The debate over how to regulate nicotine is reaching a fever pitch across Europe, with a growing disconnect between public health intentions and the actual outcomes of proposed policies. In countries like Croatia and Spain, recent regulatory moves—rushed consultations, heavy taxation, and near-prohibitionist restrictions on safer alternatives—risk derailing tobacco harm reduction efforts that could save countless lives.
7 days to speak or be silenced
In Croatia, stakeholders were given just seven days to respond to a draft tax regulation on vaping products—a decision widely criticized for curtailing meaningful public input. Organizations such as the World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) and Croatian vapers group CHROM argue that such a limited timeframe undermines any democratic process and excludes the very consumers most affected by these changes. The proposed tax would double the cost of many vaping liquids, potentially pricing out adult smokers seeking a less harmful alternative to cigarettes.
However, the implications go beyond affordability. High taxation on safer nicotine products like vapes, sends the wrong message and contradicts a growing body of international evidence showing that these products are significantly safer than combustible cigarettes. By failing to differentiate between the harms of smoking and the far lower risks associated with vaping, policymakers risk sending smokers back to deadly tobacco use or pushing them toward unregulated, black-market alternatives.
Is Spain’s plan to push smokers back?
Meanwhile, a Dynata survey for the Tholos Foundation found that 66% of Spanish nicotine pouch users chose the product to quit or reduce smoking. Notably, 90% said flavours were crucial to staying smoke-free. These data should serve as a wake-up call. Over one-third of current pouch users indicated they would return to smoking if the new regulation is implemented, while another third would turn to illicit or cross-border markets. Only 6% said they would stop using nicotine altogether—making it clear that harsh restrictions don’t eliminate demand, they only shift it to riskier channels.
Such unintended consequences are all too familiar – a clear example is Australia. Policies that fail to distinguish between high-risk combustible tobacco and lower-risk nicotine alternatives not only undermine public health goals but can also stoke illicit trade ultimately leading to reduced oversight and increased health risks. This lesson is particularly relevant in the context of growing black-market activity across Europe.
No flavours, No escape
On a broader EU level, Belgium is pushing for a bloc-wide ban on flavoured e-cigarettes, citing concerns over youth vaping. Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke has positioned flavoured vapes as a gateway to addiction, calling for urgent EU action in the name of cancer prevention. While protecting youth is unquestionably important, a blanket ban on flavours could have the opposite effect: deterring adult smokers from switching to safer alternatives while doing little to curb youth access, which is better addressed through stricter age verification and retail enforcement.
Flavours are not a marketing gimmick, they are an essential tool in helping adults disassociate from the taste of cigarettes and maintain their smoke-free journey. So are vapes in general, nicotine pouches and such other nicotine products. Sweden’s near-smoke-free status, which was achieved by endorsing the use of snus and other safer alternatives for smoking cessation, stands as a testament to this strategy.
Sweden leads where Brussels lags: Europe’s harm reduction gap
Ultimately, Europe faces a critical choice. Policymakers can pursue evidence-based harm reduction strategies that recognize the vast difference in risk between smoking and vaping, or they can continue down a path of overregulation that punishes smokers for trying to quit. The science is clear. Now, the policy must catch up. If public health is truly the goal, it’s time to protect, not penalize, those choosing a safer path away from smoking.
Public Health or Profit? The EU Faces Backlash As it Ignores Science And Proposes Illogical Tax
