Across Europe, the idea of a “smoke-free generation” is gaining traction among lawmakers. Proposed policies seek to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after a certain year—effectively making smoking illegal for future generations. While these proposals may appear to be a bold public health move, they are increasingly coming under scrutiny for being disconnected from real-world evidence and harm reduction science.
A recent article by Claudio Teixeira raises critical concerns about the unintended consequences of these policies. Rather than offering smokers and nicotine users a way out, many smoke-free generation laws focus on blanket bans and zero-tolerance enforcement without addressing safer alternatives. These policies, though well-intentioned, risk becoming regulatory traps that isolate adult smokers and discourage the use of reduced-risk products such as nicotine pouches.
At the core of the issue is the false equivalence between all forms of nicotine consumption. Smoking combustible tobacco remains the most harmful way to consume nicotine. But under proposed bans in countries like the UK and New Zealand, there is little to no distinction between cigarettes and oral nicotine pouches, despite the significantly lower health risks of the latter. Critics argue that treating all nicotine the same—regardless of delivery method—undermines the entire foundation of tobacco harm reduction.
In several EU member states, including France, Poland, and Luxembourg, we are witnessing a growing trend toward prohibition. Whether through flavour bans, maximum nicotine limits, or outright product restrictions, these measures often disregard the role of adult-oriented, well-regulated alternatives in helping people quit smoking. Worse still, they often proceed without considering how a lack of accessible, safer options may drive consumers toward illicit markets or back to traditional cigarettes.
Rather than encouraging transition to safer products, smoke-free generation laws are increasingly focused on abstinence as the only acceptable outcome. This creates a punitive environment that alienates adult nicotine users who could otherwise benefit from harm reduction. It also limits the capacity of healthcare professionals, retailers, and innovators to provide regulated products that support quitting efforts.
The Global Institute for Novel Nicotine (GINN) believes that credible tobacco control policy must distinguish between high-risk and low-risk products. Oral nicotine pouches—when properly regulated for safety, strength, and marketing—can be an effective component of public health strategies aimed at reducing smoking. This is not about liberalisation; it is about acknowledging scientific evidence and building policy frameworks that work in practice, not just on paper.
Instead of locking in prohibition-based thinking, governments should invest in data-driven regulation. This includes setting risk-proportionate product standards, establishing clear guidelines for flavours that appeal to adults rather than youth, and fostering collaboration between industry, regulators, and public health experts. Education campaigns, not bans, are often more effective in guiding informed consumer decisions.
GINN supports a regulatory environment that provides adult smokers with access to safer alternatives, encourages transparency and product quality, and ensures that policy choices are based on sound science, not political pressure. If the goal is truly a smoke-free generation, then policymakers must stop ignoring the tools that make it possible.
For more insights, policy analysis, and updates on harm reduction strategies in Europe and beyond, visit www.ginn.global.
