BAN AND CHOICE

Azerbaijan is strengthening the regulation of the alternative tobacco products market: starting from April 1, 2026, a full ban on electronic cigarettes is being introduced in the country, including their import, export, production, sale, storage, and use. Nicotine‑containing vapes are equated with tobacco products, and smoking them in public places will incur a fine of 30 manats.

But it is important that the ban does not cover heated tobacco products, since under the law these products are classified in a category separate from electronic cigarettes.

At the same time, experts emphasize that within the broader category of “alternative nicotine products” there are fundamentally different technologies, and therefore different regulatory approaches. Understanding the structure of this market correctly becomes part of a broader discussion on harm reduction and managing consumer behavior.

Different technologies

The key difference between electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products lies in the very principle of how these devices work.
Electronic cigarettes operate by evaporating a liquid that contains nicotine, flavorings, and other chemical compounds. When heated, this liquid forms an aerosol that the user inhales. In this case, the product is not tobacco itself but a nicotine-containing liquid whose composition can vary greatly depending on the manufacturer and often remains opaque to the end consumer.

It is precisely this variability of composition that has become a major concern for regulators.

In practice, the electronic cigarette market is highly fragmented — from large international brands to small producers offering products with various flavors and nicotine concentrations. This makes quality control more difficult and creates additional risks associated with undeclared components and unstable formulation.

Heated tobacco products, on the other hand, are based on heating real tobacco without burning it. The temperature in such devices is much lower than in traditional smoking, which prevents combustion and smoke formation. Instead, an aerosol containing nicotine and heated tobacco products is generated. Thus, the key distinction is that these devices use real tobacco as the base rather than a chemically variable liquid.

This difference is not only technical but also institutional. In many countries, heated tobacco products are classified as a separate category of tobacco products, which allows regulators to apply specific rules of taxation, labeling, and oversight. Electronic cigarettes, however, are often regulated more strictly or equated to high‑risk nicotine products that may attract new users. In this context, Azerbaijan’s decision to ban electronic cigarettes aligns with the international trend of tightening control over the vaping segment.

Existing risks

From a health perspective, the differences between these categories are significant, though neither of them can be considered safe. Electronic cigarettes are criticized for containing numerous chemical components in their liquids—including flavorings—which, when heated, may form potentially toxic compounds. An additional risk factor is the lack of unified quality standards and composition control, especially in segments involving illegal products.

A particular concern is youth involvement. Because of the wide variety of flavors and marketing strategies, electronic cigarettes have come to be seen not as an alternative to smoking, but as an independent consumer product. This has led to increased use among adolescents in several countries, which became one of the main reasons for tightening regulations, including full or partial bans.

Heated tobacco products, despite the absence of combustion, still deliver nicotine and maintain dependence. However, several international studies indicate reduced levels of harmful substances compared to traditional cigarettes, primarily due to the elimination of tobacco burning.

It is also important to consider behavioral aspects. Users of heated tobacco products are typically former smokers or adult tobacco consumers, while electronic cigarettes tend to attract a new audience. This distinction affects how public health risks are evaluated: in one case, the focus is on harm reduction for existing consumers; in the other, it concerns the expansion of the overall consumer base.

In Azerbaijan’s context, the ban on electronic cigarettes reflects primarily the desire to limit products that most actively draw young people into nicotine consumption. Bright designs, flavor additives, and accessibility have made this segment particularly sensitive from a social policy perspective. At the same time, regulating heated tobacco products remains more complex and requires balancing control with technological differences and international experience.

Ultimately, the situation around the e‑cigarette ban in Azerbaijan illustrates a broader trend — a shift from a universal approach to a more differentiated regulation of various nicotine product categories.

Differentiating between electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products at the policy level allows regulators to account for both technological specifics and differences in risks and target audiences. In addition, producers of smokeless tobacco products legally allowed on the market argue for stricter measures against illegal imports of products from unknown manufacturers, as well as for preventing the sale of any harmful products to minors. This creates preconditions for a more targeted and well‑justified regulatory model focused not only on restrictions but also on managing consumption patterns.