Home Politics Asia Quit or Die Is Failing, Yet Hong Kong Plans Sweeping Vape Ban

Quit or Die Is Failing, Yet Hong Kong Plans Sweeping Vape Ban

A call for science-based policies that prioritize harm reduction, inclusion, and compassion to achieve real progress in tobacco control.

Diane Caruana

June 18, 2025

As Hong Kong prepares to tighten its tobacco control laws through sweeping restrictions on both combustible and alternative nicotine products, new data and global health trends suggest the need for a more pragmatic approach—one rooted in tobacco harm reduction (THR). A recent study from a Hong Kong university, which found that nearly 70% of individuals under the age of 25 have tried e-cigarettes, serves as a powerful reminder: prohibition alone is not enough to address the complex motivations behind youth and adult nicotine use.

The study, which surveyed nearly 4,500 participants, found that peer pressure plays a critical role in young people’s experimentation with alternative nicotine products, with 60% citing social influence as the primary driver. In line with previous findings, stress relief also emerged as a key factor, highlighting the psychological dimensions of nicotine use that punitive policies often fail to acknowledge.

Banning aaccess while ignoring the root causes

While youth experimentation is a valid concern, efforts to curb it must be balanced with policies that reduce harm for existing smokers—particularly the high number of daily users in Hong Kong.

While youth experimentation is a valid concern, efforts to curb it must be balanced with policies that reduce harm for existing smokers—particularly the high number of daily users in Hong Kong. A separate survey conducted in known smoking hotspots revealed that most respondents smoked daily, with over half consuming more than 10 cigarettes per day. Interestingly, more than a third still supported plain packaging, a measure Hong Kong aims to implement by 2027, indicating that public support for some regulatory measures does exist when framed appropriately.

Yet the current policy trajectory risks undermining public health gains. Since 2022, Hong Kong has banned the import of alternative smoking products like vapes and heated tobacco devices. While an upcoming legislation proposes a ban on public possession of these products by April 2026, along with significant penalties and expanded smoke-free zones. Moreover, flavoured products—frequently blamed for attracting youth—will be phased out, starting with non-menthol additives.

THR advocates, including the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), warn that these measures fail to distinguish between high-risk combustible products and lower-risk alternatives. By eliminating access to safer nicotine tools, Hong Kong may inadvertently push users—particularly those seeking harm reduction—back toward conventional cigarettes. This is not hypothetical: international trends demonstrate that overly restrictive policies correlate with increased black-market activity and stubbornly high smoking rates.

The Maldives, like other countries adopting such a strategy, offers a cautionary tale. In 2024, the country banned vape sales. Since then, illicit tobacco activity has surged by 38%, and youth smoking rates remain unchanged. Now, with a generational tobacco ban looming, harm reduction advocates worry that the absence of safer alternatives could make the measure symbolic rather than effective. Without regulated, risk-proportionate options, even the most ambitious tobacco control strategies may fall short.

From Hong Kong to COP11

Globally, the stagnation of smoking rates around 1.1 billion people since 2000 underscores a broader failure in current tobacco control frameworks. THR experts have consistently explained that the “quit or die” mentality embedded in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has left no room for innovation. At the upcoming COP11 meeting, CAPHRA is urging the FCTC to include consumer voices and to embrace science-backed alternatives like vaping and heated tobacco.

In line with her peers, CAPHRA’s Executive Coordinator Nancy Loucas, argues that real progress depends on inclusion and transparency. In contrast, despite WHO guidelines encouraging civil society participation, no consumer group has been granted observer status at COP meetings. Time and time again, Loucas has highighted that people who have successfully quit through safer nicotine products deserve a seat at the table.

The fiscal strategy also matters. CAPHRA points to countries like Japan and New Zealand, where differentiated tax regimes have reduced smoking by encouraging switching to lower-risk products. By contrast, Malaysia’s uniform excise taxation on all nicotine products is failing to reduce consumption and has helped sustain a black market that now accounts for over half of all tobacco sales.

Therefore, if Hong Kong is serious about achieving meaningful public health gains, its policies must reflect both scientific evidence and human behavior. The proposed expansion of smoke-free zones, doubling of fines, and labeling requirements for legal tobacco products may have some merit, but they cannot work in isolation. Without offering safer alternatives or pathways to cessation that fit the needs of disadvantaged and addicted populations, these laws may appear punitive and out of touch.

Keeping in mind the end goal

Hong Kong’s tobacco policy is at a crossroads. As lawmakers prepare to tighten control over nicotine products, they must ask whether their strategy is designed to reduce harm or merely assert control. The data, both domestic and global, make a compelling case for integrating harm reduction into the tobacco control toolbox. Policies that ignore this are not just scientifically outdated—they are ethically indefensible.

For millions who smoke daily, the choice should not be “quit or die.” It should be “quit, switch, or continue with support.” A compassionate, pragmatic, and science-based approach is not only more effective—it’s the only path forward.