Being promoted as a cessation aid, vaping arose as the most popular quitting method in Britain. Data on smokers and recent quitters, from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), show that 53 per cent used vaping products to help them stop smoking — more than two times as many as used gum or patches. More than half of current vapers say they have quit cigarettes altogether because of vaping. This evidence-based distinction between cigarettes and smoke-free alternatives was the foundation for the UK’s approach.
A (predicted) surge in illicit trade
Sadly, that success is now in jeopardy. Restrictions are broadening, but of course, demand has not diminished. Disposable vapes have been banned since June 1, 2.025. Other measures being considered include flavour bans, extending indoor smoking bans to cover vaping, and banning vaping in certain outdoor spaces (including a sensible ban on vaping in vehicles with children).
And how are consumers responding to these restrictions? Just released data collated from Freedom of Information requests in vape club’s 2026 illegal vapes report show that the UK seized 1.26 million illicit products last year — more than two per minute. More than 4.9 million illegal devices have been seized in the past three years with an estimated street value of £39 million. Central Bedfordshire is home to the most seizures, with Kent and Hillingdon being major trade hubs. The confiscations in over half of the UK council areas were substantial.
Enforcement resources appear stretched. Trading Standards inspections fell by 5% last year to a total of 8,881 across the country. In the meantime, illegal cigarettes seized amounted to 7.2 million sticks of cigarettes. The pattern extends beyond vaping. Sales of legal cigarettes have plummeted since 2021. HMRC data analysed by the Institute of Economic Affairs reveals total legal cigarette sales fell from 40.6 billion sticks in 2021 to 19.8 billion in 2025 — a fall of 52%. Sales of manufactured cigarettes were down 46%, and rolling tobacco was down 59%. The prevalence of smoking, however, has not halved, which means only one thing.
Excise taxes have been steeply increased — 73% for cigarettes and 115% for rolling tobacco since 2020 — but tobacco duty revenues are down in real terms from £10.4 billion to £7.9 billion. The shortfall most strongly suggests that the illicit market expanded rather than that consumption fell equally.
Leave flavours alone
An Opinium poll of 6,000 UK adults taken in December 2025 revealed that three-quarters (63%) of regular e-cigarette users use primarily fruity or sweet flavours to stay off cigarettes regularly. This is an increase from the previous year. Seventy-one per cent say access to different flavours helps them avoid a relapse. Supporting these figures, countless studies have clearly indicated that adult vapers prefer flavours. ASH estimates that 14% of adult vapers — about 770,000 people — would go back to smoking if flavours were restricted to tobacco, mint and menthol. Even a slight relapse in that group would have huge public health implications.
Following the disposable ban, 90% of daily vapers have switched to reusable devices, showing that when legal alternatives are available, vapers will adapt. Yet 9% do admit to buying illegal disposables, while 27% of adults have admitted they can easily obtain illegal vapes in their area. Hence, restrictions intended to limit youth uptake are simply feeding a growing black market.
Dangerous misinformation rising
As predicted, these regulatory contradictions are leading to a widespread public misconception about the relative safety of vaping products. Vaping is now considered by half of UK adults to be as harmful as smoking, or worse. Among smokers (who, in some cases, will cling to any excuse not to try a safer alternative), misconceptions are especially common.
This goes against the consensus of repeated reviews by public health experts that vaping is significantly less harmful than combustible tobacco and poses a trivial risk to bystanders. When vaping is treated the same as smoking, many assume it’s equally harmful. That perception weakens the case for switching.
Discouraging replacement is therefore a big deal, with over six million smokers in the UK and more than 75,000 annual smoking-related deaths.
The substitution effect
A recent impact assessment from the Department of Health and Social Care considers extending smoke-free laws to vaping but acknowledges uncertainty about health benefits. It is described that evidence of harm from secondhand vapour remains limited, and projected health gains are not quantified.
But one likely consequence is behavioural substitution. So if, for instance, nicotine vapes become as cumbersome and far more costly because of fresh taxes, some users might well go back to cigarettes, which deliver nicotine faster and keep blood concentrations elevated. In fact, the impact assessment acknowledges that restrictions may have some effect on smoking cessation at a population level.
Moreover, the costs for businesses to comply are estimated at more than £500 million. In contrast, expected health benefits are not monetised because there is insufficient evidence that reducing passive vapour exposure will lead to measurable gains.
Why turn back from a winning strategy?
The UK’s previous progress was founded on proportionate regulation, effective risk communication, and the distinction between high- and low-risk products. That gave smokers options to transition away from combustion with knowledge. Recent policy developments — flavour restrictions, bans in public places, tax hikes and outright product prohibitions — threaten to blur that distinction. At the same time, illicit markets appear to be the main beneficiaries.
Harm reduction is not deregulation. It requires a calibrated policy that aligns with risk and is informed by lived experience. In the UK, it was shown that a bold policy shift towards evidence-based harm reduction could accelerate smoking decline. Sustaining that progress will require resisting the symbolic regulation of risks that makes risk categories porous and produces unintended consequences.
If Smokefree 2030 is to remain the aim, then policymakers should consider substitution effects, enforcement capacity and consumer behaviour alongside youth protection. The choice for policymakers is obvious: expand on the data that reduced smoking, or enact restrictions that could reverse it.
