Ahead of World No Tobacco Day, calls are growing for tobacco and nicotine policies to be guided more consistently by scientific evidence and harm reduction principles. Advocacy groups across the Asia-Pacific region argue that regulation should better distinguish between combustible cigarettes and lower-risk smoke-free alternatives. They contend that policies failing to recognise relative risk may discourage smokers from switching to less harmful products. At the same time, supporters of a science-based approach emphasise the importance of combining youth protection with realistic strategies for reducing smoking-related disease. The debate reflects broader global tensions over how public health policy should respond to evolving nicotine technologies and emerging evidence.

Most smokers in South Africa appear to support a more risk-based approach to nicotine regulation, according to new survey findings. Research suggests that a large majority favour policies that distinguish between combustible cigarettes and lower-risk smoke-free alternatives. At the same time, the data highlights significant gaps in public awareness, with many smokers unfamiliar with products such as nicotine pouches and other reduced-risk options. Affordability, accessibility and clear information on relative risks were identified as key factors influencing whether smokers would consider switching away from cigarettes. Many respondents also expressed concern that overly restrictive regulation could encourage growth in illicit markets rather than reduce nicotine use. The findings contribute to wider debates over whether tobacco policy should focus more heavily on harm reduction and differentiated regulation based on relative risk.

Vapes are now legal in Argentina for the first time in more than a decade following a major shift in national nicotine policy. The government has replaced its long-standing prohibition with a regulated framework covering vapes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches. New rules introduce mandatory registration, ingredient disclosure and traceability requirements, while aiming to bring a previously informal market under official oversight. Supporters argue that regulation offers greater consumer protection and better control than outright bans, which had failed to eliminate demand. At the same time, critics note that the new framework still includes strict limitations, including restrictions on flavourings and disposable products.