BACKGROUND-AIM:
Many countries classify emerging nicotine products - e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products (HTP), nicotine pouches, synthetic nicotine - through explicit legal definitions, then regulate their sale, taxation and access. However, an alternative legislative pathway exists: non-recognition prohibition, where products are neither defined nor licenced, preventing their legal existence in the market. Türkiye represents one of the few countries worldwide (along with Singapore and Brazil) applying this definition-free ban model, prohibiting importation and sale without granting legal identity to the products. This study aims to evaluate the Turkish approach, assess its epidemiological and regulatory outcomes, and compare them to countries that adopted product recognition and regulated availability (e.g. United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Japan).

METHODS:
A cross-jurisdictional policy review was conducted analysing national legal frameworks, regulatory instruments and market outcomes in Türkiye, Singapore, Brazil, India, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Canada. Primary legal documents (Law No. 4207, Law No. 4733, Presidential Decree on Import Ban, and related enforcement mechanisms) in Türkiye, WHO FCTC guidance, market surveillance reports, and peer-reviewed literature (2016–2024) were examined. Youth vaping prevalence, industry penetration, and enforcement sustainability were compared across countries. The analysis used a legislative taxonomy created for this study: (1) definition-free prohibition, (2) defined but restricted, (3) harm-reduction-based regulated availability.

RESULTS:
Countries recognising and defining novel nicotine products reported rapid market expansion: youth vaping increased >40% over five years in the UK, while New Zealand saw accelerated uptake following product classification under harm-reduction policy. In contrast, jurisdictions applying non-recognition prohibition (Türkiye, Singapore, Brazil) maintained low commercial penetration, slower adolescent adoption, and limited industry lobbying capacity. Findings suggest Türkiye’s current framework—no definition, no licence, no market—functions as a regulatory firewall by preventing legal foothold and subsequent relaxation pressures. Comparative evidence shows that once defined, products become progressively regulatable and thus commercially viable.

CONCLUSIONS:
The Turkish model demonstrates that prohibition without product recognition may act as a durable long-term control strategy for emerging nicotine devices. Rather than codifying detailed product definitions for e-cigarettes and HTPs—which historically precede partial liberalisation—maintaining non-recognition appears to suppress commercial entry, youth uptake, and regulatory capture. The study proposes non-recognition prohibition as a viable alternative for countries seeking to prevent novel nicotine markets from forming rather than moderating them post-expansion.