Staff Reports
President Joe Biden is doubling down on what can only be described as a nicotine crusade, aiming to regulate the levels of nicotine in cigarettes. This move seems less like a productive health initiative and more like a desperate bid to polish his legacy before his departure. The proposed rule from his Food and Drug Administration would effectively wipe out most cigarettes currently available for purchase in the U.S., raising eyebrows and blood pressure among countless Americans.
While it’s true that smoking rates have hit historic lows, Biden’s proposed rule is projected to push those rates even lower—below 1% by 2100. Not surprisingly, such dramatic regulation draws a wide range of criticism, most notably from those who argue that it will turbocharge criminal activity. Richard Marianos, a former assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, suggests that Biden’s knee-jerk reaction may transform law-abiding smokers into unregulated black-market shoppers, which, in turn, is likely to bolster criminal enterprises both domestically and internationally. Apparently, Biden’s plan may end up being more of a gift to cartels than a health initiative.
Biden admin's last-minute move to ban cigarettes by slashing nicotine levels could spark a black market boom, critics warn. The FDA's rule aims for non-addictive tobacco but might just fuel crime.
Government overreach, what next bacon?🤷♂️ pic.twitter.com/nvPNCE3XsK
— 🇺🇸𝐃𝐔𝐓𝐂𝐇🇺🇸 (@pr0ud_americans) January 7, 2025
The economic consequences of this proposed regulation could be as grim as the notion of life without tobacco. A December analysis by Chmura Economics & Analytics warns that the FDA’s nicotine cap would drain a staggering $24 billion from federal, state, and local tax coffers. Additionally, the agriculture sector could see over 150,000 jobs vanish for good—certainly not what anyone wants to hear when they are still shaking off the pandemic-related job losses. Tobacco farmers, who often juggle multiple crops, are expected to bear the brunt of this proposed ban, particularly in states like North Carolina. They could find themselves teetering into financial ruin as they scramble to make up for lost income.
While the Biden administration may brush aside the concerns of farmers and economists with a casual wave of the hand, it’s a little harder to ignore the potential legal battles looming on the horizon. Legal action seems almost inevitable should this rule take effect, with farmers and states gearing up to push back against what they view as federal overreach. The question remains whether the Biden administration has considered the implications of jumping into a fight that could drain as many resources as it aims to save.
It’s not just the financial and logistical fallout that’s problematic; there’s also the potential for social upheaval that could arise from the ripple effects of prohibition-style policies. The administration is well aware of the past failures of similar attempts and seems to be ignoring the memo that suggests prohibition leads to more problems, not fewer. Interesting how Biden’s proposed rule aligns so closely with past missteps—a grand maneuver to control smokers that has a strong chance of simply empowering black-market suppliers. One has to wonder: is this really about public health, or is it merely a symbolic gesture aimed at scoring political points? Time will tell, but it may become just another item on a long list of unintended consequences that follow heavy-handed compliance measures.
