The EU’s tobacco consultation is facing criticism for grouping cigarettes, vapes, nicotine pouches and other products together despite major differences in risk. Harm reduction advocates argue that the questionnaire makes meaningful responses difficult and appears designed to support further restrictions. A credible consultation should allow consumers to distinguish between combustible tobacco and lower-risk alternatives. Good regulation begins with questions that reflect evidence, not predetermined conclusions.

Estonia’s experience shows how restrictive nicotine policies can drive consumers towards illicit markets rather than reduce demand. After flavour restrictions and higher taxes, illegal e-liquid trade reportedly expanded, while relaxing some rules helped restore legal sales and tax revenue. As the EU considers tighter regulation, Estonia offers a warning: disproportionate restrictions may weaken both harm reduction and market oversight.

Tobacco policy should reflect the choices smokers actually face. Cigarettes remain widely available, while legal smoke-free alternatives often encounter stricter scrutiny despite their potential to help adults move away from combustion. Effective regulation must protect young people without ignoring adult smokers, illicit markets or differences in relative risk. Public health should be judged by outcomes, not moral panic around nicotine.

A proposal to place nicotine under international drug-control rules would treat vaping and nicotine pouches more like illicit substances than harm-reduction tools. Critics warn that such an approach could drive legal products out of regulated markets, strengthen illicit trade and make cigarettes comparatively easier to access. Nicotine policy should distinguish between dependence and the far greater harms caused by combustion. Extending prohibition models to safer products risks repeating failures already seen elsewhere.

Public records from Massachusetts raise serious concerns about how generational nicotine bans gained local support. Health officials reportedly coordinated witnesses, prepared testimony and targeted low-profile municipal boards while presenting the resulting campaigns as community-led. In some towns, opposition from residents did not alter decisions that appeared to have been made in advance. Public health policy loses legitimacy when consultation becomes a tool for manufacturing consent rather than testing it.