{"id":18266,"date":"2025-10-16T17:36:05","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T15:36:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mylasertabac.com\/bill-2026-when-the-tax-comes-down-on-vape-liquids-what-future-for-vapers-in-france\/"},"modified":"2025-10-17T13:48:16","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T11:48:16","slug":"bill-2026-when-the-tax-comes-down-on-vape-liquids-what-future-for-vapers-in-france","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mylasertabac.com\/en\/bill-2026-when-the-tax-comes-down-on-vape-liquids-what-future-for-vapers-in-france\/","title":{"rendered":"Bill 2026: when the tax comes down on vape liquids – what future for vapers in France?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n

The announcement came like a thunderclap in the world of vaping<\/strong>: the government<\/strong> is planning a new tax<\/strong> on e-cigarette<\/strong> liquids<\/strong> as part of the 2026 budget<\/strong>. The measure<\/strong>, championed by Minister Lecornu<\/strong>, promises to shake up the vaping<\/strong> market. But behind the pennies<\/strong> on the bill lies a fundamental debate: is this fair taxation<\/strong> or tacit censorship<\/strong> of vapers<\/strong>? This rigorous, well-documented article examines the project<\/strong>in the light of public finances<\/strong>, consumers<\/strong> and public health<\/strong> issues.<\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n

What is earmarked taxation?<\/h2>\n\n

The bill<\/strong> calls for taxing<\/strong> bottles of<\/strong> vape<\/strong> liquids<\/strong> on a sliding scale, with a possible rebate<\/strong> for low-nicotine<\/strong> models. The Minister<\/strong> has already announced an increase of<\/strong> several cents<\/strong> per milliliter, intended to replenish the national budget<\/strong>.This new tax<\/strong> joins previous measures on tobacco<\/strong>, reinforcing the observation that vapers<\/strong> are no longer immune. The policy<\/strong> is clear – to restrict sales<\/strong> through taxation<\/strong> rather than a total ban<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n

Economic impact: a heavy financial burden for vapers<\/h2>\n\n

Imagine a vapoteur consuming 10 ml of liquid a week. With an increased tax<\/strong>, each bottle<\/strong> will cost more, until it rivals (or exceeds) the cost of a pack of cigarettes<\/strong>.Added up over the year, this could amount to several extra euros<\/strong> a month – or even hundreds ofeuros<\/strong> a year. Tobacconists<\/strong> could see an impact on their sales of<\/strong> related electronic<\/strong> products.Short-term budget savings<\/strong>? Undoubtedly. But in the medium term, this project<\/strong> risks pushing some vapoteurs towards traditional tobacco<\/strong>, generating costs for pensions<\/strong>, social security<\/strong> and taxes<\/strong> linked to smoking-related illnesses. <\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n

Public health and prevention: between coherence and contradiction<\/h2>\n\n

The project<\/strong> is presented as a preventive<\/strong> tool against tobacco<\/strong>, by heavily taxing the alternatives. However, this strategy seems contradictory: we are taxing what is supposed to help smokers quit.Tax measures<\/g> may act as a deterrent, but they are no substitute forinformation<\/g> and training<\/g> for vapoteurs, nor for appropriate medical advice<\/g>. The government<\/strong> risks locking vapers<\/strong> into a double penalty: neither tobacco nor affordable vaping. <\/p>\n\n

This gradual freezing of<\/strong> margins can lead to the circulation of informal products<\/strong> or duty-free imports, weakening safety<\/strong> controls. We can foresee a slope where indirect censorship<\/strong> locks legal sales<\/strong> into a cumbersome and costly system. <\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n

The stakeholder perspective<\/h2>\n\n