A superficial fix: Why the disposable e-cigarette ban misses the mark

As of 1 June 2025, disposable vapes have been banned by the UK government following the rising damage to the environment and youths’ mental and physical health. The law now mandates vape retailers to only sell reusable e-cigarettes, defined by the requirements of a rechargeable battery, refillable container, or a removable and replaceable coil.

Only 17% of people recycle their vapes in a shop or recycling centre, with the remainder of users discarding them harmfully. Approximately five million single-use vapes were littered or thrown away every week in 2024. This is incredibly detrimental to the environment for several reasons. Materials found in vapes like lithium and copper are constantly wasted instead of being recycled. The significant number of vapes discarded per year aggravates already overwhelmed landfills, and could “instead be powering nearly 5,000 electric vehicles”, according to Material Focus.

Seeing a vape littered on the ground is no longer rare. Not only do littered vapes create an unappealing sight and require money to clean up, but the chemicals found in them seep into the “soil, rivers and streams”. Dangers to people and wildlife also occur because of vape batteries catching fire in landfills. Last year, the lack of proper disposal of batteries, like those in vapes, caused 700 fires. Despite the potential illegal circulation of disposables, the government’s plan to shift vapers to reusable devices by restricting their access to disposables will help reduce the high amount of vape-related waste and environmental harm.

Instead of addressing teen mental health, education on marketing tactics, and health risks, the government has opted to simply ban disposable vapes

Another concerning issue with single-use vapes is the easy access and appeal of these products to young children. Along with nicotine addictions that could be continued or exacerbated in their adult years, vaping poses long-term health dangers to adolescents. For instance, according to GP Dr Jack Jacobs, vaping can cause lung damage, and the high doses of nicotine could lead to heart arrhythmia. Many youths also vape to alleviate their mental health problems. However, research shows that this only worsens their mental health because nicotine often causes insomnia and stress.

Aggressive marketing of vaping towards youths, through colourful packaging and sweet flavours, perpetuates their curiosity and addiction to nicotine. Yet, many are unaware that advertisements are catered towards them and know little of the damage that vaping poses to their health. Instead of addressing teen mental health, education on marketing tactics, and health risks, the government has opted to simply ban disposable vapes. In doing so, it disregards its prior failure to ban strong vape products, which resulted in youths consuming unknown drugs and chemicals because of unregulated vapes obtained illegally.

The government is correct that disposable vapes encourage youth vaping. Disposable vapes are easier to conceal from parents because they do not require charging. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) found that the main reason youths were prompted to vape was “just to give it a try”. Since single-use vapes are easy to discard and cheap, this incentivises them to try the product without commitment.

However, the government’s approach to tackling the issue misses the mark. Banning disposable vapes will likely make no difference to youths who obtain vaping products from their parents, as they will instead turn to reusable versions. Youths who currently purchase vapes exceeding the legal nicotine dosage will continue to illegally obtain them. Their apathy towards the law and their health, combined with the weak policing of vaping, will only push them further into purchasing unregulated black-market vapes. In addition, measures to enforce this ban are inadequate, as only 80 trainee Trading Standards officers have been hired to ensure retailers follow the new legal restrictions. Therefore, the ban is not only taking the wrong approach to cease youth vaping, but it is also likely to be ineffectively implemented.

Banning disposable vapes may help reduce waste and damage to the environment; however, it will not be sufficient in tackling the harm done to young people’s health

Instead of restricting young people’s access to vapes, the government should redirect their resources to educational programmes that encourage youths not to vape in the first place. This should extend beyond the occasional PSHE lesson. Aspects of school-based tobacco prevention programmes have been proven successful in helping deter youth vaping, such as ‘refusal skills activities’ and highlighting health effects and how marketing targets youth. A programme similar to this, curated for vaping prevention, would be a better approach than simply restricting access to disposables – particularly as many youth are unaware of the real dangers of vaping. Perhaps educating young people will reduce their willingness to vape and improve awareness of their mental and physical health. This plan would recognise that, ultimately, young people will continue to access vapes illegally via the internet or under-the-counter in shops, which is almost impossible to control. Therefore, convincing youths not to vape to begin with tackles the problem at its roots, rather than just cutting off their supply as the government has attempted to do.

Of course, e-cigarettes help people stop smoking combustible cigarettes, so simply making vaping illegal is unfeasible. Banning disposable vapes will not curb youth vaping, as they may convert to reusable vapes. Various ways to prevent youth vaping exist, such as restricting the vaping industry’s marketing that is catered towards children. Although the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will ban advertisements and appealing flavours, is currently being debated in Parliament, the government should still consider improving youth awareness of vaping risks via education. Banning disposable vapes may help reduce waste and damage to the environment; however, it will not be sufficient in tackling the harm done to young people’s health.