New Zealand reverses decision to ban smoking. California beware.

In 2022, the New Zealand government led by then Prime Minister Jacinda Arden passed legislation to ban anyone born after January 1, 2009 from buying smoked tobacco products. The legislation prompted other world leaders, like Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, to propose similar bans. Even California was influenced by Arden’s controversial policy, with lawmakers introducing similar legislation in early 2023.

New Zealand’s new Prime Minister, Chris Luxon, has shocked the world by announcing that his newly formed government will reverse the ban. California should take notes and stay away from this bad policy.

New Zealand’s legislation prohibited the sale of smoked tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009. Consumers and retailers who were found to be in violation of the ban would have been liable to pay a fine of no more than $1,220 (U.S. dollars). Prime Minister Luxon was purportedly worried about the financial and safety ramifications of this ban, noting that there would be “an opportunity for a black market to emerge, which would be largely untaxed.”

Assembly Bill 935 was introduced to the California Legislature in February 2023 by its author, Assemblymember Damon Connolly. The bill aimed to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2007 to create a “smoke-free generation”— notably the same goal of Jacinda Arden’s legislation. While Assembly Bill 935 was eventually passed in October 2023, it was heavily amended and no longer established a generational ban and instead focused on strengthening their prohibition on flavored tobacco products. Its introduction is nevertheless worrisome.

At the time of the California bill’s proposition, the state already prohibited the sale of flavored tobacco products and had a legal smoking age of 21 years old. These regulations have not been in place long enough to evaluate their long-term effectiveness in limiting rates of tobacco use, as they were passed into law in 2020 and 2016, respectively.

Studies show, however, that tobacco bans do not decrease the prevalence of smoking — they do the opposite.

Two studies published in 2023 focused on Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes found that the prevalence of smokingamong black adults and menthol cigarette sales in surrounding states increased as consumers bought the product in larger quantities to create personal stockpiles and to redistribute to other Bay Staters through the black market.

Prime Minister Luxon’s aforementioned concerns of an emerging black market spurred by the tobacco ban are nonetheless warranted. Sadly, those concerns have not been voiced by California’s leaders, though, the state is at least as likely to be in danger of being overrun with illegal tobacco products coming from neighboring states and Mexico.

A group of United States Senators have become worried about the possibility of a growing tobacco black market as the FDA proposes new rules to ban menthol cigarettes and set maximum nicotine levels, two steps that New Zealand took before imposing their generational ban.

A group of senators, none of whom were from California, penned a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department detailing the increasing risk that Mexican cartels would open a new line of cigarette trafficking in the United States.

The senators note, “Since at least 2018, the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, a cartel sanctioned by the United States for its role in trafficking narcotics and fentanyl, has been involved in the sale of tobacco products to generate a new revenue stream.” Being a border state with strict tobacco laws, California’s market is at great risk of being invaded by illegal and unsafe Mexican tobacco products.

While Prime Minister Luxon is rightfully worried about the emergence of a black market for tobacco products, he was also understandably focused on the economic ramifications the legislation would have.

Public health modeling showed that the generational ban would save New Zealand from $790 million (U.S. dollars) in health-related costs over the next 20 years. Likewise, Californians are estimated to spend upwards of $15 billion a year in tobacco-related health care costs. Lawmakers mistakenly believe that when these bans are implemented, these tobacco-related health costs would be eliminated. But we know consumers will continue to use the banned tobacco products just as they did in Massachusetts. Health care costs would then fail to decrease and tax revenue would fall dramatically as these products are pulled from shelves and taken to the black market to be bought illegally without taxation or safety regulations.

It’s simply a lose-lose scenario for everyone.

Instead of punishing consumers and taxpayers, California needs to learn from New Zealand’s new Prime Minister and turn down any future attempts of a generational ban on tobacco products to allow individuals to decide for themselves how they will treat their bodies.

Sofia Hamilton is a Research Associate at a DC think tank and a Social Mobility Fellow with Young Voices where she focuses on issues related to health care, housing, and welfare. Her work has appeared in publications such as the Washington Examiner, the Orange County Register, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel.