The future of tobacco control is increasingly being discussed in terms of ending commercial supply altogether. While tobacco endgame policies have traditionally focused on reducing cigarette smoking, some researchers are proposing a broader approach that would eventually dismantle the commercial market for tobacco and non-therapeutic nicotine products.
A new perspective published in Health Promotion International on 14 October 2026, titled Abolition by Design: Implementing the Dismantling of the Commercial Tobacco and Nicotine Industry, proposes a framework for achieving this objective. Authors Raglan Maddox and Shane Kawenata Bradbrook argue that governments could progressively reduce commercial supply through existing regulatory, fiscal and enforcement mechanisms.
The proposal places Indigenous health, youth protection and intergenerational equity at the centre of its approach. However, extending abolition beyond combustible tobacco raises important questions about proportionality and whether eliminating non-therapeutic nicotine products would produce better public-health outcomes.
From Tobacco Control to Industry Abolition
The authors distinguish abolition from consumer prohibition. Rather than criminalising individual nicotine use, they propose progressively dismantling the commercial structures responsible for manufacturing, marketing and distributing tobacco and non-therapeutic nicotine products.
Their framework includes production limits, declining retail licences and eventual market exit, while excluding approved nicotine cessation medicines.
Although the paper outlines how abolition might be implemented, it does not establish whether this approach would deliver better population-health outcomes than regulatory frameworks that distinguish products according to their relative risks.
Youth Protection and Indigenous Health
Preventing nicotine initiation among young people is an essential public-health objective. The authors also emphasise Indigenous leadership, arguing that affected communities should have meaningful decision-making authority over policies intended to address smoking-related harms and longstanding health inequalities.
These objectives deserve serious consideration, particularly in Australia, where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have experienced a disproportionate burden of smoking-related disease.
However, protecting young people and advancing Indigenous health do not necessarily require a single regulatory approach. Meaningful participation should recognise diverse community perspectives, including those of adults who smoke or have switched to non-combustible nicotine products.
The effectiveness of any proposed restrictions should ultimately be assessed against measurable health outcomes rather than assumed from their stated intentions.
Why Relative Risk Matters
The abolition proposal raises a significant question about treating combustible tobacco and non-combustible nicotine products within the same long-term commercial framework.
Cigarette smoking involves combustion and exposure to numerous harmful substances. Non-combustible nicotine products avoid combustion, although their risks vary and long-term evidence remains incomplete for some newer categories.
Nicotine is addictive and these products are not risk-free. Nevertheless, differences in toxicant exposure remain relevant when evaluating regulatory options.
A policy intended to eliminate commercial access across product categories should therefore consider whether restricting lower-risk alternatives could affect efforts to reduce smoking-related disease.
Regulation Should Be Judged by Outcomes
The abolition framework contributes to tobacco-control discussions by outlining how governments could progressively dismantle commercial supply systems. Its emphasis on prevention, Indigenous participation and long-term accountability warrants consideration.
However, demonstrating that abolition may be administratively feasible is different from establishing that it offers the most effective public-health approach.
For GINN, nicotine regulation should remain grounded in evidence, proportionality and practical outcomes. Strong youth protections and meaningful Indigenous participation can coexist with regulatory approaches that recognise differences between combustible and non-combustible products.
As Australia considers its future tobacco and nicotine policies, the central question is whether abolition would achieve better health outcomes than a framework combining smoking prevention, cessation support and risk-proportionate product regulation.
Source
Maddox, R., & Bradbrook, S. K. (2026). Abolition by design: implementing the dismantling of the commercial tobacco and nicotine industry. Health Promotion International, 41, daag133.
