About Prohibition Does Not Work
‍
What is Prohibition Does Not Work?
Prohibition Does Not Work, or PDNW, is an international initiative examining how bans and excessive restrictions on safer nicotine products create illicit markets, weaken consumer protection, empower criminal networks and undermine public health. PDNW brings together policy organisations, experts and advocates to promote proportionate, adult-only and evidence-based regulation. Its central argument is practical: prohibition removes lawful supply rather than demand. The result is a market that is harder to inspect, test, tax and control.

What does PDNW do?
PDNW examines the unintended consequences of prohibitionist nicotine policies. These include illicit trade, organised crime, reduced consumer safety, lost public-health opportunities, enforcement costs, lost tax revenue and the displacement of lawful activity into unregulated markets. The organisation also studies what happens when regulation becomes so restrictive that legal access is impossible in practice. The aim is not to defend an uncontrolled market. It is to show why a lawful, taxable and inspectable market can provide more control than a prohibited one.

Does PDNW oppose all nicotine regulation?
No. PDNW supports regulation that protects young people, sets product standards and holds businesses accountable. It supports age-of-sale laws, retailer and importer licensing, ingredient disclosure, product testing, traceability, clear warnings and penalties for illegal sellers. PDNW opposes outright prohibition and rules so excessive that they create the same practical outcome as a ban. A legal market should be controlled, adult-only and proportionate to the product's actual risk.

What does risk-proportionate regulation mean?
Risk-proportionate regulation means applying stricter rules to more dangerous products and preserving a clear regulatory advantage for lower-risk alternatives. Combustible cigarettes sit at the most harmful end because burning tobacco produces smoke and toxic chemicals. Non-combustible products are not risk-free, but they should not be regulated or taxed as though they were cigarettes. Rules should reflect the product, its ingredients, its route of administration and the behaviour it is likely to replace.

Why does PDNW say prohibition does not work?
Prohibition does not eliminate demand. It changes who supplies the market. When lawful products disappear but consumers still want them, supply can move to informal retailers, social media, cross-border sellers and criminal networks. Authorities lose important tools such as product registration, testing, age verification, tax records and accountable retail licences. The market does not shrink, it simply becomes harder to see. PDNW judges policy by real-world outcomes, not by whether a product vanishes from shop shelves.

What is the difference between a legal nicotine market and an illicit one?
A legal market can be licensed, inspected, tested, traced and taxed. Regulators can set ingredient standards, enforce age checks, recall unsafe products and identify responsible businesses. An illicit market provides none of those safeguards. Sellers operating outside the law have no reason to follow nicotine limits, packaging rules or age restrictions. The practical choice is often between a lawful, adult-only, accountable market and an illicit market that operates beyond normal regulatory oversight.

Does PDNW support protecting young people from nicotine?
Yes, nicotine products should not be used by minors. PDNW supports enforceable age restrictions, reliable age verification, licensing, compliance checks, restrictions on youth-directed marketing and firm action against illegal sellers. The question is which measures work best. Weakening the legal market can push sales towards suppliers who do not check age. Youth protection and adult access can coexist when governments regulate visible businesses and target the channels that supply minors.

What does safer nicotine products mean?
PDNW uses terms such as safer, lower-risk, smoke-free, non-combustible and reduced-risk to describe products that avoid burning tobacco and are likely to expose users to fewer harmful chemicals than combustible cigarettes. These terms describe relative risk, not an absence of risk. Nicotine is addictive, and no nicotine product should be described as safe, harmless or risk-free.

How should policymakers judge whether nicotine policy is working?
Policy should be judged by outcomes, including adult smoking rates, complete switching away from cigarettes, youth access, product safety, illicit-market share, enforcement costs, tax revenue and compliance. A fall in legal sales does not prove that use has fallen if consumers move to illegal or cross-border channels. Governments should publish transparent data and assess substitution effects. Policies should reduce smoking-related harm while preserving practical control over products and sellers.

Tobacco harm reduction fundamentals

What is tobacco harm reduction?
Tobacco harm reduction is a public-health strategy that seeks to reduce the illness and death caused by smoking by helping adults move from combustible cigarettes to substantially lower-risk ways of consuming nicotine. It recognises that the best outcome is to stop using all tobacco and nicotine products, but that many adults cannot or will not quit nicotine immediately. Where abstinence is not immediately achievable, replacing smoke with a regulated non-combustible product can substantially reduce exposure to the toxic products of combustion.

Why is tobacco harm reduction important?
Smoking remains a major cause of preventable disease and premature death. Established tobacco-control measures and cessation treatments have helped many people quit, but a large population continues to smoke. For those adults, treating total abstinence as the only acceptable outcome can leave the cigarette protected from competition. Harm reduction expands the options available to people who would otherwise continue smoking and focuses first on removing combustion, the main source of smoking-related harm.

Is tobacco harm reduction part of tobacco control?
Yes, harm reduction complements prevention, cessation support, smoke-free rules and youth protection. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control defines tobacco control broadly to include harm-reduction strategies. The disagreement is not over whether smoking-related disease should fall. It is over whether adults who smoke should have access to regulated lower-risk substitutes. Policy should judge success by reductions in smoking, toxic exposure and disease, not by whether every adult stops using nicotine immediately.

Does tobacco harm reduction mean nicotine products are safe?
No, lower risk does not mean risk-free. Nicotine is addictive, products differ in their ingredients and delivery, and some people should not use nicotine at all. Tobacco harm reduction is based on comparative risk. Cigarettes are more dangerous because they burn tobacco and create smoke containing carbon monoxide, tar and many toxic chemicals. Responsible communication should state both facts clearly: smoke-free products are not harmless, and they should not be treated as equivalent to smoking.

Who should use lower-risk nicotine products?
Lower-risk nicotine products are intended primarily for adults who smoke or use more dangerous tobacco products and would otherwise continue doing so. Adults who switch completely from cigarettes generally achieve the greatest reduction in harm because they stop inhaling the toxic substances created by burning tobacco. Continuing to smoke alongside another nicotine product may reduce some cigarette consumption, but complete switching offers the clearest benefit.

What is the realistic comparison for an adult smoker?
The realistic comparison is continued smoking, not breathing clean air. A smoke-free product may be inappropriate for a non-user while still offering a substantial reduction in exposure for an adult who would otherwise keep smoking. The same principle applies to regulation. The alternative to a legal, regulated product is not no product, it is an illegal, untested one. Nicotine policy should compare real choices and likely behaviour rather than idealised scenarios.

What is the nicotine continuum of risk?
The continuum of risk describes the large differences in harm among nicotine products. A cigarette, a nicotine patch, a pouch and a vape are not equally dangerous simply because they contain nicotine. Combustible cigarettes sit at the highest end because burning tobacco creates smoke and thousands of chemicals. Non-combustible products use different delivery systems and have different risk profiles. Regulation, taxation and public communication should reflect these differences rather than collapsing every product into a single category.

Why is combustion central to tobacco harm reduction?
Combustion is central because the overwhelming majority of smoking-related disease comes from inhaling the toxic products created when tobacco burns. Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide, fine particles, tar and carcinogens that damage the lungs and cardiovascular system. Nicotine sustains dependence, but it is not the principal cause of smoking-related cancer and lung disease. Removing combustion does not make a product harmless, but it removes the process responsible for most of the harm.

What does complete switching mean?
Complete switching means stopping cigarette smoking and using a non-combustible alternative instead. This matters because the largest reduction in exposure occurs when smoke is removed rather than merely reduced. Some adults move through a period of dual use before stopping cigarettes. Policy and cessation support should encourage progress towards complete switching or, ideally, ending all nicotine use, while avoiding messages that push people back towards smoking.

Is using both cigarettes and a lower-risk product better than smoking alone?
Using cigarettes alongside smoke-free products can reduce exposure if cigarette consumption falls, but it is not the preferred endpoint. Continued smoking still exposes the user to the toxic products of combustion, and even a small number of cigarettes can carry substantial risk. The greatest likely health benefit comes from switching completely away from cigarettes, however dual use can be a temporary stage for some adults.

Smoking, nicotine and health science

What makes cigarette smoking so dangerous?
The main danger comes from burning tobacco. Combustion produces smoke containing carbon monoxide, tar, fine particles and numerous toxic and carcinogenic substances. Repeated inhalation causes cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease and stroke. Nicotine keeps many people dependent on cigarettes, but it is not the principal cause of these smoking-related diseases. This distinction explains why nicotine can be delivered through medicines and lower-risk products without exposing the user to cigarette smoke.

Does nicotine cause smoking-related cancer?
Nicotine is addictive and biologically active, but it is not the principal carcinogen in cigarette smoke and is not regarded as the main cause of smoking-related cancer. The major cancer risk comes from the toxic products of combustion. This does not make nicotine harmless. It can affect the body, poses particular risks during pregnancy and adolescence, and can be dangerous in sufficiently high doses. However nicotine and smoke should not be treated as the same source of harm.

Is nicotine addictive?
Yes. Nicotine can create dependence, and the speed and strength of delivery can affect how reinforcing a product is. That is why nicotine products should carry clear warnings and should not be used by minors or non-users. Addiction matters, but it does not make every nicotine product equally harmful. A person can remain dependent on nicotine while substantially reducing exposure to the toxic chemicals produced by burning tobacco.

Are all nicotine products equally harmful?
No, all nicotine products are not equally harmful. Risk depends on how the product is made, what it contains, how nicotine is delivered and how it is used. Cigarettes burn tobacco and create smoke. Vapes heat a liquid to form an aerosol. Pouches deliver nicotine through the lining of the mouth. Patches release nicotine slowly through the skin. These routes create very different exposures. Regulation should therefore focus on actual risk and product performance, not simply on the presence of nicotine.

Can nicotine affect the heart and cardiovascular system?
Yes, nicotine can temporarily increase heart rate and blood pressure and may present additional concerns for some people with cardiovascular conditions. The size of the effect depends on dose, delivery speed, individual health and pattern of use. These risks should be communicated honestly. They should also be compared with the much greater cardiovascular harm caused by cigarette smoke, which contains carbon monoxide, particles and many toxic chemicals in addition to nicotine.

Who should avoid nicotine?
Minors, non-smokers and people who do not already use nicotine should not begin. Pregnant women should avoid nicotine because it can affect fetal development. People with particular medical conditions, concerns about medication interactions or symptoms after use should seek professional advice. Nicotine products are intended as alternatives for adults who would otherwise continue using more dangerous tobacco products, not as lifestyle products for the general population.

What is second-hand smoke?
Second-hand smoke is the mixture of smoke released from a burning cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker. It contains fine particles, carbon monoxide and toxic chemicals created by combustion. Exposure can harm people who do not smoke and is one reason smoke-free public-place rules are important. Smoke-free nicotine products do not produce cigarette smoke, although product-specific emissions should still be assessed.

Is second-hand vapour the same as second-hand smoke?
No, vapour aerosol and cigarette smoke are different. A vape does not generate the same mixture of tar, carbon monoxide and combustion products as it does not burn tobacco. Bystanders may still be exposed to nicotine, particles and other aerosol constituents, and indoor-use rules can protect comfort and vulnerable groups. The available evidence supports treating second-hand vapour as lower risk than second-hand smoke, not as identical or risk-free.

Do we know the long-term effects of smoke-free nicotine products?
Long-term evidence is stronger for some products than others. Medicinal nicotine and Swedish snus have decades of data, while modern vaping products and nicotine pouches are newer. Uncertainty should be acknowledged, but it should not be treated as proof of equal harm. Product chemistry, biomarker studies and the absence of combustion provide important evidence about likely risk. Regulation should require surveillance, adverse-event reporting and periodic review as the evidence develops.

Why does accurate risk communication matter?
Adults cannot make informed choices if authorities imply that every nicotine product is as dangerous as smoking. Misperceptions can discourage smokers from switching, cause users to return to cigarettes or undermine confidence in medicinal nicotine. Accurate communication should say that nicotine products are not risk-free while explaining that cigarettes are uniquely harmful because of combustion. The purpose is not to encourage nicotine use among non-users. It is to help adults understand the consequences of real choices.

Vaping and smoking cessation

What is vaping?
Vaping is the use of an electronic device that heats a liquid to create an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid commonly contains nicotine, flavourings and carrier ingredients, although nicotine-free liquids also exist. Vapes do not burn tobacco and do not produce cigarette smoke. They are not risk-free, and product quality matters, but their lack of combustion is the main reason they generally expose users to fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes.

How do e-cigarettes work?
An e-cigarette uses a battery to power a heating element. The element heats e-liquid held in a tank, pod or cartridge, producing an aerosol that the user inhales. Devices vary in power, design, refill method and nicotine delivery. Closed systems use pre-filled cartridges or pods, while open systems can be refilled by the user. Regulation should address electrical safety, ingredient disclosure, nicotine labelling, leak prevention and child-resistant packaging.

Are vapes tobacco products?
Many vapes contain nicotine but no tobacco leaf. Legal classifications vary by country, and some laws regulate them alongside tobacco products for administrative reasons. That does not make them equivalent to cigarettes. A risk-sensitive framework should distinguish products that burn tobacco from products that do not, while still applying appropriate standards, age restrictions and marketing rules to consumer vaping products.

How much less harmful is vaping than smoking?
Major evidence reviews conclude that regulated nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than cigarette smoking because it does not burn tobacco. Vaping is not harmless, and long-term evidence continues to develop. However new evidence shows that vaping is likely to pose only a small fraction of the risk of smoking, particularly for adults who switch completely.

Can vaping help people quit smoking?
Yes. Randomised trials and systematic reviews have found that nicotine e-cigarettes can help adults stop smoking, including evidence that they can outperform traditional nicotine replacement therapy in some settings. Success is more likely when the product provides sufficient nicotine, is acceptable to the smoker and is combined with behavioural support. Vaping should not be promoted to non-smokers or minors, but it is a practical cessation option for adults who would otherwise continue smoking.

What was EVALI?
EVALI was a 2019 outbreak of serious lung injuries in the United States. Investigations linked most cases to illicit or informal THC vaping products containing vitamin E acetate, rather than to ordinary regulated nicotine e-cigarettes. The episode showed why product standards and legal supply chains matter. Consumers are more exposed when they buy untested liquids or add unsuitable substances. It showed that not every vaping product carries the same risk.

Does vaping produce tar or carbon monoxide?
Vaping does not burn tobacco, so it does not produce tar in the way cigarettes do and generally produces far less carbon monoxide exposure. Its aerosol can contain nicotine, flavouring chemicals, particles and other substances, which is why manufacturing quality and ingredient standards matter. The absence of combustion does not make vaping harmless, but it removes the main process responsible for toxins in cigarette smoke.

Can e-liquid contain harmful chemicals?
Yes - poorly made or contaminated e-liquid can contain unwanted chemicals, and heating can create additional compounds. It is important to investigate which substances are present, at what levels and under what conditions. Regulated markets can set ingredient restrictions, contaminant limits, manufacturing standards and testing requirements. Illicit products may provide no reliable information about contents or quality. This is why these products require effective regulation, instead of a pretence that demand will disappear under a ban.

Does vaping expose bystanders to risk?
Vaping can expose bystanders to aerosol constituents, but the exposure is not the same as second-hand cigarette smoke because there is no combustion. Indoor-use rules may still be appropriate in workplaces, public transport, healthcare settings and places used by children. Policy should be proportionate to the evidence and should not use identical language for smoke and vapour where the underlying exposures differ.

What is the difference between open and closed vaping systems?
Closed systems use sealed or pre-filled pods and cartridges, while open systems allow users to refill a tank with e-liquid. Closed systems can simplify quality control and reduce leakage, but they may limit choice and increase cost. Open systems give adults more flexibility, but they require clear labelling, safe components and responsible use. Regulation should focus on safety and accountability rather than assuming one format is suitable for every adult smoker.

Nicotine pouches, snus, heated tobacco and medicinal nicotine

What are nicotine pouches?
Nicotine pouches are small, non-combustible oral products placed between the gum and lip. They deliver nicotine through the lining of the mouth and do not produce smoke or inhaled aerosol. Products vary in nicotine strength, ingredients and release profile. They are not risk-free and should not be used by minors or non-smokers. For an adult smoker who switches completely, a properly manufactured pouch may substantially reduce exposure to the toxic products of combustion.

Do nicotine pouches contain tobacco?
Most modern nicotine pouches contain nicotine but no tobacco leaf. The nicotine may be purified from tobacco or produced synthetically. Chemically pure nicotine should be regulated according to purity, contaminants, dosage and product performance rather than source alone. Nicotine analogues with different pharmacology should be assessed separately. Pouches should also be distinguished from traditional oral tobacco products such as snus.

Are nicotine pouches risk-free?
No. Nicotine pouches can create dependence and may cause local irritation, nausea or other acute effects, particularly at high strengths. Their long-term evidence base is still developing. They should carry clear warnings and meet purity, contaminant and dose standards. Their risks should not be equated with cigarettes, however, because pouches do not burn tobacco, create smoke or expose the lungs to an inhaled aerosol.

Are nicotine pouches lower-risk than cigarettes?
The evidence indicates that properly manufactured nicotine pouches are likely to be substantially lower risk than smoking. They avoid combustion and generally contain far fewer toxicants than cigarettes. The strongest potential benefit arises when an adult smoker switches completely. Lower risk does not mean harmless, and very high-dose or poorly made products can create avoidable risks. Regulation should therefore set quality standards and evidence-based limits while preserving a meaningful advantage over cigarettes.

Why should nicotine pouches not be classified as food?
Nicotine pouches are not intended to be swallowed or consumed for nutrition. Treating them as food can apply unsuitable safety thresholds and create a de facto ban. Germany's food-law approach removed ordinary legal products without eliminating demand. A dedicated legal category allows regulators to set rules for nicotine dose, purity, release, packaging, warnings, traceability and adult-only sales. Forcing a new product into the wrong category often reduces control instead of increasing it.

What is snus?
Snus is a moist oral tobacco product traditionally used in Sweden and placed under the upper lip. It does not involve combustion or inhalation. Snus is not risk-free and differs from tobacco-free nicotine pouches, but its long history provides evidence about the public-health effects of replacing cigarettes with non-combustible oral products. Sweden's exceptionally low smoking prevalence has coincided with widespread use of snus and (more recently) nicotine pouches.

What can Sweden teach policymakers about oral nicotine products?
Sweden shows that acceptable non-combustible alternatives can compete with cigarettes and support very low smoking rates. Snus has long been widely used, and tobacco-free nicotine pouches have expanded the range of options. Sweden also applies differentiated taxation that recognises relative risk. The experience does not prove that one product alone caused every change, but it is consistent with the view that adult access to lower-risk alternatives can accelerate the displacement of smoking.

What are heated tobacco products?
Heated tobacco products warm processed tobacco to create an inhalable aerosol without burning it in the same way as a cigarette. They still contain tobacco and nicotine and are not risk-free. Their emissions and risks differ from both cigarettes and liquid e-cigarettes. Regulation should assess their actual toxicant profile, product performance and role in displacing smoking rather than assuming that every tobacco-containing product presents identical harm.

What can Japan teach policymakers about heated tobacco?
Japan experienced a rapid fall in cigarette sales after heated tobacco products became widely available. PDNW’s report ‘Safer Nicotine Works: The Cases of Japan and Sweden’ found that cigarette sales dropped by 32% in the five years following the introduction of heated tobacco products in 2016. This shows that making a smoke-free product acceptable to adult smokers can displace cigarettes at scale when it is legally available.

How do nicotine patches, gum and lozenges fit into harm reduction?
Medicinal nicotine replacement therapies deliver nicotine without cigarette smoke and have long been used to support quitting. Patches provide slow, steady delivery, while gum, lozenges, inhalers and sprays can address cravings more quickly. Their established use demonstrates the central harm-reduction principle: nicotine can be separated from combustion. Consumer products and medicines require different regulatory pathways, but both can help adults move away from cigarettes.

Flavours, nicotine strength and product design

Why are flavours used in vaping and nicotine products?
Flavours can make lower-risk products acceptable to adults who are trying to move away from the taste and smell of cigarettes. PDNW research has found that adults prefer fruit, mint or other non-tobacco flavours after switching, which can help move adults away from smoking cigarettes. Flavours can also appeal to young people, so marketing and retail rules matter. Minors can be protected without removing options that adults use to switch and stay away from cigarettes.

Are flavoured vapes intended to attract children?
No - many adults also use and value flavours. Consumer surveys undertaken by PDNW found that many adult vapers use flavours other than tobacco and consider flavour important to their decision to vape. That does not remove the need for youth protections. Governments can restrict youth-directed branding, enforce age checks and control retail presentation without assuming that every non-tobacco flavour has no legitimate adult role.

Can flavour bans affect smoking cessation?
Yes. Removing the flavours adults use can reduce the appeal of vaping relative to cigarettes. Some users may accept the remaining products, but others may return to smoking, buy from illicit or cross-border suppliers, or mix liquids themselves. The size of each response varies by country, so claims should be based on observed data and consumer research. Policymakers should assess substitution effects before assuming that a flavour ban reduces total harm.

What did the Slovenian survey find about banning flavoured vapes?
An Ipsos survey of 180 current Slovenian vapers in 2024 found that more than half used vaping for health-related reasons, including reducing or stopping smoking. More than 70% used flavours other than tobacco, and the vast majority said flavours were important. The survey found that a ban could push about half towards smoking, illicit supply or mixing their own liquids.  

What did the Swedish survey find about vaping flavours?
An Ipsos survey of 300 Swedish adult vapers in 2022 found that almost 90% considered flavours important to their decision to vape. Two thirds used flavours other than tobacco, and the survey indicated that a flavour ban could push nearly 60% towards smoking, illicit supply or mixing their own liquids. The findings show why policymakers should examine adult substitution as well as youth appeal.

What is nicotine strength?
Nicotine strength describes the amount or concentration of nicotine in a product. It may be expressed per millilitre, per pouch, per gram or per unit. The number alone does not show how much nicotine reaches the bloodstream, because delivery also depends on formulation, device power, release characteristics and use. Clear, consistent labelling is essential so adults can compare products and avoid unintended high doses.

Why do some adult smokers need sufficient nicotine delivery?
Adults who are strongly dependent on cigarettes may need a product that controls cravings and withdrawal. If a vape or pouch delivers too little nicotine, the user may compensate by using it more often, continue smoking or reject the product. Regulation should prevent dangerous or extreme products without making ordinary alternatives ineffective for the adults most likely to benefit from switching. Evidence-based limits should consider delivery, not just the label number.

Should governments set nicotine limits?
Governments can set nicotine limits, but they should be evidence-based, product-specific and high enough to leave effective options for adult smokers. Regulators should scrutinise very high-dose products, require accurate labelling and assess nicotine delivery as well as content. An arbitrary cap that removes most of a legal market effectively functions as prohibition and drives consumers to stronger illegal products, cross-border sellers or back to cigarettes.

What problems can an excessively low nicotine limit create?
An excessively low limit can make a product less satisfactory for adults who are switching from cigarettes, remove most lawful products and create demand for illegal or cross-border supply. Denmark's proposed 9 mg pouch limit was estimated to affect about 90% of the market. Consumer research found that half expected to seek pouches through alternative channels and 18% said they might return to smoking. These survey results illustrate the risks of a de facto ban.

Should disposable vapes be banned?
Disposable vapes raise legitimate concerns about waste, product compliance and youth appeal; however a ban is not the best option. Governments can set environmental rules, require producer responsibility, limit product characteristics, strengthen retail licensing and enforce age restrictions. Where demand remains, a ban can shift sales to illegal products that meet no environmental, safety or age-control standards. Policy should compare the likely outcome of prohibition with workable regulation.

Young people and consumer protection

Should minors use nicotine products?
No. Nicotine is addictive and can affect the developing brain. Vapes, pouches, snus and heated tobacco products should be sold only to adults under enforceable age-of-sale laws. Youth prevention should be a core part of every regulatory framework. The question is not whether minors should be protected, but which policies keep products away from them while preserving regulated alternatives for adults who smoke.

Does youth vaping inevitably lead to cigarette smoking?
No single pathway is inevitable. Young people who vape and those who smoke can share underlying risk factors, which makes causation difficult to separate from association. Some studies report that youth who vape are more likely to later report smoking, but this does not prove that vaping caused every transition. Policy should monitor both behaviours and reduce youth access without ignoring population trends or the role of vaping in adult smoking cessation.

How can youth access be reduced without banning adult products?
Governments can enforce age-of-sale laws, license retailers and importers, require reliable online age verification, conduct compliance checks, use meaningful penalties and restrict youth-directed marketing. Product registration and traceability help identify the legal supply chain. Public education can explain that nicotine is addictive and not for young people. These measures target access and behaviour directly while retaining a regulated market for adults.

Why do bans weaken age controls?
Legal retailers can be inspected, fined, suspended or closed for selling to minors. Illegal sellers already operate outside the law and often have no reason to verify age. When a ban pushes demand to social media, informal dealers or unlicensed websites, authorities lose visibility over who is selling and to whom. Prohibition therefore removes the businesses that are easiest to regulate while expanding channels that are hardest to supervise.

What is effective age verification?
Effective age verification checks that a buyer meets the legal age before a sale is completed. In shops, this requires identification checks backed by compliance testing and penalties. Online, a simple tick box is not enough. Sellers should use reliable age-assurance systems at purchase and, where appropriate, at delivery. Rules should be proportionate, protect personal data and apply consistently to domestic and cross-border sellers.

Should nicotine retailers be licensed?
Yes. Licensing creates an identifiable group of sellers who can be trained, inspected and sanctioned. A licence can be suspended or withdrawn for selling to minors, stocking non-compliant products or failing to keep records. Licensing also helps authorities distinguish lawful businesses from illegal supply. Fees and requirements should be workable for legitimate retailers otherwise the system will exclude compliant firms and strengthen unlicensed competitors.

How should online nicotine sales be regulated?
Online sellers should be registered, verify age, display required warnings, sell only compliant products and maintain traceable transaction records. Authorities should be able to act against illegal websites, payment channels and social-media sellers. A blanket online ban may drive consumers to foreign or anonymous suppliers rather than ending purchases. Regulation should make lawful online sales accountable while targeting platforms and sellers that evade the rules.

Should youth-directed nicotine marketing be restricted?
Yes - marketing should not use themes, imagery, influencers or placement designed to appeal primarily to minors. Claims should be accurate and should not present nicotine use as harmless or desirable for non-users. At the same time, regulators should preserve a route for factual communication to adult smokers about relative risk and product use. A system that bans truthful adult information while illegal sellers advertise freely online can produce the opposite of informed consumer protection.

What role do packaging and warnings play?
Packaging can provide clear nicotine information, addiction warnings, ingredient details, manufacturer identification and batch codes. Child-resistant containers reduce accidental exposure, and tamper evidence supports product integrity. Packaging rules should be proportionate and designed to improve safety, not to imply that all products carry the same risk as cigarettes. Traceable packaging also helps enforcement distinguish lawful products from counterfeits and illicit imports.

How should governments monitor youth nicotine use?
Governments should use consistent definitions, representative surveys and transparent reporting. They should distinguish experimentation, past-month use, frequent use and daily use, and separate products rather than combining them into one number. Data should be analysed alongside youth smoking rates, access routes, age-of-first-use and illicit purchasing. Good measurement helps identify whether policy is reducing harm or merely moving youth supply into less visible channels.

Prohibition, illicit trade and organised crime

Does banning nicotine products eliminate demand?
Banning nicotine products does not eliminate demand. Where adults already use a product or want an alternative to cigarettes, banning lawful sales can leave demand largely intact. Products then continue through informal retail, online sellers, cross-border purchases and criminal supply chains. The exact scale varies by country, but the recurring pattern is clear: prohibition removes legal supply more reliably than it removes the underlying market.

Why do nicotine bans create illicit markets?
An illicit market becomes profitable when consumer demand remains but legal businesses are prevented from supplying it. Illegal sellers can charge a premium, avoid tax and ignore costly safety rules. Established smuggling networks may add nicotine products to existing routes. The stronger the demand and the greater the gap between legal availability and consumer preference, the more attractive the opportunity becomes. Prohibition can therefore create market share for sellers who follow no rules.

How does prohibition reduce government control?
Prohibition removes or weakens the records and institutions that make a market visible. Legal products generate registrations, test results, invoices, tax payments, batch codes and named retailers. Illegal markets generate none of those things. Regulators move from supervising a lawful supply chain to conducting seizures, raids and online removals against a market that continually adapts. Prohibition reduces tax revenue, damages lawful retailers and creates a permanent enforcement burden for the state. Money that could support public services instead flows through untaxed and often criminal channels. The state has tougher laws on paper while possessing less control in practice.

What are the consumer-safety costs of illicit nicotine markets?
Consumers buying illicit products often do not know who made them, what ingredients they contain, whether the nicotine label is accurate or how the product was stored. There is no complaint process, recall system or accountable importer. PDNW reports cite seizures of poorly formulated products and contaminants in prohibited markets. A legal framework cannot remove every risk, but it creates standards, testing and responsibility that illicit supply lacks.

Are illicit nicotine markets linked to organised crime?
Illicit nicotine markets can be linked to organised crime, especially where the market is large and profitable. PDNW reports on Mexico, Australia and Brazil describe organised criminal involvement in distribution, extortion, smuggling and violence. Prohibition creates valuable revenue streams for bad actors who already possess illegal supply networks and enforcement capacity.

What happened under Australia's restrictive vaping model?
Australia's prescription and pharmacy-centred approach left strong consumer demand outside ordinary legal retail. PDNW reports found a large illicit market, products sold through informal channels and serious organised-crime violence linked to the trade. A 2024 parliamentary inquiry estimated the black market at between US$750 million and US$1.3 billion. The experience shows how a public-health policy can become a permanent law-enforcement problem when legal access is too narrow to compete with illegal supply.