As nicotine markets evolve and smoking rates continue to decline in many countries, policymakers face a growing challenge: young people are experimenting with a wider range of substances at the same time that adult smokers are increasingly turning to safer nicotine alternatives. Too often, these trends are blurred together in public debate, leading to restrictive policies that risk undermining public health rather than improving it. New research on youth cannabis and nicotine use highlights this tension and reinforces the need for harm-reduction-based regulation instead of prohibitionist responses.
A recent study from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, published in Tobacco Induced Diseases, examined how cannabis use develops over time among young adults, particularly in relation to nicotine and vaping. Drawing on data from the VapeScan longitudinal study, researchers followed 372 adults aged 18 to 50 in the New York City area between 2021 and 2024. Participants were assessed across three visits over roughly two years, allowing the researchers to track changes in behaviour regardless of previous cannabis use. The findings showed that cannabis consumption increased significantly over time, with more people initiating use than stopping. By the second assessment, nearly 60 percent of participants reported using cannabis in some form, with edibles being the most common method, followed by vaping and smoking.
Why some are just more inclined towards substance use than others
Crucially, the study does not support the popular claim that vaping causes cannabis use. Cannabis uptake increased even among individuals who did not regularly use nicotine products, undermining the idea of a simple gateway effect. Instead, the results align with decades of substance-use research demonstrating that individuals predisposed to experimentation tend to try multiple substances. This concept, known as common liability, shows that personal, social and psychological factors are far stronger predictors of use than access to any specific product. In this context, blaming reduced-risk nicotine products for broader substance trends misrepresents the evidence and risks distracting from more meaningful interventions.
Another important dimension often overlooked in these debates is stress. Young adults today report higher levels of anxiety, economic insecurity and social pressure than previous generations. Numerous studies indicate that both nicotine and cannabis are frequently used as coping mechanisms rather than purely recreational substances. For many young people, nicotine use does not reflect addiction in the clinical sense but rather situational or intermittent use to manage stress. Public health messaging that equates any nicotine use with severe harm or lifelong dependence fails to reflect this reality and risks losing credibility with the very groups it seeks to influence.
Alongside the Columbia research, new survey data from Great Britain have shown that nicotine pouches have reached a noticeable share of teenagers. Around 13 percent of 14- to 17-year-olds report having tried the products, with a smaller but significant minority using them regularly. These findings have raised the usual concerns about nicotine use, as while far safer than smoking, nicotine pouches can carry risks related to dependence and oral health. However, the core issue appears to be access rather than inherent product danger. Most teenagers report obtaining pouches from friends or retail outlets in the absence of clear age-of-sale restrictions, highlighting regulatory gaps rather than policy failure of harm reduction itself.
The case for sensible regulations
Importantly, teenage opinion appears to support stronger safeguards. Survey respondents overwhelmingly back age restrictions, limits on advertising, clearer health warnings and controls on packaging and nicotine strength. This suggests that youth protection and tobacco harm reduction are not mutually exclusive goals. Sensible regulation can restrict youth access while preserving adult availability, avoiding the unintended consequences seen when products are banned outright.
Adult usage patterns further reinforce this distinction. Research published in The Lancet Public Health estimates that more than half a million adults in Great Britain now use nicotine pouches, largely driven by younger adults and particularly men. Most adult users are current or former smokers or vapers, and many report using pouches to quit smoking, prevent relapse or manage cravings in smoke-free environments. From a public-health perspective, this represents meaningful progress, as combustible cigarettes remain the primary driver of nicotine-related disease and death.
Why the switch to non-combustible products should be celebrated
Scientific consensus consistently shows that nicotine products exist on a continuum of risk. Cigarettes are by far the most dangerous form of consumption, while vaping and oral nicotine products expose users to only a fraction of the toxins found in smoke. Countries that have embraced this risk-based approach, such as New Zealand, Japan and Sweden, have achieved some of the lowest smoking rates and tobacco-related disease burdens in the world. By contrast, jurisdictions that rely on bans, excessive taxation and moralistic messaging, such as Australia, often experience slower declines in smoking and the growth of illicit markets.
One of the most damaging policy mistakes is the refusal to separate youth prevention from adult harm reduction. Protecting minors does not require denying adults access to safer alternatives. In fact, as countless recent reports by Vaping Post have shown, when legal and regulated products become unavailable or unattractive, smokers are more likely to return to cigarettes or turn to unregulated sources. History shows that prohibition does not eliminate demand; it simply shifts it underground, where quality control disappears and criminal networks thrive.
The evidence emerging from studies on cannabis, nicotine and youth behaviour reinforces a core principle of public health: policy must be grounded in reality and science. Some young people will experiment with substances regardless of regulation, and some adults will continue using tobacco regardless of messaging. The role of public health is to reduce harm as effectively and pragmatically as possible. Honest communication, proportionate regulation and support for safer alternatives have already saved lives. Abandoning these principles in favour of fear-driven restrictions risks reversing that progress at a time when better options are firmly within reach.
