Hi! Did you know that you can easily reorder a previous order on My Pages? Just click “reorder” to get all your favourites delivered again.
Published 2025-10-21
Dr Murphy on How to Protect Youth While Preserving Adult Access to Alternative Nicotine Products
A provocative new commentary argues that restricting access to “reduced-risk” nicotine products — such as e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and other non-combustible alternatives — could do more harm than good, especially for smokers trying to quit cigarettes.
Why We Need Greater, Not Less, Access to Reduced-Risk Nicotine Products
In the paper “Why We Need Greater, Not Less, Access to Reduced-Risk Nicotine Products,” the authors contend that overly restrictive regulations undermine tobacco harm reduction by making it harder for adult smokers to find safer alternatives. Key among their warnings: policies that ban or severely limit online sales of alternative nicotine products risk driving consumers back to conventional cigarettes, rather than encouraging switching.
Secure Online Sales to Boost Smokers’ Quit Rates
Lead author, Dr Marina Murphy of Northerner, has publicly cautioned that proposals to ban online nicotine product sales may backfire. She notes that in the U.S., for example, only about 13% of nicotine products are currently authorised for legal sale, leaving consumers with very limited choices. Further restrictions, she warns, would compound the problem.
One of the main drivers behind bans is preventing youth access. But Dr. Murphy argues that bans miss the mark: the failure is not a lack of rules but inconsistent enforcement of existing rules that already ban the sale of these products to minors. She calls banning online sales a blunt tool that ends up punishing adult smokers—especially those in rural or underserved areas whose only practical source of alternative products is via e-commerce.
Internationally, there is precedent suggesting that strict restrictions can fuel illicit markets. In Australia, for example, putting e-cigarettes under prescription-only regulation reportedly sparked a black market and stymied declines in smoking rates. The commentary suggests a smarter path: enhancing enforcement, using modern digital tools for age checks, and pursuing innovation in safer nicotine delivery rather than imposing bans.
For consumers, the take-home message is clear: narrowing availability of safer options might actually undermine public health goals by making cigarettes the easiest fallback. Regulators are being urged to strike a balance — protecting youth but not cutting off adult smokers from alternatives.
Q&A with Dr. Marina Murphy
Dr Marina Murphy shares expert insights on securing adult access to reduced-risk nicotine products while protecting youth.
What the motivation for writing this editorial?
"Our motivation was simple: too often policy is made with idealised assumptions that ignore how real people behave. We have seen several cases where reducing or shutting off access to lower-risk products has resulted in people reverting to cigarettes — the status quo. We wanted to make the case that harm reduction requires more choices and more support, not fewer options."
You criticise proposed online sales bans — what harm do you see them causing?
"The greatest risk is that bans will push consumers into illicit or unregulated channels, where safety, quality, and age control are far weaker or just non-existent. Bans also disproportionately hurt people in rural or remote areas, or those with mobility or access constraints, for whom online purchasing is essential."
How do you propose regulators protect youth while preserving adult access?
"I strongly advocate for innovation in compliance — better digital age verification, identity checks, fraud detection, and enforcement of existing laws. We should also invest in education, retailer licensing, and penalties for illegal sales. The goal should be to secure the online channel, not shut it down."
Do you see examples where heavy regulation backfired?
"Yes — in Australia, restricting e-cigarettes to prescription-only status has reportedly slowed progress in reducing combustible smoking and elevated black-market sales. That experience underlines how restrictive approaches can undermine, rather than accelerate, public health gains."
What is your overarching message to smokers and policymakers?
"To smokers: safer alternatives deserve consideration, and policy should not erect needless barriers. To policymakers: embrace a nuanced, pragmatic harm-reduction strategy — regulate smartly, not restrict blindly. Adult consumers deserve access to better options, especially if we hope to reduce smoking’s health toll."
