Researchers Analyze: Which Model Is More Effective in Reducing Smoking?
Australia and New Zealand, two global leaders in the fight against smoking, have adopted opposing strategies to regulate vaping. While one has imposed strict restrictions, the other has facilitated access with regulatory controls. A new study reveals unexpected impacts, reigniting a key debate: ban or regulate?
Both countries have been recognized as models for tobacco control, implementing policies that include high taxes, strict advertising restrictions, and aggressive awareness campaigns. Smoking was meant to become a thing of the past—an increasingly expensive and socially unacceptable habit. And in many ways, they succeeded. Smoking rates plummeted, proving that strict regulations could push the population toward quitting.
However, when the conversation shifted to vaping, their shared path diverged. Australia opted for absolute restriction, establishing a system that classifies e-cigarettes as a prescription-only product. Anyone wishing to access nicotine in vapor form must obtain a doctor’s prescription, a bureaucratic process that many find not worth the effort.
New Zealand, on the other hand, took a different approach. It regulated vaping but without making it a medical privilege. There, adults can buy nicotine products in specialized stores, with age restrictions but without the barrier of a mandatory medical consultation.
This difference in strategies is a matter of domestic policy and a crucial dilemma for global public health. Ban or regulate? Should governments restrict all nicotine products to the maximum, or should they acknowledge that some smokers need alternatives and facilitate access? These are not just philosophical questions—their answers are reflected in the data.
A recent study led by Colin Mendelsohn and prominent experts such as Robert Beaglehole, Ron Borland, Wayne Hall, Alex Wodak, Ben Youdan, and Gary Chung Kai Chan analyzed what happened in both countries between 2016 and 2023. Their findings reveal that policy decisions not only shape the market but can either accelerate or hinder the fight against smoking.
The Numbers Tell a Story
The research team used national surveys to track the evolution of smoking and vaping among different population groups, analyzing age, socioeconomic status, and indigenous communities.
While Australia surveyed adults aged 14-15 and up as well as youth aged 12-17, New Zealand focused on adults from age 15 and adolescents aged 14-15. The data reveal clear and contrasting trends between the two countries:
New Zealand Smokes Less and Vapes More
In New Zealand, the daily smoking rate dropped from 14.5% to 6.8% in just seven years—a sharp decline. In Australia, where restrictive policies limit easy access to vaping, the drop was more modest, from 12.2% to 8.3%. In relative terms, the decline in New Zealand was 1.5 times greater.
However, this did not happen in isolation. At the same time, the daily use of e-cigarettes in New Zealand rose from 0.9% to 9.7%, while in Australia, it only increased from 0.5% to 3.5%. In other words, the link between declining smoking rates and rising vaping adoption seems evident.
The Effect on Vulnerable Populations
The impact of these policies was not uniform across all groups. Young adults, lower-income individuals, and Indigenous communities—historically the groups most resistant to quitting smoking—saw a faster decline in New Zealand than in Australia.
In New Zealand, where switching to vaping is easier, these communities experienced a more significant drop in smoking rates. This suggests that for vulnerable populations, making alternatives accessible may be more effective than restricting them entirely.
The Youth Vaping Debate
While youth smoking rates declined in both countries, teen vaping surged in New Zealand. This raised concerns, prompting the government to introduce stricter regulations in 2022.
The data suggest that youth vaping growth began to slow after these measures were implemented, leading to a fundamental question: Is it possible to design regulations that allow adult smokers access to vaping without encouraging youth use?
The Regulation Dilemma
The study presents a clear takeaway: facilitating access to vaping seems to accelerate the decline in smoking rates. This strategy has led to a faster reduction in smokers in New Zealand, particularly among vulnerable populations.
In contrast, Australia’s restrictive approach has resulted in a slower decline in smoking rates and lower vaping adoption, suggesting that its policy may be hindering a potentially effective smoking cessation tool.
However, youth vaping in New Zealand remains a valid concern. According to researchers, the key is not a total ban but smart regulation—one that allows adult smokers to access alternatives while minimizing appeal to adolescents.
This is not just an issue for Oceania. Governments worldwide face the same dilemma:
Should they allow smokers to transition to vaping, even if it means accepting an increase in youth use?
Or should they restrict vaping entirely, potentially slowing the decline of smoking?
There are no easy answers, but the evidence is compelling. New Zealand has shown that a balanced vaping regulation can accelerate smoking reduction, particularly among vulnerable populations.
Meanwhile, Australia, with its restrictive approach, appears to be limiting access to a tool that, for many smokers, could mean the difference between continuing to smoke or quitting altogether.
Youth vaping remains challenging, but New Zealand’s experience suggests this issue does not require an absolute ban. Instead, well-designed regulations can make vaping less attractive to teenagers while still ensuring access for adults who need it. Rather than banning out of fear, regulating intelligently appears to be the most rational path forward.
* Mendelsohn CP, Beaglehole R, Borland R, Hall W, Wodak A, Youdan B, et al. Do the differing vaping and smoking trends in Australia and New Zealand reflect different regulatory policies? Addiction. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70006