Why I Testified in Oregon: To Protect Adult Access & Restrict Youth

After 17 years working with nicotine regulation, you get used to reading bills that sound simple on the surface and then realizing the real-world implications are anything but.

That’s why I showed up to testify in Oregon this week. The state is considering a change that would effectively block adults from buying their nicotine pouches online—even when that purchase is already tightly controlled and age-verified. 

I’m not allergic to regulation. Online retail should be regulated. Age-restricted products, like the ones we sell, need guardrails.

Here at Nicokick, we respect the rules and build our business around them. But I strongly believe that Oregon’s proposal doesn’t strengthen the system. It risks breaking what’s already working.

In 2021, Oregon passed legislation to regulate online sales of nicotine products.

It limited sales to verified adult users and required the name on the credit card to match the name of the purchaser. Now that framework is doing what it's designed to do—in other words, protecting youth from getting their hands on nicotine while preserving a legal channel for adult access.

Our concern with this new development in Oregon is that they may replace that approach with a blunt restriction that blocks compliant online retailers, like us. Their proposed bill mandates that:

All sales of tobacco products, cigarettes, inhalant delivery systems, and smokeless tobacco products must occur in person at licensed premises, prohibiting mail-order or online sales to individuals in the state.

Oregon’s own health survey data, collected before their online law went into effect, shows that youth use of nicotine pouches in Oregon is under 1% (and less than 2% nationally). 

Just as important, the same data indicates youth are more likely to obtain tobacco/nicotine products through physical retail or via a friend/adult than they are online. 

So, if the goal is to reduce youth access, my stance is clear: policy should focus on where that access is more likely to happen (offline) and not eliminate a channel that's regulated, trackable, and auditable (online). 

Based on our experience in e-commerce over the last decade, we see ways to strengthen what already works. In my testimony, I highlighted some of the best practices Nicokick has already implemented and believe Oregon should consider putting into practice too. 

These include:

1. Purchasers cannot ship to different recipients; 
2. Credit card statements clearly reflect that the purchase is for nicotine products; 
3. Shipping containers are labeled “contains nicotine.”  

These are practical, enforceable measures that raise standards and support oversight. 

What Oregan's proposed bill doesn’t do is equally important:  

• It won’t stop bad actors who already ignore age verification;
• It won’t prevent social media “Snapchat” sales targeted at youth.  

Instead, it has the potential to punish compliant retailers and push adult consumers towards less regulated platforms and potentially untested products, creating more space for illegal retailers to thrive. 

For adult consumers, this matters.

Cutting off online access reduces the number of legal options available—especially for people in rural areas, those with limited mobility, or anyone who relies on the convenience and consistency of online purchasing. 

For responsible retailers, like us, it threatens a model built on verification, accountability, and paying taxes in Oregon. 

My message to lawmakers is simple: keep the existing framework, strengthen it with clear best practices, and target enforcement efforts at non-compliant sellers and illicit channels.

It shouldn't be a matter of protecting youth at the expense of adult access. Both outcomes are possible. Nicokick has proven it.