Latvia Plans to Ban e-cigarette Use at Residential Windows

Dec.12.2024
Latvia Plans to Ban e-cigarette Use at Residential Windows
Latvia Health Ministry plans to restrict e-cigarette use near residential windows, following EU council call for extended public exposure limits.

According to a report from Latvian Radio on December 10th, the Latvian Ministry of Health plans to propose new restrictions, prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in residential building windows.


The Council of Employment, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Affairs of the European Union is calling for an expansion of restrictions on public exposure to e-cigarettes. Currently, Latvia prohibits smoking or using e-cigarettes on balconies, stairwells, train platforms, bus stops, and other public areas including educational institutions and workplaces. National police and municipal police are responsible for monitoring whether the public is smoking in unauthorized areas, with violators facing warnings or fines of up to 100 euros. In the future, Latvia may also ban the use of e-cigarettes in residential windows, public spaces, and dining establishments.


The Secretary of the Latvian Ministry of Health, Artjoms Uršuļskis, stated that they will be implementing regulations targeting smoking in windows, with the aim of protecting the public from the impact of both tobacco and e-cigarette smoke.


Currently it is not clear when this regulation will take effect, but the Ministry of Health has indicated that it may be discussed next year.


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

Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Whether State Consumer Law Can Restrict Flavored Vape Sales
Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Whether State Consumer Law Can Restrict Flavored Vape Sales
The Ohio Supreme Court is hearing a case involving flavored vape sales and whether state authorities can use consumer protection laws to take action against retailers selling unauthorized vape products. Ohio officials argue that selling unauthorized flavored vapes may constitute consumer deception, while retailers argue that tobacco product regulation falls under federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority and that states cannot impose additional restrictions through consumer laws. The case could affect the scope of state-level vape regulation across the United States.
Aug.06
Product | HQD SiSA 80K Enters the U.S. Market With a Hookah-Inspired Approach to the High-Capacity Disposable Segment
Product | HQD SiSA 80K Enters the U.S. Market With a Hookah-Inspired Approach to the High-Capacity Disposable Segment
The HQD SiSA 80K Hookah Disposable Vape has appeared across U.S. and cross-border online retail channels. The device comes prefilled with 28ml of e-liquid, uses a 5% nicotine salt configuration and carries a brand claim of up to 80,000 puffs. Beyond puff count, the product differentiates itself through hookah-inspired features including adjustable airflow, a flowing-water sound effect and flavor options associated with traditional hookah consumption.
Aug.18
Product | R.J. Reynolds Launches Four Flavored Vuse Pro Pods for Vuse Alto Devices in U.S.
Product | R.J. Reynolds Launches Four Flavored Vuse Pro Pods for Vuse Alto Devices in U.S.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company has introduced Vuse Pro prefilled pods in Peach, Berry, Watermelon and Fresh Mint in selected U.S. states. Vuse’s U.S. website says the pods are intended for use with existing Vuse Alto devices. Each contains 2.0 mL of e-liquid at 5.0% nicotine by weight, uses nicotine salts and is offered in two- and four-pod packs. Reynolds said the rollout includes mandatory ID scanning for every purchase, purchase limits, stronger retailer-accountability requirements and strict age-restricted marketing standards. The four pods have not received marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Sep.10
GAO Audit Finds Nearly 132,000 FDA Tobacco Applications Waiting an Average 1,266 Days as Nicotine Pouch Pilot Practices Move Into Vape PMTA Reviews
GAO Audit Finds Nearly 132,000 FDA Tobacco Applications Waiting an Average 1,266 Days as Nicotine Pouch Pilot Practices Move Into Vape PMTA Reviews
A U.S. Government Accountability Office audit found that 131,915 tobacco product applications submitted to the FDA since 2018 remained without a final review as of December 31, 2025, with pending applications waiting an average of 1,266 days. GAO also found FDA lacks the data needed to systematically determine whether scientific reviews meet applicable timelines. HHS agreed to upgrade the agency's tracking systems. At the same time, FDA has begun applying lessons from its nicotine pouch PMTA pilot to e-cigarette reviews, while changes to enforcement policy and electronic submissions are making the specific stage of a PMTA increasingly relevant to market access.
FDA
Oct.03
JTI Proposes 25-Cent Irish Cigarette Tax Increase, Says It Could Raise €45 Million
JTI Proposes 25-Cent Irish Cigarette Tax Increase, Says It Could Raise €45 Million
Japan Tobacco International's Irish business has proposed a €0.25 tax increase on a pack of 20 cigarettes in its pre-Budget 2027 submission, below the €0.50-or-more increases typically imposed in recent Irish budgets. JTI says the proposal could generate around €45 million in additional Exchequer revenue while limiting further movement toward illicit and non-Irish-tax-paid tobacco. Revenue's existing estimate for a comparable €0.25 increase, including pro-rata rises on other tobacco products, is about €18 million for a full year.
JTI
Sep.18 by 2Firsts Perspectives
Elf Bar Vape Explosion and Amputation Claim Spurs Coverage Suit, U.S. Insurer MUSIC Seeks Ruling It Owes No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Distributor i5
Elf Bar Vape Explosion and Amputation Claim Spurs Coverage Suit, U.S. Insurer MUSIC Seeks Ruling It Owes No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Distributor i5
Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company has asked a federal court in Washington to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify vape distributor i5 Distribution in a product liability case involving an Elf Bar BC5000. The plaintiff alleges that the disposable vape caught fire and exploded in his pocket, causing severe burns and ultimately requiring an above-the-knee amputation of his left leg. MUSIC is relying on a tobacco, nicotine or nicotine replacement products exclusion and a premises limitation endorsement. The court has not ruled on the coverage dispute.
News
Sep.10