At First Minister’s Questions last week, John Swinney said the Scottish Government is considering tighter regulation of vape shops following the devastating fire at Glasgow Union Street train station. This raises a fundamental question: could this incident become a turning point in how Scotland (and potentially, the rest of the UK) approaches vaping? Or will regulation continue to fail to keep up with such a fast-moving industry?
Scotland’s existing policies provide a strong foundation. The sale of vapes to under-18s is illegal, and since June 2025, single-use vapes have been banned. These measures are part of the broader Tobacco and Vaping Framework that aims to achieve smoking rates below five per cent by 2034. Compared to many countries, this is a relatively ambitious roadmap.
However, the Glasgow fire exposes a different kind of regulatory gap — one not just about who can buy vapes, but how and where they are sold. The government’s Register of Tobacco and Nicotine Vapour Product Retailers found that nearly 80 per cent of vape retailers in Glasgow lack up-to-date registration information, indicating that the system is struggling with basic oversight. Regulation exists, but enforcement is evidently inconsistent.
This is where the debate becomes more urgent. For years, vaping policy has been framed primarily through a public health lens: a harm-reduction tool for adult smokers, but a risk for youth uptake. That framing still holds, however, it has perhaps obscured other risks, from poorly regulated retail environments to fire hazards, that now demand urgent attention.
Political pressure is mounting with the 2026 Scottish Parliament election approaching. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow has called for stronger protections against youth-targeted marketing, while Cancer Research UK is urging full implementation of the UK’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill as part of a wider push to reduce cancer rates.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens have gone further, arguing for a comprehensive licensing system that would empower local authorities to refuse applications, enforce safety standards, and penalise non-compliant retailers.
Taken together, these interventions suggest that vaping is no longer a minor policy concern. It is becoming a test case for how governments manage emerging consumer markets that sit at the intersection of public health, retail regulation, and youth protection.
Of course, there is a risk of overcorrection. Vaping remains significantly less harmful than smoking (at least in the short term), and overly restrictive policies could inadvertently push former smokers back towards tobacco. Policymakers therefore face a delicate balancing act: tightening regulation where clear gaps exist without undermining vaping’s role in smoking cessation.
So, will the Glasgow fire prove to be a wake-up call? Possibly, but only if it shifts the conversation beyond reactive policymaking. The danger is that regulation remains weak, driven by crises rather than strategy. A licensing system for vape retailers, as proposed by the Greens, would be a logical next step, bringing vaping in line with other regulated industries such as alcohol and tobacco.
Ultimately, the question is not whether vaping is a ‘significant’ policy problem – it already is. The real issue is whether governments are willing to treat it with the same seriousness as other public health and consumer safety challenges. If the current momentum leads to coherent, enforceable regulation, it could mark a turning point. If not, Scotland risks continuing with a system that looks robust on paper but fails in practice.
For a country aiming to be tobacco-free within a decade, that is a gamble it can ill afford.
Image by Spencer Siles for The Student
Related
Up in Smoke: Why Scotland Can’t Afford to Treat Vape Regulation as a Secondary Issue
At First Minister’s Questions last week, John Swinney said the Scottish Government is considering tighter regulation of vape shops following the devastating fire at Glasgow Union Street train station. This raises a fundamental question: could this incident become a turning point in how Scotland (and potentially, the rest of the UK) approaches vaping? Or will regulation continue to fail to keep up with such a fast-moving industry?
Scotland’s existing policies provide a strong foundation. The sale of vapes to under-18s is illegal, and since June 2025, single-use vapes have been banned. These measures are part of the broader Tobacco and Vaping Framework that aims to achieve smoking rates below five per cent by 2034. Compared to many countries, this is a relatively ambitious roadmap.
However, the Glasgow fire exposes a different kind of regulatory gap — one not just about who can buy vapes, but how and where they are sold. The government’s Register of Tobacco and Nicotine Vapour Product Retailers found that nearly 80 per cent of vape retailers in Glasgow lack up-to-date registration information, indicating that the system is struggling with basic oversight. Regulation exists, but enforcement is evidently inconsistent.
This is where the debate becomes more urgent. For years, vaping policy has been framed primarily through a public health lens: a harm-reduction tool for adult smokers, but a risk for youth uptake. That framing still holds, however, it has perhaps obscured other risks, from poorly regulated retail environments to fire hazards, that now demand urgent attention.
Political pressure is mounting with the 2026 Scottish Parliament election approaching. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow has called for stronger protections against youth-targeted marketing, while Cancer Research UK is urging full implementation of the UK’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill as part of a wider push to reduce cancer rates.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens have gone further, arguing for a comprehensive licensing system that would empower local authorities to refuse applications, enforce safety standards, and penalise non-compliant retailers.
Taken together, these interventions suggest that vaping is no longer a minor policy concern. It is becoming a test case for how governments manage emerging consumer markets that sit at the intersection of public health, retail regulation, and youth protection.
Of course, there is a risk of overcorrection. Vaping remains significantly less harmful than smoking (at least in the short term), and overly restrictive policies could inadvertently push former smokers back towards tobacco. Policymakers therefore face a delicate balancing act: tightening regulation where clear gaps exist without undermining vaping’s role in smoking cessation.
So, will the Glasgow fire prove to be a wake-up call? Possibly, but only if it shifts the conversation beyond reactive policymaking. The danger is that regulation remains weak, driven by crises rather than strategy. A licensing system for vape retailers, as proposed by the Greens, would be a logical next step, bringing vaping in line with other regulated industries such as alcohol and tobacco.
Ultimately, the question is not whether vaping is a ‘significant’ policy problem – it already is. The real issue is whether governments are willing to treat it with the same seriousness as other public health and consumer safety challenges. If the current momentum leads to coherent, enforceable regulation, it could mark a turning point. If not, Scotland risks continuing with a system that looks robust on paper but fails in practice.
For a country aiming to be tobacco-free within a decade, that is a gamble it can ill afford.
Image by Spencer Siles for The Student
Share this:
Like this:
Related