By Thomas L. Knapp
Here we go again: On January 14, the US Food and Drug Administration announced its latest
rule proposal in the War on Nicotine.
Under the rule (which faces a 240-day public comment period before implementation, if the
incoming Trump administration doesn’t withdraw it), cigarette makers would have to reduce the
amount of nicotine in cigarettes.
The FDA promotes the rule as a way of making it easier for smokers to quit, and of making
cigarettes less initially addictive going forward.
The actual result, as with some previous FDA stunts, will more likely be an increase in lung
cancer, emphysema, and COPD among smokers.
As a 40-year smoker who’s now been “clean” for nearly two years but who still uses non-
tobacco nicotine pouches (which, along with vaping devices/liquids, the FDA seized the power
to regulate by “deeming” them to be “tobacco”) after previous unsuccessful attempts to quit, I’m
aware of certain truths
First, in order to quit smoking, one has to get REALLY motivated to quit smoking.
Second, a lower level of nicotine in a single cigarette won’t increase the desire or ability to quit
or probably even decrease the likelihood of the initial addiction. The psychological component of
smoking — force of habit and the the depressing absence of that thing in your hand — is the big
deal, which is why nicotine patches, etc. don’t seem to help that much (I used Chantix, which
DID help).
Third, while nicotine does come with some negative effects like increased heart rates and higher
blood pressure, it’s far from the worst component of tobacco. It’s not a carcinogen and it doesn’t
damage the lungs.
Less nicotine in a cigarette means smokers who are not already highly motivated to quit
(including new smokers not yet “addicted”) will probably just smoke MORE cigarettes.
Which means they’ll MORE likely end up with one or more of the maladies associated with the
“tars,” rather than with the nicotine, in tobacco.
In other words, the new FDA rule, if implemented, will likely have a negative, not positive, effect
on “public health.”

As a commenter (“JdL”) on a site I publish suggests, suppose the FDA proposed to combat
obesity by mandating calorie reductions in all food — perhaps by requiring that all food consist of
50% inert filler. Sure, some people who were REALLY motivated to lose weight would do so.
And others would just eat more (some people would HAVE to eat more just to maintain weight),
possibly harming themselves in the process.
The FDA produces terrible results even when it tries to do its actual job (approving/banning
drugs and foods), and we’d do a lot better just letting the insurance industry use a UL-like
system to advise us.
When the FDA receives more power from Congress (or just seizes that power through
“administrative rule-making”), the results tend to get even worse … because the real incentives
for government agencies tend toward expanding their own powers and increasing their own
budgets, not toward “serving the public” on health or any other subject.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for
Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).