The FDA Proposes a De Facto Cigarette Ban, Which Would Expand the Disastrous War on Drugs
Mandating negligible nicotine levels in tobacco products would create a big black market and criminalize currently legal transactions.

On its way out the door, the Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes by requiring a drastic reduction in nicotine content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which unveiled the proposed rule on Wednesday, says the aim is to make cigarettes unappealing by eliminating their "psychoactive and reinforcing effects."
In addition to cigarettes, the FDA's proposed rule covers cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco (except shisha for waterpipes), and cigars (except for "premium" cigars). All of those products would be limited to 0.7 milligrams of nicotine per gram of tobacco. That cap technically complies with a federal law that bars the FDA from banning tobacco products or "requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero." But the negligible amount of nicotine allowed under the rule would amount to both in practice.
The FDA, which first considered this policy under Scott Gottlieb during the first Trump administration, has abandoned the idea of gradually phasing in the nicotine reduction because that would initially result in "compensatory smoking." That is, current smokers would be apt to inhale more deeply, take more or bigger puffs, or consume more cigarettes to get the nicotine dose to which they are accustomed, which would increase their exposure to the toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke. But avoiding that pitfall by mandating an immediate cut to a negligible nicotine level would magnify the black-market effects of de facto cigarette prohibition.
Given the disastrous results of the war on drugs, it is hard to fathom why a government agency in 2025 would think it is a good idea to expand that crusade to include products that are regularly consumed by nearly 30 million American adults. The proposed nicotine cap "would effectively outlaw almost all cigarettes currently being sold," which would "benefit organized crime by igniting a robust illicit market for cigarettes and other tobacco products," the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) notes in an emailed press release.
"We know from any number of historical examples that prohibition doesn't end the demand for these products," says Neill Franklin, LEAP's former executive director. "Smokers will just go to the underground market to find what they need." The upshot, Franklin says, will be "an illicit tobacco market with no product safety standards, regulations, or taxable revenue," which "will mean huge new business opportunities for organized crime and an increased strain on law enforcement."
The FDA seems unfazed by such concerns. The agency says it is "considering whether illicit trade could occur as a result of a nicotine product standard and whether such activity could significantly undermine the public health benefits of the product standard." But there is no question that "illicit trade" will "occur," as it always does whenever the government decides to ban psychoactive substances, and the consequences will go beyond undermining the FDA's goals.
Law enforcement agencies "are too often tasked with the unpleasantness that results when we turn public health issues into police matters," Franklin notes. That "unpleasantness" includes diversion of police resources and criminalization of conduct—in this case, supplying what the FDA calls "normal nicotine content (NNC) cigarettes"—that violates no one's rights. Criminalization entails arresting and incarcerating people, including low-level dealers as well as major traffickers, for engaging in peaceful transactions with consenting adults.
"Even as the country finally begins to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the war on drugs, government officials are increasingly taking a prohibitive approach to nicotine," Jacob Grier noted in a prescient 2022 Reason story that opened with the 2014 death of Eric Garner during an arrest for selling "loosies" (untaxed cigarettes) in New York City. Grier also noted arrests in Massachusetts for violating that state's ban on flavored tobacco and nicotine products. The defendants could face up to five years in prison for supplying previously legal products.
If "NNC cigarettes" are added to the list of proscribed drugs, we can expect many more examples of people entangled in the criminal justice system because they tried to satisfy a demand for products that the government deems intolerable. Even without new state laws, cigarette peddlers will be committing crimes by selling untaxed tobacco products.
The FDA is too focused on the benefits of a cigarette ban to worry about such costs. "Multiple administrations have acknowledged the immense opportunity that a proposal of this kind offers to address the burden of tobacco-related disease," FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf said on Wednesday. "Today's proposal envisions a future where it would be less likely for young people to use cigarettes and more individuals who currently smoke could quit or switch to less harmful products. This action, if finalized, could save many lives and dramatically reduce the burden of severe illness and disability, while also saving huge amounts of money. I hope we can all agree that significantly reducing the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the U.S. is an admirable goal we should all work toward."
By 2100, the FDA projects, its plan will prevent some 48 million Americans from starting to smoke. It also hopes that current smokers, instead of buying cigarettes from the inevitable black market, will either quit or switch to less hazardous nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. The agency says it "recognizes that tobacco products exist on a continuum of risk, with combusted cigarettes being the deadliest, and that certain non-combusted cigarettes pose less risk to individuals who use cigarettes or certain other combusted tobacco products or to population health than other products meeting the definition of a cigarette."
Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, was more explicit and enthusiastic in recognizing and welcoming the harm-reducing potential of nicotine vaping products, which he described as "a tremendous public health opportunity." But that view is hard to reconcile with the FDA's refusal to approve vaping products in any flavors other than tobacco or menthol, which excludes the products that former smokers overwhelmingly prefer. The FDA is simultaneously striving to eliminate cigarettes and to make the most promising alternative less appealing, a perverse combination that undermines its avowed goal of reducing smoking-related morbidity and mortality.
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled that his administration will be friendlier to vape manufacturers and consumers, saying he "saved flavored vaping" during his first term and promising that he will "save vaping again." But it is unclear whether Trump's pick to run the FDA, Marty Makary, is on board with that agenda or what he thinks about the nicotine cap.
Mitch Zeller, who directed the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products from 2013 to 2022, says the plan to restrict nicotine in cigarettes was nixed after Gottlieb left office in 2019. At that point, "we had no champion," Zeller told CBS News. "The day came when I was told by political appointees at FDA to stop talking about menthol [cigarettes] and nicotine in my speeches. And we were basically told to stop working on them."
The same thing could happen again after Trump takes office, especially in light of opposition from Republican legislators. In 2023, The New York Times notes, "members of an influential House subcommittee passed a measure that would have prevented the F.D.A. from spending any money to advance limits on nicotine, with nearly all of the supporting votes by Republicans." Then again, the Times says, "Mr. Trump himself has said that he is personally opposed to cigarette smoking," and "supporters of the plan point to signs that incoming public health officials may be receptive to it," including "the popularity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s pledge to tackle chronic diseases and improve the health of Americans if he is confirmed to lead the nation's top health agency."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Democrats to Joe Biden:
Sorry, sir, there are still people enjoying themselves.
Biden to the deep state:
Stop that at once!
Democrats to Joe Biden: Sorry, sir, there are still people enjoying themselves.
Biden to the deep state: [drools]
FTFY 🙂
How will the democrats be able to get the homeless to vote if they can’t give them free full nicotine cigarettes?
Suddenly, cigarettes are labeled as “premium cigars”.
Tobacco settlement? Tobacco settlement funds?
I can't wait to see how this plays out.
Not meant as a response to OP but works.
The agency says it is "considering whether illicit trade could occur
Cue up:
Just good old boys
Never meaning no harm
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law since the day they were born
Like they were able to stop the illicit trade in alcohol during prohibition or are able to stop the illicit trade in cocaine today.
De-Fund and Abolish the FDA.
"The FDA Proposes a De Facto Cigarette Ban, Which Would Expand the Disastrous War on Drugs."
Good thinking.
Banning alcohol about 100 years ago was successful.
Banning drugs has been successful.
So, let's ban cigarettes too.
I'm sure the ban on cigarettes will be as successful as the ban on alcohol and drugs have been.
All of those products would be limited to 0.7 milligrams of nicotine per gram of tobacco.
A useless statistic without knowing what the current dosage is.
Good catch. It reminds me of stories which mix percentages and amounts.
"The tax was projected to double tax receipts, but only raised $1.4 million."
A cigarette current contains 10-12 mg of nicotine in roughly 0.7g of tobacco. While these are averages, this means ~95% reduction in nicotine.
Thanks.
Lip pouches have 3, 6, 7, or even 9 mg. Think i even saw a 12mg.
So far, they are only talking about cigarettes but give them time and pouches/vapes will be next.
making people consume more tar to get their nicotine fix is truly sadistic
My body! My choice!
Look. They aren't even trying to hide the game. This is simple
1: After the election, put forth an extremely unpopular policy that elites might like but the common people hate.
2: Wait for Trump to overturn it on popular demand.
3: Four years from now, call the Republicans anti-science and pro-cancer because they want your children to smoke cigarettes because they are evil.
Seriously, this it straight out of the movie Head of State. The end goal is to call Trump a cancer-lover.
Idiotic. If people want to kill themselves, let 'em. It's not as though no-one knows the health risks by now.
Except vaccines. Can’t admit people into the hospital with having been vaccinated.
I said "themselves", note.
The only way this would work, meaning no substantial black market, would be if there are legal inhaled alternatives with at least as much nicotine concentrations in their vapor as the nicotine concentration in typical cigarette or cigar smoke. Unless there is something particularly appealing about the smoke itself, users would migrate to legal vaping at the same or higher concentration than deal with the black-market. But, if vapes are limited to a low nicotine content, likely a black-market would arise to satisfy demand for higher concentration nicotine, whether smoked or vaped. It's the nicotine that's in demand - the higher concentration, the more in demand.
Unless nicotine itself is more harmful than the smoke, the self-righteous public health types could do a lot more good by advocating higher concentrations of nicotine vape to draw people away from more harmful smoked-leaf nicotine and carbon monoxide.
They have already started to go after nicotine in all forms. Cigarettes are so 20 years ago. I bet in a few years it will be available by prescription only and DEA helicopters will fly over your yard to see if you’re growing anything in the nightshade family (tomatoes, eggplant, peppers).
...
I think what nobody wants to recognize is that there is indeed, and that this is also a good part of the appeal of smoking the very smoky cannabis, and of barbecuing.
Vapes are gay.
Biden is like an angry tenant, trashing the place before he’s evicted.
Excellent analogy.
Maybe we got an equal rights thing here.
If women can overdose on hormones using birth control pills, why can't men overdose on nicotine using cigarettes?
And of course, if men can overdose on nicotine, so can women.
Lame duck regs and pardons need to come to an end.
...
I think its fathomability is of only moderate difficulty. The war on drugs is conceived as a war on deviants. Anything consumed by that many people is not a thing of a deviant population. Therefore these people would not make the same kind of trouble; it would be more like installing a traffic signal at an intersection, i.e. something that drivers would just go along with. At least, that's how it's conceived.
Wouldn't it be something if they did this, and cigaret smoking rates did not decline? If they found out it wasn't about the nicotine?
"The Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes"
These things need to be repeated so Libertarian Democrats can get a clue. 99% of the time these Anti-Liberty measures are from Democrats despite all the Leftard Self-Projection indoctrination out there. Republicans ended Slavery. Republicans ended Prohibition. The list goes on and on and on.
Straight up tyrants. Where do these people get the gall to think they can tell other people what to do? Cut off a 10 year olds dick is fine but smoke a plant is forbidden. Bunch of sick fucks.
Republicans ENACTED Prohibition via the Volstead Act, so giving them credit for ending it is disingenuous and a more than a little silly.
Don't believe me? Andrew Volstead was a Republican, and both the Senate and Congress were Republican. Democrat Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act, but they overrode his veto and gave us Prohibition.
Worse still, when you consider they also started the War on Drugs (Nixon, a Republican POTUS) and were responsible for its largest expansions (under Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush) and the vast majority of republicans still rabidly support it to this very day...not exactly easy to paint the GOP as the guardians of liberty they purport to be.
It's understandable; people want a team of 'good guys' to root for, just like they want hope. Unfortunately, there are no 'good guys' and any hope on offer via the Uniparty is false. Only when we are finally forced to come to terms with that ugly truth that things may change for the better. And the truth is, neither party has done much in the way of actually expanding liberty or shrinking government. Not in my lifetime, to be sure. Both have done plenty to destroy liberty and grow government, though!
P.S., I seem to recall Republican Abe Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus.
1) Drug Prohibition was from Democrats Introduced in the House as H.R. 18583 by Harley O. Staggers [D]–WV (Controlled Substances Act) as well as being responsible for the FDA (by FDR).
2) Don't pretend Democrats had any resistance to the Volstead Act. First pass Vote Nays was [R]48 & [D]52 second Nays [R]29 & [D]26.
What is disingenuous and silly is trying to blame Republicans for something Republicans repealed. Sure. They've made mistakes. Mistakes Democrats NEVER resisted what-so-ever.
The historical items are true. FALSE is the notion that "BOTH" covers ALL political parties capable of steering elections and affecting legislation. This oversimplification, like the notion that a line in units of length can represent area or volume, cripples political discussion in These States. The Prohibition party with 2% of the vote in a strong showing, was the prime mover behind the Prohibition Amendment and Volstead Act, both of which added to the wealth of Rockefeller's Glucose Trust. He subsidized the party.
I tell you, Trump bess destroy this plan. If he doesn't, his popularity will plummet. Better - revoke FDA authority on tobacco except for quality control and eliminate all of the CDC, about half of it, that focuses on tobacco. And stop funding the WHO, the international anti-tobacco super pac.
I never get tired of the Petulant Child Defense that Reason writers rely so heavily on.
"Don't do that."
"I want to."
"If you do, I'm going to punish you."
"I swear I will risk harming myself and others to do it anyway."
"Oh, well then I guess I'd better let you."
So dumb. And, frankly, insulting. Weaponized empathy.
Leveling a threat to engage in or increase criminal activity is no way to convince them to get on board with what you want to do.
The government has spent decades treating its citizens like children, is it any surprise that so many have only ever learned to act like children?
The government is only enforcing the laws that people have said they want, by and through their elected representatives. That's not be paternalistic, that's respecting the American principle of self-governance.
The argument you're trying to assert is one of the minority, who doesn't want what the majority wants - and sneers at the Rule of Law, threatening to engage in self-harm or harm to others, if they don't get their way.
Again, the Petulant Child.
They could try to change the law, they could relocate to another area where the local population rejected it, they could even expat if they're that upset.
But they want to have their cake and eat it too, don't they. Like overly entitled children, they want what they want and they want it now and they demand it be brought to them else they'll have tantrums. Sometimes violent ones.
So, with respect to your latter point - it wasn't the government who taught you to act like children. Certainly not according to anything the Founders ever said or did. But as American society became more entitled and childish, and started having tantrums every time they didn't get their way, I can see how that seems like paternalism - but you've got the blame for its cause misplaced.
Politicians and lobbyists send men with guns out to kill people who disobey congress and statehice. Until the LP existed there was not even a way to vote against it. But ATF here wants them to kill every inhabitant, into the tens of millions, who disobey some 400 looter whores.
How do people get into Congress, LIB?
Shooting their cops worked in 1931.
Try it in 2025.
I am firmly opposed to smoking as I have had several family members die from throat and lung cancer as a direct result not to mention how disgusting a habit it is for people around them to put up with. I am even more opposed to the Federal Government trying to control peoples behavior "for their own good".
Finally, someone immune to altruistic drivel. Good show!
I feel the same way as diver64. Back in the days of alcohol prohibition a century ago, they at least amended the Constitution to give themselves that power, which everyone knew they didn't otherwise have. Today, there is not only no constitutional amendment supporting this proposal, there is not even Congressional legislation, just executive fiat. Where the hell do they get the idea that they have the power to do this in an ostensibly free country? I suspect cigarettes will die a natural death over the next few decades, if the authorities stop pushing so hard. Anyway, this proposal will go nowhere under Donald Trump. While he is known for grabbing power (as well as that other p-word) wherever he can, it is generally not of the "for your own good" variety.
Based on my own experience, I don't believe that nicotine is particularly addicting. I've used two 3mg pouches of Zyn during my morning coffee for the last few years. Never increased the dosage, don't crave it later in the day, and don't miss it when I run out.
"Given the disastrous results of the war on drugs, it is hard to fathom why a government agency in 2025 would think it is a good idea to expand that crusade to include products that are regularly consumed by nearly 30 million American adults. "
It rather easy to fathom. Progressives think they own the public's health, they will try to make you healthy despite yourself. Also, cigarettes are made and sold by private corporations, which makes them evil people no matter what they are selling. They do not see this as the same as the drug war. Their motivations are pure in their eyes so it cannot have the same result.
However, if this stands, the bad effects will chalked up to "systemic racism".
By 2100, the FDA projects, its plan will prevent some 48 million Americans from starting to smoke.
You are able to project 75 years in to the future? You think you can save 1.5 million Americans a year from starting to smoke? And none of them have been born yet? OK.
This whole plan is very well thought out. It totally does not sound like it is made up.
If you have been paying any attention, you will know that the anti-tobacco gang has Zyn and other pouches in their sites. They keep getting Bloomberg $ that they have to spend now that vapes and smoking are passe. It’s all part of their end game.
FDA's new proposal to ban nicotine in cigarettes (as with Gottlieb's previously proposed ban) will never be approved (as with FDA's previously proposed menthol cigarette bans) because State and Local Governments will oppose it since the FDA's nicotine ban would cost them about $40 billion/year in lost cigarette tax revenue and about $10 billion/year in lost cigarette settlement payments.
Sullum is correct that the FDA should begin approving dozens/hundreds of the million plus nicotine vapor products.
Since the FDA first banned e-cigs in 2009 (which I helped strike down in federal court) by falsely claiming e-cigs were addicting millions of teens, were gateways to cigarettes, didn't help smokers quit and may be more harmful than cigarettes, cigarette smoking by high school students has plunged from 22% to just 1%, while smoking by young adults (18-24 years) dropped from 22% to 7%.
But while vapes are >99% less harmful than cigarettes, have virtually eliminated teen cigarette smoking, and have helped ten million smokers quit smoking, the FDA, CDC, US SG, other DHHS agencies and all CDC funded state and local health agencies still falsely claim vaping is a gateway to cigarettes, isn't less harmful than cigarette smoking, and hasn't helped smokers quit smoking.
Hopefully, Marty Makary and Robert Kennedy will begin to correct these deadly lies about vaping and cigarettes by FDA and DHHS.
FDA must love how you unwittingly go along with them.
Crack and DMT and ecstasy but not cigarettes. Is Reason trying to destroy their own argument. Not wine and beer.
Because you don't care about the truly killer drugs no one takes you seriously. You haven't changed a speck since you reacted to Bill Clinton declaring cigarettes addictive.
So... back to banning gin and cigarettes again too... That's looter consistency AND progress!