Tobacco bans in NZ and the UK.

Written By: - Date published: 8:13 am, December 6th, 2023 - 9 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, election 2023, national, uk politics - Tags: , , , , ,

Originally published on Nick Kelly’s blog

In October, UK PM Rishi Sunak announced that he would follow New Zealand’s policy of gradually lifting the age at which people can buy tobacco. This would mean anyone born after 2009 would never be legally allowed to purchase tobacco. Last week, the new centre-right National Party-lead government in New Zealand announced it would be repealing this policy.

Two centre-right governments in English-speaking nations, both clients of Crosby Textor, yet opposite responses to tobacco regulation. The incoming NZ Health Minister Dr Shane Reti expressed concerns about a black market in tobacco sales if the ban was to be implemented. Reti also used the straw man argument that the tobacco ban was a factor driving recent ram rads of shops in New Zealand.

Worst of all, a key motivation for repealing the 2021 NZ tobacco legislation is to fund tax cuts. Before the election, it was clear that the National Party’s tax policy was unrealistic, just as Liz Truss’s tax cuts were in the UK. So the new government’s answer, remove restrictions on tobacco sales and use the revenue to fund tax cuts rather than funding the health system that tobacco tax revenue should be used for.

The decision in 2021 to introduce the smoking ban was a courageous one. Smoking causes many deaths each year and places a strain on the country’s health system. Smoking is addictive and we should do all we can to discourage young people from taking up this habit. This being said, putting a total ban on tobacco sales of people born after 2009 is well-meaning, but would likely have unintended and profoundly negative consequences.

There is a considerable body of evidence showing that prohibition does not work. Attempts at banning the sale of alcohol in the USA famously resulted in black market moonshine being sold. Attempts to stop the sale of narcotics in the so-called war on drugs have been a resounding failure. While it still may not be a popular view, the evidence shows that banning substances rarely stops consumption. Worse, it drives manufacturing and sales underground giving criminal gangs a great source of income and power.

The weird thing about the NZ ban is that in 2020 there was a real possibility that marijuana would be legalised. Run in parallel with the 2020 general election, the referendum on legalising marijuana was held. The result was 48.4 % in favour of legalising and 50.7 against it. In a country where studies have found that 80% of the population have tried pot, the level of cognitive dissonance of many voters is astounding.

Further, during the election campaign in 2020, Jacinda Ardern refused to state whether she supported legalising marijuana, despite earlier admitting she had tried the substance before. The concern from NZ Labour strategists was that Jacinda coming out in favour of legalising would be used against them by the opposition. As it happened, Labour won with a huge majority and the referendum was narrowly lost.

Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated her personal support for the legalisation and party members have voted at conferences in favour of policy remits calling for the same. Jacinda and other Labour frontbenchers could have openly stated their support for legalisation and still comfortably won the 2020 election. That they did not was an uncharacteristic failure of leadership by Jacinda Ardern and her team. This may have contributed to NZ still having drug laws that are disproportionately used against Maori and Pacifica populations and completely fail to stop the widespread use of marijuana.

That being said, it should not need the Prime Minister saying she supported legalisation for the referendum to succeed. The evidence from both NZ and overseas should have been enough.

All the arguments for legalising marijuana apply to tobacco as well. As a nonsmoker, I would be delighted if everyone stopped smoking. But I realise there will always be some who choose to. There will be black markets in tobacco, especially when other countries do not legislate for similar bans so people will be smuggling tobacco into the country. Further, while the state should encourage people to make good health choices and drive behaviours, banning tobacco is a bridge too far.

It might seem strange that a center-left Labour Party member would take this position. But it is a position based on evidence. Yes regulate the sale, add taxes, and limit where these products can be sold, which was also part of the 2021 NZ legislation. But prohibition of tobacco, like alcohol or marijuana will not work and will result in negative and unintended consequences.

It is unclear whether Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government will be successful in implementing a similar tobacco ban to that which NZ has just repealed. While there will be support across the political aisle for stronger restrictions, it is difficult to see how banning sales to people born after 2009 would work. Given how readily available hard drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and ketamine are on the streets of London, one has to be sceptical about the UK’s ability to successfully ban tobacco.

Instead of looking to the criminal justice system to tackle a health problem, we need policies that support people with addictions. Yes control the sale, and heavily regulate the strength and quality of what is being sold. But history has shown time and again that just banning things does not fix the problem.

9 comments on “Tobacco bans in NZ and the UK. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mikesh 1
    6 December 2023 at 10:06 am

    The legislation that the government intends to repeal is not legislation that actually bans tobacco altogether, either now or in the future, so reversing legislation which merely discourages its use looks like a bad move on the part of the government.

    • Populuxe1 1.1
      6 December 2023 at 10:15 am

      It bans it for an entire generational cohort. And while I'm not against it on principle, I was never convinced by it. Firstly, because I think vapes are a bigger danger to that age demographic, and secondly, because banning it for one group while it's still available for others is just a recipe for creating a demand and fuelling crime.

      • Stuart Dodd 1.1.1
        7 December 2023 at 1:39 pm

        Just wrong. Tobacco is and will always be far more deadly than vapes regardless of age, and vaping needs to be regulated as the intention was to promote it as a way to quit tobacco not create a new generation of nicotine addicts. Oh, and why even try peddling this right wing tobacco lobby talking point that suggests that the problems of banning tobacco will be anything like the harms avoided – it's utter rubbish – 4000 people a year die of tobacco-related diseases in NZ.

        • Populuxe1 1.1.1.1
          8 December 2023 at 1:58 pm

          They might be more deadly, but it's the uptake that is the significant factor. What is with you people that whenever someone disagrees with you it must be a right wing talking point?
          Anyway, I'll try to use small words. If you tell young people they can't have something, even though it is still widely available, you glamourise it and create a demand. Progressive taxation, education, and painting it as a sad, gross habit for old boomers, is always going to be more effective than simply handing the gangs a black market.

  2. observer 2
    6 December 2023 at 10:29 am

    There is a legitimate debate to be had about this aspect of health policy. It should of course be driven by evidence.

    The problem is that for the new NZ government it isn't a health policy. It's a tax policy.

    The policy is driven by the need to increase revenue, not reduce smoking. Luxon, Willis and co have engaged with the people who sell cigarettes and want people to smoke, not with the people who deal with the consequences of smoking. There has been no engagement with the health sector at all.

    Here are just some of the voices opposed to the repeal … where are the voices in favour? Anyone?

    Smokefree law repeal ‘immoral’ – 105 organisations sign open letter to Luxon, Peters, Seymour, Reti and Willis | New Zealand Doctor (nzdoctor.co.nz)

    “There is no way that the Smokefree 2025 goal – a goal set by the National-led coalition in 2011 – will be achieved without this ground-breaking legislation.”

    If the government really wants to reduce smoking rates, they should press pause on the repeal, talk and listen to health professionals, and develop a policy based on evidence.

  3. bwaghorn 3
    6 December 2023 at 12:14 pm

    Attempts at banning the sale of alcohol in the USA famously resulted in black market moonshine being sold

    Yeah bit, alcohol is fun , as a ex smoker of nearly 20 years for most of that time I a didn't want to any more and b new it was killing me, and would be most smokers are the same

    One of the things that helped me quit was banning smoking in bars , .

  4. Ed1 4
    6 December 2023 at 5:38 pm

    I recall some discussion about catering for tourists that are addicted, and for those that are younger who become addicted despite not being in the group permitted to purchase. From memory the thoughts were to use the equivalent of a prescription. At that stage, taxes will be bringing in little finance – if it then treated as a health issue, the government could fund purchase of tobacco products in bulk on a similar basis to Pharmac – if prices are cheaper than illegally imported tobacco products there would be little incentive for gangs to be involved. Isn't that much what has been done with some other addictive substances that cannot be sold, but where we have addicts in our community?

  5. Georgecom 5
    6 December 2023 at 5:39 pm

    I didn't have a real issue with the generational ban and I am a smoker. Once the law was passed Seems silly to repeal it on the basis of choice, giving people the choice whether they want to smoke or not. Is is a sensible thing to give people to take up a habit which is addictive and harmful. We don't give people a choice of whether they can legally drink and drive. We don't give people a choice whether they wear a seat belt driving. We don't give people a choice about what speed they should do driving past a school.

    Lowering nicotine in tobacco does not seem to have huge "unintended consequences" to me. The rates get lowered. It becomes less addictive.

    Maybe unintended consequences with limiting outlets. Yes, that might make stores selling tobacco a target for ram raiders. If so repeal that aspect of the law.

    But let's also start to treat vapimg in a similar manner as tobacco. Seeing it as it was originally sold to us as being a path off smoking, not a new product to promote and a market for non smokers. Start to treat it in similar to tobacco like banning any advertising, plain packaging, limit flavors, have it out of sight etc. Even over time start to increase the price so it becomes an alternative and pathway of ciggys and not a new growth market. I don't of course see the coalition of chaos delivering anything like that. They have tax cuts to fund

  6. barry 6
    6 December 2023 at 7:06 pm

    The ban is not prohibition. It is just an extension of the current restrictions.

    A shop is currently not allowed to sell tobacco to someone under the age of 16. Under the new law that would change in 2026 to be an age of 17, and then 18 the next year etc. There would be no punishment for the person buying it and they would not be prohibited from smoking it.

    Yes, of course there will be shopkeepers who forget to check the age of buyers. There will be people buying tobacco for their friends. There will be unofficial sales. These all happen now anyway.