Dr Edward Jegasothy - University Of Sydney

An epidemiologist and biostatistician working in Environmental Health at the School of Public Health. He received my PhD in 2020 which investigated environmental exposures, air pollution and temperature, and their health effects on vulnerable people in NSW. In 2018,

He completed the NSW Health Biostatistics Training Program and Master of Biostatistics. This involved work in environmental health, road safety and perinatal health. In 2013, he completed his Master of International Public Health at the University of Sydney.

Back To THR Experts List🔼

24 March 2025 - Fanning the flame Paper

https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-025-01163-6

The current state of Australian nicotine control leaves policymakers in a deeply uncomfortable situation. This commentary has outlined how the government’s current approach to restricting the supply of nicotine has facilitated the growth of a dangerous black market. Along with it, this shift brings significant costs including systemic violence, loss of government revenue, and threats to the safety of both consumers and the wider public. These harms are accrued in addition to the opportunity cost of applying a harm reduction approach which has been successfully implemented in other parts of the world. The recent acceleration in the decline in smoking prevalence which has come alongside, and is likely due to, the rise of vaping shows that such an approach is viable. However, the illicit status of these products means that this is an unintended outcome of the failure of the current policies and is accompanied by harms that are not encountered in a context of legal supply.

Doubling down on this approach, as governments around the country currently appear intent on doing, risks further exacerbating present problems. The biggest risk, in our assessment, is that as the situation deteriorates further this will increase calls for yet more reactive restrictions that further intensify and entrench Australia’s emerging War on Nicotine, creating a self-reinforcing spiral of negative outcomes that are continually amplified by counterproductive policies. This cycle is, we believe, already well in motion with regular calls from politicians and commentators in the news media to further increase penalties and enforcement [10, 64, 104] despite their demonstrated lack of effectiveness and failure to address the fundamental causes of the problem– i.e., strong, ongoing demand for nicotine in a context of readily available illicit supply.

To formulate more effective nicotine control policy, we contend that a robust evaluation of nicotine control policies is essential. This evaluation needs to consider the effectiveness of policies with respect to specific aims and unintended consequences, especially in the context of the role of these policies in driving the black market. Critically, the path forward further requires embracing the notion of ‘nothing about us without us’ and engaging in meaningful consultation with people who use tobacco, vapes and other nicotine products. This commentary has not specifically detailed the distribution of impacts of policy settings across the socioeconomic spectrum. However, this is a further key consideration which needs to be addressed in the formulation of equitable and effective policy as rates of smoking remain high in disadvantaged and marginalised populations who are also likely to disproportionately bear the costs of increased enforcement activities.

Nicotine consumers are voting with their feet, and increasingly preferencing the black market over restrictive legal channels of supply. Policymakers should be mindful of the factors driving this trend, the costs and limitations of supply-side restrictions and, we argue, rebalance efforts toward demand and harm reduction strategies. This may include re-assessing levels of tobacco taxation and establishing a legal, regulated market for less harmful nicotine products thereby weakening both demand and supply in the black market. While this would involve a substantial revision of the current strategy for nicotine control, such an approach would align with the harm minimisation principles which underpin Australia’s National Drug Strategy [24]. Further specific policies advocated by tobacco and harm reduction experts include requiring all nicotine retailers to have a special license, mandatory standards for labelling and product safety, health warnings comparing the use of a less harmful nicotine product to the dangers posed by tobacco smoking, and risk proportionate taxation, whereby nicotine products are taxed more or less heavily dependent upon their relative health risks [12].

The experience of countries like Sweden, where the availability of harm reduction alternatives such vapes, snus, and nicotine pouches have led to significant declines in smoking and related mortality and morbidity [108], offers valuable lessons. Sweden is on track to become the first Western nation to achieve a smoke-free threshold of 5% daily smoking prevalence, demonstrating the potential benefits of adopting regulated alternatives. A similar approach in Australia– one that embraces harm reduction and affords easier access to less harmful nicotine products– would also help reduce crime, reduce government expenses, limit impacts on individual liberty, and improve public health in a more sustainable, equitable, and efficient manner.

19 March 2025 - Guardian Article "While Australia is aggressively taxing tobacco, the black market flourishes"

he black market for tobacco has flourished in the shadow of Australia’s aggressive tax policy, creating a lucrative opportunity for organised crime. As legal tobacco prices have soared, criminal networks have profited by undercutting legal products, offering smokers a cheaper alternative that circumvents regulation and taxation. This underground economy has expanded dramatically in recent years, fuelling criminal turf wars and undercutting tax revenues.

Full article>>