California is now seeking to emulate New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and the Philippines in phasing out tobacco products with a permanent generational ban on the sale of such to anyone born on after January 1, 2007. Twenty-One Debunked has generally opposed such an idea on principle, as we had discussed previously. Not only is it inherently ageist, and further promotes black markets, but it will drag it out and take decades to have the desired endgame effect.
Here's a better idea, that the FDA is already currently considering: Reduce the maximum allowable nicotine levels in commercial cigarettes, and perhaps other combustible tobacco products, to a non-addictive or sub-addictive level. This idea, or at least some flavor of it, has long been endorsed by many stakeholders and pundits the world over, from the American Medical Association to Robert N. Proctor to Malcolm Gladwell. And Twenty-One Debunked has endorsed it since 2013, ideally keeping the legal age limit at 18 (which Congress and Trump unfortunately raised to 21 in late 2019, much to our chagrin).
By that, it means reducing nicotine levels by 95% or so from current levels, down to no more than 0.5 mg/g (0.05%) of tobacco. Crucially, this would apply to nicotine content, not "delivery," as the latter can be gamed and manipulated too easily.
If done smoothly and gradually enough, and leaving noncombustible tobacco and nicotine products untouched, this will dramatically reduce smoking rates for all ages, and thus save thousands if not millions of lives without creating any more of a black market than already exists from high cigarette taxes alone. Pairing it with a tax hike (within reason) would also increase its effectiveness as well.
Even if the new nicotine limits applied only to the sale of pre-rolled cigarettes and quasi-cigarettes like little cigars, and nothing else, it would likely still have the desired effect. That is because those are the products that really drive the deadly tobacco epidemic.
It could be done in either one step with some lead time, or a few steps over a period of months to a year or two, for all cigarette manufacturing and importation going forward, plus an additional year to clear out excess inventory. Doing it in a few steps would probably be better overall we think. Either way would probably be fine though.
Banning the use of additives, which are largely all about increasing the addictiveness of the products, would also make sense as well. Michigan already has an excellent law on the books, that bans any "deleterious" ingredient or anything "foreign to tobacco" being added to cigarettes. It needs enforcing.
Redesigning the cigarette to have a more alkaline smoke pH of 8 or higher, as it typically was prior to the 20th century, would make it less appealing and harder to inhale at least for new smokers. Most cigars and pipe tobacco are already like that currently.
And for the love of all that is good, ban the use of radioactive phosphate fertilizers yesterday!
Another good idea would be to only allow tobacco products to be sold in designated or dedicated tobacco-related stores (i.e. smoke and vape shops) and/or places that one needs to be 18+ to enter.
As for nicotine vapes, capping the maximum nicotine content at current European or Israeli levels (lower than USA levels but still generous) would reduce overall nicotine addiction rates without driving vapers back to smoking cigarettes.
Do these things and the desired endgame can be achieved in a matter of months to years, not decades. But that would make too much sense, right?
FUN FACT: Hemp-based, tobacco-free "blunt wraps" are now commercially available, so even the classic use of hollowed-out cheap tobacco cigars for rolling cannabis blunts is now thoroughly obsolete as well.
UPDATE: Apparently New Zealand will, starting in 2025, mandate that only very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNC) be sold, similar to what we advocate above. Also, in 2024 they will sharply reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets by 90-95%, and ban the sale of cigarettes at kiosks, gas stations, or supermarkets. This will be in addition to their generational ban for anyone born after January 1, 2009. Thus, the generational ban is completely redundant and unnecessary, given the other two components. And also the price of a pack of smokes there, $36 NZD, is the equivalent of over $20 USD (that is, more than a dollar per cigarette!) thanks to their already high taxes, making it a very expensive habit as it is.
And vape products would remain unaffected.
Twenty-One Debunked's preferred plan, in a nutshell, is basically the New Zealand plan MINUS the generational ban and keeping the age limit at 18, plus a few other things above listed above.
UPDATE 2: Bhutan, the only country in the 21st century that had completely banned tobacco across the board, has failed so miserably in doing so (thanks to the black market and international smuggling, and despite very stiff penalties too) that they ended up reversing their ban in 2021, largely out of fear that rampant cross-border smuggling would.... increase the spread of Covid. Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up! This should really be a cautionary tale.
