1 of 2
A growing number of governments seem to believe that generational tobacco bans are a good idea. Photo credit: PhoToria, CC 4.0.
2 of 2
Are countries jumping the gun in racing to the finish line of becoming “smoke-free” with generational bans?
About 10 months after New Zealand passed into law a ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009, UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is considering a similar law, first reported by The Guardian. The move came as the prime minister’s net favorability rating fell to its lowest score (-45%), with 68% of Britons having an unfavorable view of him.
The idea behind generational bans is that the majority of smokers start during their teenage years. By preventing young individuals from legally buying cigarettes and other tobacco products, generational smoking bans are expected to create a barrier to smoking initiation.
The introduction of the generational smoking ban in New Zealand was met with mixed reactions. While some praised the government’s commitment to reducing smoking rates and protecting the health of young individuals, others expressed concerns about the potential for a black market to emerge.
Currently, New Zealand is the only country to have passed a generational tobacco ban. Malaysia and Denmark are two other countries that set the wheels turning on their own generational bans, but are at different stages of the process. At press time, Malaysia’s revised Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023, which includes the generational endgame (GEG) policy, was scheduled for its second reading in parliament in early October, only to be postponed with the Ministry of Health launching a survey seeking public feedback on the bill a week later. The bill was first tabled last year by then health minister Khairy Jamaluddin but was met with resistance from lawmakers.
Denmark also announced its plans for a generational tobacco ban last year, but discovered a month later that those plans were unlikely to go through as European Union (EU) prevent member states from banning or restricting tobacco marketing and sales. According to health minister Magnus Heunicke’s parliamentary answer last April, such a ban or restriction would need the European Tobacco Products Directive to be revised. Singapore’s Ministry of Health said last year it would study New Zealand’s implementation of its ban and see if the approach would be feasible and effective for Singapore’s context.
After UK’s Sunak announced his plans for a generational ban, Australia’s health minister, Mark Butler, who recently pushed through a slew of tobacco control reforms, said the Australian government would monitor the impact of New Zealand’s ban, but did not commit to such a ban for Australia yet.
Generational bans’ negative impact
One of the concerns often associated with generational tobacco bans is the potential for the black market to grow. The prohibition of legally buying tobacco products will most likely drive individuals to seek alternative means of obtaining cigarettes and other tobacco products, which would lead to other problems such as product quality and safety and increased risks to consumers. A growing illicit market would also mean less tobacco tax revenue for government coffers. For example, an estimate by research firm Oxford Economics said an additional 1.2 billion illicit cigarettes could enter the market each year by 2030 if the GEG policy is implemented, as Malaysia already has one of the world’s largest illicit tobacco problems.
Another concern that should not be overlooked is the effect such bans would have on a country’s economy. Oxford Economics estimates that Malaysia’s GEG policy could lead to a MYR346 million (US$73.1 million)* loss in gross domestic product (GDP) contributions as well as a loss of over 2,700 jobs and MYR1.2 billion in annual tax revenue loss by 2040. Actual losses could be even higher as the study did not take the vape industry’s recent contributions into account. If the GEG policy does end up vaping as well, this could mean a loss in potential tax contributions of the sector to the tune of MYR1 billion per year.
There is also the matter of how generational bans will be implemented and enforced. This was actually a crucial concern Malaysian lawmakers had when the policy was first introduced and led to a special committee being set up and revisions made to the policy.
Any country considering a generational tobacco ban will need to carefully and thoroughly consider the complexities and risks involved against perceived benefits. Since the generation of people that will be banned from ever legally buying tobacco products are still not of legal age, the full extent of the ban’s impact remains to be seen. Is it too soon for other countries to be following in New Zealand’s wake?