Ireland’s decision to prohibit the sale of nicotine pouches and other non-tobacco nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 represents a proportionate and overdue step to protect children. Few would dispute the legitimacy of this measure. Preventing youth access to nicotine products is a core public-health objective and is consistent with both harm-reduction principles and long-standing international norms. However, Ireland’s broader regulatory package, particularly the introduction of blanket retail advertising bans and strict in-store display restrictions, raises important questions about whether the country is striking the right balance between youth protection and informed access for adults who smoke.
At issue is not whether children should be protected, but whether policies designed primarily for combustible tobacco are being extended to lower-risk nicotine alternatives without sufficient consideration of relative risk, adult behavioural needs, and long-term public-health outcomes.
What Ireland Has Decided
Ireland’s government has approved a set of measures aimed at reducing the visibility and availability of nicotine products. These include a clear prohibition on sales of nicotine pouches and other non-tobacco nicotine products to minors, a ban on advertising such products within retail environments, and restrictions on open display in mixed retail outlets such as supermarkets and convenience stores. These measures sit alongside the planned ban on single-use disposable vapes.
Officials have described the package as part of a broader effort to reduce youth exposure to nicotine and to advance Ireland’s ambition of becoming a smoke-free society. Framed in this way, the policy reflects a strong political emphasis on prevention and denormalisation. However, it also applies a largely uniform regulatory approach across products with markedly different risk profiles.
Why an Under-18 Sales Ban Is Justified
There is growing evidence that nicotine pouch awareness and experimentation among adolescents and young adults is increasing, particularly in high-income countries. Surveys from the United States and elsewhere indicate that youth and young adult use of pouches has risen rapidly over a short period. Research also shows that young people often perceive pouches as less harmful and less addictive than cigarettes or vapes, and that descriptors such as “tobacco-free” and “smoke-free” can fuel curiosity among non-users.
Public-health authorities have consistently highlighted adolescence as a period of heightened vulnerability to nicotine dependence. From this perspective, a clear legal ban on under-18 sales is both evidence-based and proportionate. Importantly, such a measure is compatible with harm reduction, provided that it is paired with continued adult access and does not inadvertently discourage smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives.
What the Evidence Says About Display and Advertising Bans
The case for restricting point-of-sale displays is well established for combustible tobacco. A substantial body of research shows that visible cigarette displays function as a form of promotion, particularly for young people. Studies from the United Kingdom and other countries have linked exposure to tobacco displays with higher brand awareness, increased susceptibility to smoking among never-smokers, and delayed cessation. Evaluations of tobacco display bans suggest reductions in brand recognition and, over time, modest declines in smoking prevalence.
However, this evidence base is overwhelmingly derived from cigarettes, the most harmful nicotine products, rather than from smoke-free alternatives such as nicotine pouches. While the logic of reducing youth exposure to visual cues is transferable in principle, the public-health context differs when the products in question carry substantially lower health risks and are primarily used by adults who smoke or formerly smoked.
The Question of Proportionality for Nicotine Pouches
Nicotine pouches occupy a distinct position on the continuum of risk because they deliver nicotine without combustion, the primary source of tobacco-related disease. Toxicological assessments, biomarker studies, and emerging modelling suggest that widespread switching from cigarettes to oral nicotine products could yield net public-health benefits, particularly in jurisdictions with robust youth protections.
Against this backdrop, comprehensive bans on retail advertising and open display may have unintended consequences. For adult smokers, especially those who do not frequent specialist vape shops or actively seek information online, in-store visibility can play a role in awareness and product comparison. If lower-risk products are hidden from view and stripped of any factual point-of-sale communication, they risk being treated as functionally equivalent to cigarettes in the eyes of consumers. This blurring of risk distinctions may slow switching, reinforce misconceptions about relative harm, or push purchasing into less regulated channels.
Toward a More Balanced Regulatory Framework
A harm-reduction-aligned approach for Ireland would preserve and strengthen the under-18 sales ban while recalibrating other restrictions to reflect both relative risk and adult public-health needs. Strong age-verification requirements, meaningful enforcement, and prohibitions on youth-appealing branding are essential and should apply across all nicotine products. At the same time, there is a credible case for allowing limited, factual, adult-oriented communication in retail settings that clearly positions nicotine pouches as intended for existing adult users and as substantially less harmful than smoking, while still acknowledging that they are not risk-free.
Such an approach would also benefit from built-in mechanisms for monitoring and review. Systematic data collection on youth uptake, adult switching, dual use, and cessation outcomes would allow policymakers to assess whether current measures are achieving their intended goals without undermining harm-reduction pathways. As the evidence base on nicotine pouches continues to evolve, regulatory frameworks should retain the flexibility to adjust in light of new findings.
Conclusion
Ireland’s decision to prohibit under-18 sales of nicotine pouches is a clear and appropriate response to rising youth interest in nicotine products. The more difficult question lies in how far additional retail restrictions should extend when applied to products that are demonstrably less harmful than cigarettes. Regulation that prioritises youth protection while also preserving informed adult access is not a contradiction; it is a necessary expression of proportionality.
If Ireland’s smoke-free ambitions are to be realised, policy must continue to reflect the continuum of risk, ensuring that measures designed to protect children do not inadvertently limit the potential public-health gains available to adults who smoke.
