From Poland to Lithuania: Are Europe’s Nicotine Policies Reasonable or Going Too Far?

In Europe, many governments are still rolling out stricter nicotine policies. These range from banning certain flavours and imposing hefty taxes on vapes to raising the legal age for purchase and suggesting limits on online sales. While proponents argue that these steps are crucial for protecting the youth, tobacco harm reduction experts caution that ill-conceived restrictions could hinder access to safer alternatives, all while making traditional cigarettes still fairly easy to get. Recent developments in Poland, France, Lithuania and the Netherlands illustrate the difference between targeted consumer protection and policies that risk, in practice, becoming prohibition.

Poland’s proposal to remove almost every nicotine pouch flavour except tobacco has encountered formal objections from Sweden, Romania, Slovakia and Greece under the European Union’s Technical Regulation Information System. Their detailed opinions have extended Poland’s standstill period from August 6 to November 6, 2026, giving Warsaw additional time to explain how its proposal complies with EU law and responds to proportionality concerns. Poland’s wider draft would also prohibit disposable vapes and place certain novel nicotine products within a pharmaceutical framework.

For nicotine pouches, the proposal creates an obvious contradiction. These tobacco-free products are frequently chosen by adults seeking to move away from cigarettes and the sensory cues associated with tobacco. Requiring them to taste like tobacco could make them less acceptable to the very smokers they are intended to replace.

Sweden’s objection argues that Poland has not demonstrated that a near-total flavour ban is necessary or that less restrictive measures would be inadequate. The Swedish submission points to alternatives such as minimum-age laws, health warnings, marketing controls, product standards and reasonable nicotine limits. It also notes that Poland’s evidence on flavour preferences among younger users does not establish that removing flavours for adults would reduce smoking or overall population harm.

Sweden’s experience makes this debate particularly relevant. Eurostat reports that only 8% of Swedes aged 15 and over smoked, the EU’s lowest rate, compared with much higher levels across many other member states. Smoking was reported among 9% of Swedish men and 8% of women. Although these figures cannot prove that snus and nicotine pouches alone produced Sweden’s results, the country’s longstanding substitution of cigarettes with smoke-free oral products is difficult to ignore.

Protecting minors is legitimate, but it does not automatically justify removing adult-oriented products that compete with cigarettes.

France is exploring a more targeted approach. Specialist retailer Le Petit Vapoteur has reportedly introduced mandatory selfie-based age checks for new online customers. The initiative is intended to show that minors can be excluded from vape websites without eliminating internet sales for adults.

The retailer receives only an adult-or-minor result rather than the customer’s biometric template or complete identity. Such technology is not flawless. A 2024 evaluation by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology found that facial age-estimation systems had improved but varied depending on the algorithm, image quality, demographic characteristics, and the user’s actual age. NIST cautioned that no single system consistently performed best across every test.

Nevertheless, age assurance offers a middle ground between ineffective tick-box declarations and complete bans on online sales. It can be strengthened through conservative age thresholds, document fallbacks, liveness detection, independent audits and rapid deletion of facial images.

The European Commission is moving in the same direction. Its age-verification blueprint enables users to prove they are above a required threshold without disclosing their exact age or identity. In April 2026, the Commission said the technical solution was ready for implementation and could operate either independently or through future European digital identity wallets.

For tobacco harm reduction, maintaining regulated online access matters. Specialist websites provide adult smokers with an efficient way of purchasing refillable devices, replacement components, different nicotine strengths and product advice that may not be available locally. Moreover, closing down legal websites would likely not eliminate demand; it would just redirect consumers to overseas suppliers and informal (black market) sellers with weaker safeguards.

Lithuania has chosen a much harsher economic instrument.

Its e-liquid duty increased from €0.25 per millilitre in 2024 to €0.63 in 2025 and €1.56 in 2026. The current statutory schedule would raise it to €3.91 per millilitre in 2027—an increase of approximately 1,464% over three years. Lithuania’s Finance Ministry confirms that the 2026 rate is €1.56 per millilitre.

At the planned 2027 rate, a 10ml bottle would carry €39.10 in excise before VAT and commercial costs. Although vaping would technically remain legal, ordinary consumers could be priced out of the regulated market.

This matters because vapes and cigarettes are potential substitutes. Excessive taxes on vaping may reduce legal vape sales, but that does not prove nicotine use or health risks have declined. Some consumers may return to smoking, purchase illicit products or mix unregulated liquids.

The tax also treats all liquid volume similarly, regardless of nicotine concentration. Someone reducing nicotine strength but consuming more liquid could therefore face the same or a greater tax burden.

Vaping has solid evidence supporting its role in helping people quit smoking. The 2025 Cochrane living review looked at 104 studies with over 30,000 adults and concluded that nicotine e-cigarettes are more effective than standard nicotine-replacement therapies for helping individuals remain smoke-free for at least six months.

A tax system designed with harm reduction in mind should create a significant price difference favouring non-combustible products over cigarettes. Rather than making regulated e-liquids prohibitively expensive, introducing moderate duties, licensing, and tax stamps, and enforcing strict measures against illegal sellers would be a more sensible approach.

The Dutch coalition government has proposed increasing the legal purchasing age for cigarettes, vapes and other nicotine products from 18 to 21. The plan forms part of its ambition to create a smoke-free generation and follows concern about nicotine use among adolescents.

Raising the purchasing age specifically targets younger consumers, unlike flavour bans or heavy taxes. However, this approach does raise some practical issues. For starters, eighteen-year-olds are seen as legal adults, making enforcement a bit challenging. Additionally, if nearby countries have different rules, this will without a shadow of a doubt lead to cross-border purchases.

The proposal should therefore be assessed against measurable outcomes, including smoking rates, youth vaping, illicit purchasing, and product substitution. Treating cigarettes and lower-risk nicotine alternatives identically may also obscure important differences in risk.

These policy disagreements don’t mean we should have an unregulated nicotine market. Sales to minors must, of course, be banned and prevented at all costs; online retailers ought to verify ages; products should adhere to safety standards; and those involved in illegal trading need to face serious consequences. But regulation should definitely consider that cigarettes are especially dangerous because of the burning tobacco. Nicotine pouches and vaping products may not be entirely risk-free, but they avoid combustion and can offer adult smokers much safer alternatives.

Europe needs to stop choosing between protecting minors and backing tobacco harm reduction; these two factors could, and should, go hand in hand. Poland could look into regulating pouch flavours instead of just slapping on a blanket ban. France might want to consider implementing age-verification systems that are straightforward to audit while preserving privacy. Lithuania has the opportunity to tax vaping products but make sure they remain more affordable than traditional cigarettes. And the Netherlands can bolster protections for young people while clearly outlining the risks involved.

Policies should be judged not simply by whether they reduce recorded sales of a particular product, but by whether they reduce smoking, disease and premature death. Restrictions that push consumers back towards cigarettes or illicit markets may appear tough while producing the opposite of their intended public health result.

More European Governments Are Choosing to Fight Nicotine Instead of Smoking