When the Labour government pushed through the irrational disposable vape ban in June, 2025, the problems were obvious. As history shows time and again, you can’t extinguish demand by banning a product. Surveys with current disposable users indicated that some vapers would return to cigarettes or find disposables on the black market instead.
A new poll by Merlin Strategies on behalf of Philip Morris Limited shows that 34% of UK vapers are still using disposable devices despite the ban. Cue the Telegraph making claims about “illegal” devices and “loopholes” to circumnavigate the law. But do these claims stack up?
Let’s take a look.
Single-use vape ban
If we look at the government press release titled Single-use vapes banned from 1 June 2025 or ASH guidance from the time, it says that legal devices after the ban must be:
- Rechargeable.
- Refillable.
- Have a replaceable coil.
To any reasonable person, that means if you can recharge a device and buy refills and coils for it, then it is not single-use. And yet, when manufacturers looked at the regulatory landscape and delivered compliant products to satisfy these rules, the Telegraph condemned them as illegal.
Of course, it’s not just the single-use vape ban that manufacturers must deal with. There is already the EU’s TPD that was copied into UK law via the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 (TRPR).
Those rules imposed limits on e-liquid strength and volumes. That meant bottles were only allowed to be 10ml, with tanks limited to 2ml. As Clive Bates and others point out, it was these arbitrary 2ml limits that hamstrung manufacturers and forced disposable devices to be so disposable. In fact, had the TPD limits for an individual device been set at 10ml, in theory, it would have meant much fewer devices ended up being thrown away in the first place. Classic unintended policy outcomes.
The recycling issue
One reason the disposable vape ban proved popular in some quarters was the environmental problem. Actual single us disposables are useless once used, which meant many devices ended up in the landfill. While legit vape shops and many supermarkets set up return banks, many vapers did not use them. Indeed, it wasn’t uncommon to find them discarded on the street.
Recently, waste companies have called for a £5 deposit on disposable vapes. These return schemes have proved effective in some countries when tried with plastic bottles, however, £5 seems a little steep, especially when you consider the upcoming Vaping Products Duty of £2.20 per 10ml of e‑liquid.
Current rechargeable pod system kits priced around £9–£13 would roughly cost £11–£16 after duty and VAT are fully priced in. Add on a £5 deposit and you’re talking £16–£21. That’s about the price of a pack of cigarettes.
The Telegraph are missing the real story
I know that when it comes to tobacco control and novel nicotine products, words and their meanings often break down in pursuit of cheap point scoring and fanning the flames of moral panic. But we are really through the looking glass when companies innovate to stay within a set of arbitrary rules, and that somehow gets classed as exploiting a loophole.
Amidst all the fantasy talk about “loopholes” and “illicit” devices is a hard reality. Disposable devices took off because they were easy to use and delivered high-quality experiences. Many market actors don’t want to buy a separate mod, tank, coil, and liquid. They want one device that just works out of the box.
If we are really serious about bringing down the UK smoking rate, we need to meet consumers where they are and not put arbitrary roadblocks in the way.
The story here, the one that the Telegraph missed, is how a poorly thought-out policy on vape devices would have damaged public health without innovative market intervention.
