Countries around the world are implementing various strategies to combat smoking and reduce smoking-related illnesses. While some nations have embraced progressive taxation policies to encourage the switch to safer nicotine products, others have implemented high taxes on them, potentially undermining harm reduction efforts. This blogpost explores how countries like Sweden and New Zealand are leading the way by reducing taxes on less harmful alternatives, such as snus and heat-not-burn products, to reduce smoking rates and improve public health outcomes.

Sweden: A European Leader in Tobacco Harm Reduction

Sweden has long been a pioneer in harm reduction strategies, particularly with the use of snus, a smokeless tobacco product that has been key to the country’s declining smoking rates. Last year, Sweden further incentivized the switch from cigarettes to snus by reducing taxes on this safer alternative. This approach has strengthened the Swedish path to become the first smoke-free country in the world: Sweden’s smoking rate is just 5.6%, far below the EU average of 23%, and it keeps declining rapidly. As a result, Sweden also has the lowest smoking-related illnesses and death rates in Europe, recording only 26 smoking-related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, whereas the EU average is more than three times higher, at around 100 deaths per 100,000.

The Swedish success perfectly exemplifies how tobacco harm reduction strategies work. Despite the fall in smoking rates, Sweden continues to be one of the countries with the highest nicotine consumption rates in Europe, with over 20% of the Swedish population regularly using snus. Yet, they do so in a much less harmful manner, since snus is significantly less harmful than cigarettes as it does not involve combustion, which is the primary cause of the health risks associated with smoking. By lowering taxes on snus, Sweden has made this alternative more affordable and accessible, encouraging smokers to switch and, as a result, drastically reducing smoking-related diseases.

New Zealand: Cutting Taxes to Support a Smoke-Free Future

Like Sweden, New Zealand is taking proactive steps to encourage smokers to transition to less harmful nicotine products. In July 2024, the government announced a 50% reduction in taxes on heated tobacco products, a move designed to promote the use of safer alternatives to smoking. This policy aligns with New Zealand’s broader commitment to becoming a smoke-free nation by 2025, with smoking rates already plummeting to record lows.

The decision to reduce taxes on safer nicotine products reflects a recognition that price plays a crucial role in consumer behaviour. By making vaping and heated tobacco more affordable, New Zealand is helping more smokers transition away from combustible tobacco, which remains the most harmful way to consume nicotine.

The role of progressive taxation in harm reduction

Taxation can be a powerful tool for promoting public health when used appropriately. Lower taxes on safer nicotine products make these alternatives more accessible and attractive to smokers, encouraging them to switch away from cigarettes.

On the other hand, high taxes on safer nicotine products can discourage smokers from making the switch to less harmful alternatives. When the cost of vaping or other reduced-risk products approaches or exceeds that of cigarettes, smokers may see little financial incentive to switch. Moreover, high taxation can drive vapers back to smoking, reversing the progress made in reducing smoking rates.

Price sensitivity is particularly high among lower-income groups, who make up a large proportion of smokers. If the price of safer nicotine products becomes too high due to excessive taxation, these individuals are more likely to continue smoking rather than switching to vaping or other alternatives. This can ultimately result in higher rates of smoking-related diseases, placing a further strain on public health systems.

Furthermore, excessive taxation can foster the growth of black markets, where unregulated products pose greater risks to consumers. This has been observed in several regions where strict regulations or high taxes on vaping products have led users to seek cheaper, often unsafe alternatives from illicit sources.

Conclusion: Taxation as a tool for positive change

The examples of Sweden and New Zealand demonstrate that progressive taxation policies can play a critical role in harm reduction efforts. By lowering taxes on safer nicotine alternatives, these countries have made it easier for smokers to switch to less harmful products, resulting in fewer smoking-related illnesses and deaths. This approach aligns with the fundamental goal of public health: to reduce harm.

Countries that have yet to adopt this approach should consider the evidence from Sweden and New Zealand. High taxes on safer nicotine products can undermine harm reduction efforts, keeping smokers on cigarettes and increasing the burden on healthcare systems. By adjusting taxation policies to reflect the reduced risks of products like snus and vaping, governments can encourage more smokers to make the switch, ultimately saving lives and improving public health outcomes.