South Korean city begins smoke-free zone inspections, fines e-cigarette use

Oct.22.2024
South Korean city begins smoke-free zone inspections, fines e-cigarette use
South Korean city launches smoke-free zone inspections at public facilities, fines violators through late November.

Incheon, South Korea will work with 10 districts to conduct joint inspections of smoke-free areas in public facilities by the end of November, according to KG News on October 21.

 

This inspection mainly targets the designated no-smoking areas and cigarette vending machines according to the National Health Promotion Law and regulations in various districts and counties. Any smoking behavior (including e-cigarettes) found in no-smoking areas will be fined.

 

In August of this year, the city expanded and added new smoking ban areas due to the revision of the "National Health Promotion Law." These include the areas surrounding educational facilities (kindergartens, daycare centers, elementary and secondary schools), bus and taxi stands where smoking is frequent, smoking-free streets, urban parks, squares, and smoking ban zones within apartments. In these areas, the city government will conduct focused inspections.

 

In addition, the city government will also inspect the adherence of no-smoking area signage (stickers) on smoking ban facilities, including cigarette vending machines, and the compliance of smoking rooms with facility standards.

 

A spokesperson for the municipal government said, "We plan to continue promoting and cracking down on smoking in smoke-free areas, encouraging citizens to actively participate in creating a smoke-free environment."

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang files patent for pressure-triggered, on-demand oral nicotine release
China Tobacco Zhejiang Industrial Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application for an oral nicotine delivery product designed to let users actively adjust nicotine release. The product embeds two types of nicotine reservoirs with different wall thicknesses and positions inside a deformable matrix. Pressure applied with the tongue or lips can rupture the reservoirs and accelerate nicotine release. In simulated oral tests, several patent examples showed sharply higher peak nicotine release rates as applied force increased from 0 N to 1 N and 3 N. The filing explores a shift from preset release profiles toward user-triggered nicotine delivery.
Sep.01
UK Vape Tax Countdown: Retailer Vape HQ Estimates 100ml E-liquid Prices Could Rise From £12.99 to £39.39, While Pod Kits Increase Less Than 10%
UK Vape Tax Countdown: Retailer Vape HQ Estimates 100ml E-liquid Prices Could Rise From £12.99 to £39.39, While Pod Kits Increase Less Than 10%
The UK’s Vaping Products Duty (VPD), scheduled to take effect in October 2026, is prompting retailers to assess how different vape categories may be affected. UK retailer Vape HQ has estimated potential price changes under the new volume-based tax system, showing that 100ml shortfill e-liquids could see prices rise from around £12.99 to £39.39, a 203% increase, while 2ml prefilled pod vape kits could rise from £5.99 to £6.52, an increase of about 9%. The estimates highlight how a volume-based tax structure creates uneven cost impacts across product categories.
Aug.19
Australia Tobacco Tax Debate Spreads Within Labor as NSW Premier Minns Reaffirms Support for a Cut
Australia Tobacco Tax Debate Spreads Within Labor as NSW Premier Minns Reaffirms Support for a Cut
Australia’s tobacco excise debate is increasingly exposing differences within the governing Labor Party. New South Wales Labor Premier Chris Minns reaffirmed on September 8 that he supports reducing tobacco excise, arguing that current tax settings are pushing consumers toward cheaper black-market cigarettes. Federal Health Minister Mark Butler continues to oppose an excise cut, while Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino have recently stopped short of ruling out future changes. The divergence follows the opposition Coalition’s proposal to cut tobacco excise by 80%.
Sep.08
How Many Nicotine Pouch Factories Does Europe Need? 2Firsts Interviews AIRSCREAM on the OEM Market
How Many Nicotine Pouch Factories Does Europe Need? 2Firsts Interviews AIRSCREAM on the OEM Market
At InterTabac 2026, nicotine pouch growth was visible not only in brands but across equipment, raw materials and OEM manufacturing. 2Firsts interviewed AIRSCREAM commercial head Steve Moore on how many pouch factories Europe may ultimately need and where manufacturers can differentiate, from formulation and flavour to pouch materials, production consistency and customer service. The category continues to expand, but questions remain over future capacity, consolidation and the long-term structure of the supply chain.
Sep.18
Yinghe-Controlled Vape Maker SKE Ordered to Post £569,039 Security as It Pursues Crystal Bar Design Infringement Case in UK
Yinghe-Controlled Vape Maker SKE Ordered to Post £569,039 Security as It Pursues Crystal Bar Design Infringement Case in UK
The UK High Court has ordered Chinese vape manufacturer Shenzhen SKE Technology to provide £569,039 ($776,000) in security for costs in its design infringement proceedings against Vapepen London and other defendants over its Crystal Bar vape product. The court did not accept the defendants’ main argument that recovering costs from a China-based company would face significant enforcement obstacles, but found that SKE had not sufficiently disclosed its own financial position. The order is procedural and does not determine the underlying infringement claims.
News
Aug.21