assessment estimates businesses could face costs of up to £532 million. Hospitality venues, in particular, may take a hit. Many already regulate vaping through internal policies that more closely serve their customers. A broad legal ban would eliminate that flexibility and create new compliance burdens.

Additionally, lessons from other regulatory encroachments indicate that overly restrictive policies can create parallel, illegal markets. If legal access is limited, informal supply chains tend to grow to meet demand. The Bristol study hinted at this dynamic, too, with some participants predicting that restrictions might have the opposite effect, driving underground trade in prohibited products. Whereas some thought that enforcing the law could further reduce illegal sales, even this ambiguity highlights how complex consumers’ behaviour tends to be. At the same time, policies that limit the availability or convenience of vaping may inadvertently advantage cigarettes, which are widely available. But it also creates a paradox: the most damaging product is often the one that’s easiest to get and use.

A significant difference in risk that is not being considered

Policies that do not take this gradient seriously risk oversimplifying a problem and potentially making it more difficult to reduce deaths from smoking-related disease. The new Nicotine Alliance’s Save Vaping campaign is calling on policymakers, businesses and the public to get involved in the consultation process. But at stake is not just a particular policy, but something deeper — the overall approach to tobacco control in the UK.

Regulation should be risk-proportionate, evidence-based, and in keeping with the principles of harm reduction. This means acknowledging the role of vaping as a smoking cessation tool through smoking minimisation policies and keeping access to safer alternatives for adult smokers.

It’s time to align policy with science and reality

The trick for policymakers is not to downplay risk, but to put it in its proper perspective. While treating all nicotine products as if they posed the same risks may seem precautionary, it may also have unintended consequences that ultimately kill people.

The UK is at a turning point regarding nicotine regulation. On one side is an increasing body of scientific data supporting harm reduction. On the other hand, a policy approach risks conflating fundamentally disparate products. If the aim is to mitigate smoking-related harm, then access to less hazardous substitutes must continue to be an important part of any strategy.

Source link

Patients and healthcare professionals have responded to recent media coverage, which they say misrepresented those receiving treatment with cannabis-based medicines in the UK.

On 6 January 2026, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) approved the first official guidance on medical cannabis for officers in England and Wales, news that UK patients have been waiting since 2018 to receive.

Patients, industry, and the police all celebrated this as an imperfect, but overwhelmingly positive step in the right direction for all concerned, recognising the complexity of the issue and the central tenet that law enforcement should approach interactions with a ‘patients first, suspects second’ mindset.

Its author Richard List QPM, a retired veteran police officer who used to lead the UK’s drugs squad, said himself: “In a liberal democracy, if you’re a patient and you’ve had a controlled drug that’s legitimately prescribed by a doctor, you shouldn’t have to worry about any interference from the police.”

Despite this, it took just days before multiple mainstream media outlets had either mischaracterised the guidance, or ignored it entirely in favour of sensationalist stories painting medical cannabis patients as ‘benefits claimants’ using ‘shocking loopholes’ to obtain ‘super strength cannabis’.

While cannabis stigmatisation in the mainstream press is nothing new, several patients reached out to Cannabis Health to share concerns about this coverage, especially in the wake of long-awaited recognition from law enforcement.

Rupa Shah, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer at UK medical cannabis clinic Releaf, told Business of Cannabis: “It’s frustrating for us… that narrative needs to change.

“We obviously want to promote our services, but when trying to educate and remove stigma, that’s difficult for us because of the unique restrictions on advertising. We are a commercial company, and by virtue of that, it makes it slightly more difficult. Ideally, trade bodies should be working with government and policy makers, but it’s something we’re still waiting on.”

“We’re in a unique position where I can have access to the people who might be able to change the narrative. But we’re still working within a system that is very, very heavily regulated.”

Why accurate coverage matters

Recently published (November 2025) peer-reviewed research from Lindsey Metcalf McGrath and Helen Beckett Wilson, paints a clear picture of the impact both a lack of police education and the continued stigmatisation in the mainstream press have on patients.

The study, ‘Training the police on legalised medical cannabis: lessons in building public trust, reducing harm, and avoiding reputational damage’, found that of the 94 police constable apprentices, all around 18-months into operational duties, 9 in 10 (88%) said they knew ‘little or nothing about prescribed cannabis, with many having been misinformed during training.

The research, which used data from clinics including Releaf, documented cases where untrained officers caused serious harm to patients: one was reported to social services with her fitness as a parent questioned, despite her legal cannabis prescription helping control epileptic seizures to the point where she no longer needed family support to care for her child.

Black patients expressed particular anxiety about police encounters, given differential stop-and-search rates.

“Situations where police handle things incorrectly and insensitively are particularly harmful given the high proportion of people being prescribed cannabis for anxiety disorders,” the researchers noted.

The study also revealed the deeply entrenched prohibitionist attitudes officers bring to cannabis encounters. Before training, when asked to write the first three words that came to mind about ‘cannabis users,’ officers’ responses included ‘baghead’ (pejorative UK slang for a drug user), ‘addict,’ ‘young,’ and ‘illegal.’

The researchers found that officers held ‘prohibitionist beliefs that cannabis possession is always synonymous with criminality’, beliefs they traced directly to their training. One officer stated bluntly: ‘Anyone is getting locked up. It is illegal to possess.’

“Prohibitionist narratives and stereotypes are correlated with pejorative beliefs which result in the stigmatisation of patients,” the study found.

As a prime example of this dynamic, Shah points to a recent case which ended in a formal complaint being brought against a senior police officer over comments linking the smell of cannabis to criminality.

In response, advocacy group PatientsCann UK submitted a formal complaint against senior policing figures, arguing that such statements ignore the legal status of prescribed medical cannabis and could influence frontline policing attitudes.

“If that’s what police officers are bringing to their interactions [with] patients, [that’s a] massive problem,” Shah said.

The encouraging finding was that evidence-based training dramatically shifted both knowledge and attitudes. After a three-hour workshop covering the 2018 regulations, patient experiences, and proper verification procedures, 67% of officers said they knew “a lot” about prescribed cannabis, while use of the term ‘baghead’ dropped from 10 mentions to zero. References to ‘medical’ rose from three to 39.

The November 2025 research concluded that ‘the updating of police training and procedures are crucial step in the implementation of legal reforms’ and that this remains ‘overdue in the UK’, with its absence ‘causing harm to patients and damaging the reputation of the police.’

Misleading media coverage adds another layer of confusion to an already complex implementation challenge, one that will play out across 43 police forces over months and years.

Source link