"Say No to Vaping": Why do Youths Say Yes in the First Place?

Campaigns, school talks, and public advisories in Singapore repeatedly urge our youths to “say no to vaping.” A recent example can be seen in how schools have intensified anti-vaping education efforts. By October 2025, all schools have reportedly received a science resource package containing materials on the dangers of vaping, including information about etomidate¹. This content is part of the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) support for the national anti-vaping campaign. In Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) lessons, secondary school students now discuss the long-term health risks and social consequences of vaping, with an emphasis on building self-control and resisting risky behaviours such as smoking and vaping.

Despite these efforts, between January 2024 and March 2025, nearly 18,000 people were caught for possession or use of e-vaporisers, with more than $41 million worth of devices and components seized by the authorities. Among these were students: schools and Institutes of Higher Learning referred about 2,600 student cases to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA)². In one striking case, a 15-year-old boy, repeatedly caught vaping at malls, void decks, and other public spaces, was ordered to stay for two years at the Singapore Boys’ Home³.

Amidst growing enforcement efforts, conversations among youths reveal a more complex picture. At a 2024 dialogue session conducted by MudaSG called Clearing the Clouds where 20 students from secondary schools and tertiary institutions discussed vaping and the effectiveness of current campaigns, many vapers expressed a desire to quit but were unaware of available cessation resources. For some, vaping persisted not out of defiance but due to addiction and a lack of accessible support. This suggests that while awareness of the health or legal risks is widespread, addressing the deeper social and psychological factors behind youth vaping remains an ongoing challenge.

It has been nearly a year since that conversation and since then, public concern has only grown, with issues such as KPods making headlines. While most agree that vaping is dangerous, illegal, and should be rejected, many youths still say yes. In a Straits Times article, it was mentioned that such behaviour reflects a broader pattern of adolescent risk-taking that manifests differently across generations⁴. It was also noted that regulatory and control measures have not kept pace with the rapid proliferation of vaping among youth which thereby escalates their access to drug-laced vapes.

Conversely, this article looks beyond the bans and the fines to understand the social pressures, cultural currents, and the invisible costs of isolation. The reasons for vaping may go beyond curiosity or defiance; perhaps it is about seeking belonging, asserting identity, or slipping into social circles where vaping feels ordinary rather than rebellious. When non-vapers simply condemn and/or avoid those who vape, they may unintentionally drive the habit deeper into certain groups and normalise it from within.

Youth Engagement with Vaping: Motivations and Meanings

Peer pressure remains a dominant factor in youths’ initiation into vaping. A Straits Times article stated that adolescents often perceive vaping as a social norm within their peer groups, with many viewing it as a safer alternative to smoking⁵. This perception is further reinforced by the visibility of vaping among friends, which encourages curiosity and experimentation. As one participant from the Clearing the Clouds dialogue explained,

“My friends in school introduced me to vaping. They vaped in front of me and I thought it was cool. I also only vape if other people are vaping.”

The quote above illustrates that youth vaping is often a social practice, where being part of a group that vapes can validate the behaviour and make it feel ordinary rather than rebellious. The participant further emphasised that,

“Being around my family and friends makes vaping feel normal because a lot of youths in Singapore vape.”

The social environment clearly plays a key role in shaping perceptions of acceptability. Some youths also feel direct pressure to conform to their peer groups, as another participant admitted,

“I feel pressured to vape because my friends do it.”

These accounts demonstrate that both the perception of social norms and explicit peer pressure contribute to initiation.

Beyond social influences, vaping also serves as a coping mechanism for stress. Adolescents in the US report turning to vaping as a way to manage academic pressures, personal problems, and emotional strain⁶. As another Clearing the Clouds participant explained,

“I wouldn’t say my friends were the main factor but they always said that vaping relieves stress so I thought that if I took a puff, it could help me.”

This shows that while peer influence plays a role, stress relief and personal coping needs are also central motivators for youth vaping. Interventions, therefore, need to address both the social and psychological factors that contribute to initiation.

Condemnation and the Cycle of Exclusion

The social consequences of vaping can significantly shape youth behaviour. While central figures like parents, teachers, and community leaders often frame vaping as “bad”, “dangerous”, or “rebellious”, such condemnation can have unintended effects. Research suggests that stigma may instead normalise the behaviour within certain social groups⁷. One participant explained,

“I’ve been judged by non-vapers before but I understand that they just don’t want to get involved in anything illegal so I respect their decision. When I am around friends who vape, I feel accepted.”

This highlights how youths who feel stigmatised by non-vaping peers often retreat into social circles where vaping is accepted, if not encouraged. Within these spaces, vaping becomes a marker of belonging and identity rather than solely a nicotine habit. The same participant also noted,

“When someone tells me ‘don’t vape’, it doesn’t change anything for me.”

Meanwhile, a non-vaping youth shared,

“Vaping looks ghetto and I don’t like hanging around people who vape.”

These perspectives illustrate the dual dynamics at play: admonishment from the general public often fail to deter vaping, while social distancing by non-vapers reinforces cohesion among vaping groups. For vapers, exclusion from broader social circles can intensify identification with their vaping circle, making the behaviour a symbol of solidarity and belonging.

Peer influence and exclusion are thus intertwined. Youths who vape may not seek to be “bad”, but social segregation from non-vaping peers deepens their group cohesion, further normalising vaping as a self-reinforcing social practice. Breaking this cycle requires approaches that address the emotional and social pressures underpinning vaping, rather than relying solely on punitive measures or moral messaging.

Moving Forward: Breaking the Cycle

Singapore’s approach to combating youth vaping has been multifaceted, incorporating stringent laws, public education campaigns, and school-based interventions. However, recent studies and events suggest that these measures may not be fully resonating with the youth demographic.

To effectively disrupt the cycle of vaping among youths, interventions must go beyond legal and moralistic frameworks. Empathy-driven strategies have shown promise in engaging adolescents more meaningfully.

Research indicates that adolescents are more likely to respond positively to interventions that acknowledge their social realities and emotional experiences. For instance, programmes that incorporated peer-led education and relatable personal anecdotes were found to be more effective in resonating with youths⁸. Additionally, adopting communication strategies that emphasise understanding and support, rather than judgment, can foster trust and openness. Approaches that take into account the obstacles, pressures, and social environments adolescents face are more likely to be effective in encouraging behaviour change⁹ mental health support to address underlying emotional and psychological factors¹⁰.

One example of an inclusive, community-based approach was seen at MEMBINA Community’s youth dialogue and anniversary event on 20 September 2025 where FreshCare inhalers were thoughtfully included in participants’ goodie bags. The inclusion was an intentional gesture – meant to offer a discreet and healthier alternative for managing stress and cravings¹¹. Rather than explicitly targeting or labelling vapers, the gesture offered understanding rather than judgment. Initiatives like these help create non-stigmatising spaces where youths who vape still feel seen and supported, which is an essential step toward behaviour change. This effort demonstrates how empathy-driven and community-led interventions can complement national anti-vaping strategies.

Ultimately, addressing youth vaping requires moving beyond simplistic narratives of legality and morality. While Singapore’s regulations and public advisories clearly communicate that vaping is dangerous and illegal, the persistence of youth vaping highlights that these messages alone are insufficient. As this article has shown, peer influence, social belonging, stress-coping, and cultural factors all play critical roles in shaping adolescents’ choices. By recognising the complex social dynamics and emotional realities behind why youths “say yes” to vaping, policymakers, educators, and community leaders can design interventions that are not only authoritative but also empathetic, culturally aware, and socially informed — ensuring that prevention efforts resonate with the very youths they aim to protect.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/i-vaped-when-i-woke-up-until-i-slept-more-youth-vaping-to-cope-with-stress-say-social-workers