I’m fascinated by the New Zealand Government’s ambition to eliminate smoking, so that “anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime.”
The current data is shocking: 1 in 4 cancers diagnosed in New Zealand are caused by smoking, and 13% of the adult population currently smokes—which is higher than what I anticipated.
The new law will see the supply of cigarettes being severely restricted: there will be a 94% reduction in places where tobacco can be sold—in particular, supermarkets and convenience stores will no longer stock cigarettes. The goal is to reduce the national smoking rate to 5% by 2025, and ultimately to eliminate smoking altogether.
I’m fascinated by these kinds of policy decisions because they always sit within a broader, more complex, and deeply nuanced system. And in complex systems, second and third order consequences inevitably emerge.
I’m all for eliminating smoking, but I can understand why supermarkets and convenience stores are worried about revenue loss. I’m sure public health campaigns and increasing taxes on tobacco were also considered, but I’m not sure why they don’t feature more prominently alongside the ban. I’m also painfully aware that smoking correlates with many other sensitive variables, such as education levels and socioeconomic inequality. Not to mention the blackmarkets that may emerge to take advantage of the restriction in supply.
There are so many lenses through which you can look at this problem that it makes a blanket “ban” look simplistic.
A bunch of you are much more steeped in policy and systems changes than I am, so I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether you think this is a great idea, or perhaps well intentioned but missing a few pieces of the larger puzzle.