UAE Health Department Warns against Misleading Advertisement of E-cigarettes

Regulations by 2FIRSTS.ai
May.31.2024
UAE Health Department Warns against Misleading Advertisement of E-cigarettes
UAE Health Ministry warns against promoting e-cigarettes as safer alternative to traditional cigarettes on World No Tobacco Day.

On May 30th, according to Alwast.News, the Ministry of Health and Prevention (Mohap) in the United Arab Emirates issued a stern warning on World No Tobacco Day, cautioning against promoting e-cigarette products as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes. The ministry emphasized in a statement that smokers need to quit smoking, and highlighted the serious health risks associated with tobacco use, including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, and mental health issues.

 

Previously, the United Arab Emirates had strict regulations on the use of e-cigarettes, banning them from being smoked in offices and enclosed spaces. Despite authorities issuing clear guidelines on the use of e-cigarettes in public places, misunderstandings about the regulation still persist.

 

The department stated that it will be necessary to actively take measures including public education campaigns, stricter enforcement of regulations, and ongoing research on the health impacts of e-cigarettes in order to protect public health. By promoting accurate information and preventing the use of e-cigarettes and other nicotine products, it aims to reduce the risks associated with tobacco consumption for the people of the UAE.

 

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

U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
A federal judge in Texas on Oct. 8 granted a joint request by the FDA and plaintiffs including Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY to stay litigation challenging the agency's 2021 PMTA rule. The court cited FDA's anticipated rulemaking concerning the regulation at issue. FDA announced on Sept. 28 that it intends to reassess the PMTA framework and could initiate new rulemaking to replace it. The parties must file a joint status report within 45 days and every 45 days thereafter. A motion by three Reynolds American companies to intervene remains pending.
Regulations
Oct.10
Australia Adds 6-Methylnicotine to Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances, Effective October 1
Australia Adds 6-Methylnicotine to Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances, Effective October 1
Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration published a final decision on September 25 to classify 6-methylnicotine as a Schedule 9 prohibited substance under the Poisons Standard, effective October 1, 2026. TGA said the chemical has been reported in e-cigarette liquids sold in Australia and marketed as nicotine-free or nicotine alternatives, while evidence also indicates its use in preparations such as oral pouches. The government originally proposed a Schedule 7 classification but ultimately adopted the stricter Schedule 9 designation, citing acute toxicity, dependence risk, use in unapproved consumer products and misleading marketing.
News
Sep.29 by 2Firsts Perspectives
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
Private antitrust litigation stemming from Altria's 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% economic interest in JUUL is advancing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products filed answering briefs this week seeking to preserve class certifications granted by a California federal court in February. Altria and JUUL argue that individual consumers and large distributors differ too much in purchasing terms to remain in a single direct-purchaser class, while a separate dispute concerns whether California antitrust law can apply to indirect purchasers across 27 jurisdictions. A September trial has been put on hold during the appeal.
Sep.23
German Customs Seize 115,800 Vapes in €1.4 Million Tax Case
German Customs Seize 115,800 Vapes in €1.4 Million Tax Case
Germany's Magdeburg Main Customs Office seized 115,800 untaxed e-cigarettes containing a combined 4.366 million mL of e-liquid during four truck inspections between August 10 and September 4, 2026. The seizures prevented an estimated €1.397 million in tax losses and set a record for the customs office's jurisdiction. Criminal proceedings have been initiated against four truck drivers. The case follows a separate German investigation involving more than 7.6 million illicit vapes and an estimated €33.3 million in excise-tax losses.
Enforcement
Oct.13
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-Listed Consumer Goods Group Supreme Sees Vape Duty as Potential Consolidation Opportunity, Holds FY27 Outlook
UK-listed consumer goods group Supreme plc says it continues to expect FY27 trading to meet market expectations as the Vaping Products Duty takes effect on October 1, while maintaining a comparatively positive view of the new tax and compliance regime. Supreme has said the framework could increase compliance complexity for smaller operators and contribute to market consolidation, while its manufacturing, compliance and distribution scale may allow it to gain share. Its 88Vape brand will retain its value positioning.
Sep.18
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore Seeks to Toss CCELL Price-Fixing Claim as Court Weighs Vertical Distribution Versus Horizontal Conspiracy
Smoore and four authorized U.S. CCELL distributors are asking a California federal court to permanently dismiss a core antitrust claim brought by direct purchasers. Plaintiffs allege that Smoore coordinated minimum wholesale prices, customer allocation and limits on price competition among distributors, amounting to a per se unlawful horizontal conspiracy. The defendants say the alleged conduct reflects ordinary vertical relationships between a manufacturer and its distributors. The court previously dismissed a similar claim, and the latest dispute centers on whether the second amended complaint adds sufficient facts to establish a horizontal agreement.
Sep.14