Australia’s New Tobacco Laws: Performative, Ineffective, and Harmful

Alan Gor 02 April 2025

The Australian government’s latest wave of tobacco regulations is yet another example of performative policymaking that prioritises ideological posturing over genuine public health progress. Rather than embracing evidence-based strategies that could actually reduce smoking-related harm, these laws impose draconian restrictions on legal tobacco products while failing to address the most pressing issues—such as the rise of the illicit tobacco market and the government's refusal to support harm reduction.

This approach reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of why people smoke and how effective public health policy should work. Instead of helping smokers transition to safer alternatives, the government is creating a climate where illicit trade will flourish, harm reduction is ignored, and consumers are treated as if they are incapable of making informed choices.

Menthol Ban: A Misguided and Counterproductive Strategy

One of the most significant changes in the new regulations is the ban on menthol cigarettes. The justification for this ban is based on the claim that menthol masks the harshness of cigarette smoke, making it easier for young people to start smoking. While this argument might sound reasonable on the surface, it falls apart under scrutiny.

Firstly, youth smoking rates in Australia have been declining for years. One of the biggest factors contributing to this decline has been the increasing availability of reduced-risk nicotine alternatives, such as vaping. Instead of supporting these alternatives, the government has actively worked to restrict them—meaning that young people who might have chosen to vape instead of smoking are now left with fewer, riskier options.

Secondly, banning menthol will not stop people from wanting menthol-flavoured products. We have already seen what happens when countries ban menthol cigarettes: a massive shift towards the illicit market. In Canada and the UK, where menthol bans have been implemented, illegal tobacco sales surged as consumers turned to black market suppliers to get the products they preferred. Australia, which already has a well-established illicit tobacco trade, is almost certain to see a similar outcome.

Organised crime networks are more than willing to step in and supply menthol cigarettes, offering them at lower prices than the heavily taxed legal alternatives. This not only reduces government revenue but also puts consumers at greater risk, as illicit cigarettes are unregulated and could contain even more harmful substances. The government’s response? More crackdowns, more law enforcement resources wasted, and more consumers criminalised for seeking out products they have every right to use.

If Australia were serious about reducing smoking, it would focus on strategies that actually work—such as supporting harm reduction and encouraging smokers to switch to safer alternatives. Instead, it is doubling down on prohibition, with all the predictable negative consequences that follow.

Packaging and Ingredient Restrictions: More Red Tape, No Real Impact

Beyond the menthol ban, the new laws introduce further restrictions on cigarette packaging, ingredients, and even the appearance of individual cigarettes. This includes:

• Mandating new graphic health warnings

• Standardising cigarette stick sizes and colours

• Printing warnings directly onto cigarette filters

• Banning certain ingredients, including sugar and probiotics

The underlying assumption behind these measures is that making cigarettes less visually appealing and less palatable will somehow discourage smoking. But this ignores the fundamental reality: people do not smoke for the colours, shapes, or added flavours—they smoke for nicotine.

Take, for example, the ban on sugar and other additives. While these ingredients may slightly alter the taste of a cigarette, they are not what makes people dependent on smoking. Banning them is an arbitrary move designed to create the illusion of action, rather than addressing the root causes of continued smoking.

Similarly, the idea that printing warnings on cigarette filters will deter smokers is laughable. Australia already has some of the most extreme anti-smoking packaging laws in the world, yet smoking continues. Does the government seriously believe that a few extra words printed on a cigarette stick will make a difference?

These changes are not just ineffective; they are part of a broader trend in tobacco control where policymakers prioritise symbolic actions over meaningful harm reduction. Instead of focusing on measures that could actually help smokers quit—like promoting access to safer alternatives such as vaping—Australia is wasting time and resources on cosmetic changes that will do nothing to curb tobacco dependence.

The Australian Government’s War on Harm Reduction

Perhaps the most glaring flaw in Australia’s approach is its complete refusal to embrace harm reduction. While other countries have recognised that vaping and other reduced-risk nicotine products can play a crucial role in reducing smoking rates, Australia has gone in the opposite direction.

By making it harder for people to access vaping products legally, the government is actively discouraging smokers from switching to safer alternatives. This is not just a bad policy—it is deeply unethical.

Public health should minimise harm, not punish people for their choices. Yet Australia continues to treat all nicotine use as a moral failing rather than a public health issue. Instead of providing accurate information and supporting safer alternatives, the government relies on scare tactics, prohibition, and overregulation—all of which make it harder for smokers to quit.

The evidence is clear: countries that embrace harm reduction see larger declines in smoking rates than those that rely on punitive measures. The UK, New Zealand, and Sweden have all taken progressive approaches to vaping and smokeless tobacco, and as a result, they have seen significant reductions in smoking prevalence. Australia, meanwhile, remains stuck in an outdated prohibitionist mindset that continues to fail public health.

The Real Threat: The Illicit Market

One of the only valid concerns raised in the article is the growing problem of illicit tobacco sales in Australia. However, the article fails to acknowledge that the government’s policies are the primary driver of this illegal trade.

Excessive taxation, overregulation, and outright bans push consumers towards illegal sources. When legal tobacco becomes too expensive or too difficult to obtain, smokers turn to black market dealers who are more than happy to supply untaxed, unregulated products. This is not a theory—it is already happening.

Rather than recognising its role in fuelling the illicit market, the government is now calling for even stricter licensing and enforcement measures. However, history has shown that crackdowns on illicit trade rarely work. The demand for tobacco products will not disappear just because the government wants it to. The more restrictions Australia places on legal tobacco, the more it empowers criminal networks to take over the market.

Australia Will Not Be Smoke-Free by 2030

Despite the government’s claims that these harsh measures will help achieve a “smoke-free” Australia by 2030, the reality is quite the opposite. Countries that have made real progress towards reducing smoking—such as New Zealand and Sweden—have done so by embracing harm reduction, not prohibition.

Australia’s refusal to support safer alternatives, combined with its heavy-handed regulatory approach, ensures that smoking will persist well beyond 2030. Smokers who might have switched to vaping or other reduced-risk products are instead left with few legal options, while those who continue smoking will increasingly turn to the illicit market.

A truly smoke-free future requires pragmatic policies that recognise the role of harm reduction. If Australia continues down its current path, it will not only fail to meet its 2030 goal but will also drive smoking underground—creating more problems, not fewer.

A Smarter Approach to Tobacco Policy

If Australia genuinely wants to reduce smoking-related harm, it needs to abandon its prohibitionist approach and embrace harm reduction. This means:

• Making safer alternatives like vaping more accessible – Allowing legal access to nicotine vaping products without unnecessary restrictions would provide smokers with a far less harmful alternative.

• Taxing tobacco more sensibly – Excessive taxation only fuels the illicit market. A balanced approach that discourages smoking while keeping legal products affordable is more effective.

• Cracking down on illicit trade the right way – Instead of making legal tobacco harder to access, the government should focus on disrupting organised crime networks and ensuring legal products remain available at competitive prices.

• Focusing on real public health measures – Providing accurate information about reduced-risk products, supporting smoking cessation services, and treating nicotine use as a health issue rather than a moral failing would do far more to reduce smoking rates than any of the new laws.

  
  

Until the government recognises that harm reduction is the most effective path forward, its tobacco policies will continue to fail. In the meantime, smokers will be left with fewer choices, higher costs, and an ever-growing black market—none of which will improve public health.