The end of 2021 was an incredible moment in New Zealand legislation, as it was announced that a cigarette ban for the next generations would be enforced in 2022. It is undoubtedly a fact that smoking is an unhealthy habit. However, the New Zealand proposition on banning cigarettes for the next generations brought a positive shock to the legal sector and health professionals. With tobacco use being the cause of more than 8 million deaths per year (WHO), it seems that this legislation is sadly perfect for the current worldwide statistics.
This law proposal was initiated in 2011, and since then, several policies regarding decreasing smoking have occurred, such as increasing cigarette prices to 30NSD (approx. €18/15) - the highest in the world. However, there was no intention of going beyond that price since that would defy the point of motivating a decrease; it would just be a form of punishment for those trying to quit smoking.
The smoke-free goal has been laid out, and it will slowly achieve the complete elimination of smoking for the next generation. More specifically, the plan is that anyone born after 2008 (anyone currently 14 years old) will never be able to buy cigarettes. There will be an increase in the minimum age for buying cigarettes every year starting in 2023 until a complete ban has been reached. The overall goal is to decrease the percentage of the population, smoke-currently around 10%, and want to make it to 5% by 2025, and the final goal it's complete elimination.
There are also several propositions for accompanying policies to the ban, such as minimising the number of retailers selling tobacco, etc. now, 8,000 will reduce to less than 500. Additionally, the plan includes decreasing nicotine levels in products as a policy. However, this has been criticised since one would have to buy more cigarettes to compensate for the required nicotine dose, affecting lower-income populations the most.
There was generally great interest worldwide from health providers and policymakers. The new legislation was the potential "endgame in the fight against tobacco".
Considering the complete opposite approach of legislation in terms of extremes is interesting. For example, New Zealand chose the ban on cigarettes, and on the other hand, the Netherlands have decriminalised cannabis for personal use on the grounds of a toleration principle. The argument with tolerating laws is that by accepting to tolerate an activity that is happening anyway, you have the power as a state to control it. Even though this is true at its core, some factors prevent the complete control of cannabis use.
On the other hand, the complete cigarette ban lies on the other extreme. It is questionable how effective it could be, especially since cigarettes are readily available in other countries. In addition, the transitional period before the complete ban, where older people will be able to purchase cigarettes, could create a chasm and promote illegal activity.
The most significant concern regarding the ban is that it would increase tobacco sales on the black market (currently, 10% of tobacco sales are made on the black market). In addition, further illegal activity is feared in smuggling since organised crime groups are already smuggling tobacco products in New Zealand, and with a ban, this activity could potentially increase.
Further, one could argue that someone might want a cigarette or would generally like to smoke; however, the interesting part of this law is how it focuses on generations. The youngest generations will never have the option to start smoking or even try a cigarette, so that will never be part of their life growing up or later as adults.
Another potential consequence of the cigarette ban is a greater inclination towards vaping, which is harmful due to the nicotine contents and cancer-causing agents in some of the liquids of e-cigarettes. However, it seems to be already a prevailing habit of smoking in the teenage and younger adult groups. Hence, it could end up as an alternative to smoking.
The effectiveness of the goal set by New Zealand is also questioned since the Maori, and Pacific Island communities have significantly higher populations of smokers. As a result, it would be difficult to decrease the overall percentage of smokers in the countries.
Finally, there are concerns regarding the employment of people in the tobacco selling market. The decrease in retailers providing tobacco products will result in several businesses shutting down or having less demand for staff.
Although the plan is quite ambitious and holds risks, it is an excellent effort to eliminate smoking and hopefully initiate a domino effect leading to global impact. Considering the progressive legal background, New Zealand has as a country. It is safe to say that the experience and methods used in the past have worked ideally. It might be some time before other countries catch up on this law, but the sooner they do, the greater the benefit for the public.
It could finally be the beginning and end of one of the most contributing factors to strokes- the world's number one cause of death.
*In the future, the Smoke-free 2025 Plan still needs to pass as legislation; however, the Labour party proposed the policy, which holds the majority in parliament.
Comments