The Maldives’ Generational Smoking Ban: A Bold Gamble on Public Health — and Tourism

By Ephraim Agbo 

On 1 November 2025 the Maldives enacted what its Health Ministry called “an historic milestone”: a generational ban on tobacco that prohibits the sale, purchase and use of tobacco products by anyone born on or after 1 January 2007. Framed by the government as a long-term public-health investment to “protect public health and promote a tobacco-free generation,” the policy has already ignited debate — among health researchers, civil liberties advocates, island hoteliers and tourism officials — about feasibility, effectiveness and unintended consequences.

This is a story about ambition and risk. The Maldives is trying to eliminate a behavior that typically begins in adolescence and becomes entrenched in adulthood. But it is doing so with a policy lever — a birth-year cutoff — that is unprecedented in practice and raises technical, legal and enforcement questions that will determine whether the experiment succeeds or simply shifts the problem.

How the law works — and why it’s “generational”

The law is simple in form: anyone born on or after 1 January 2007 may not legally buy, be sold, possess or use tobacco products inside Maldives territory. That means the prohibition is not a single sweeping ban but a rolling cohort rule: as each year passes, the cohort of people who are barred from buying tobacco grows older (a 2007-born person is 18 in 2025; in ten years that cohort will be 28). The Maldives has paired this with an already strict policy on e-cigarettes: the import, sale and use of vapes and e-cigarettes was banned nationally in 2024.

The policy’s logic is straightforward: interrupt initiation at the age when most smokers start, and the future adult smoking population will shrink. Generational bans aim to make tobacco a product that a rising generation simply never legally obtains, denying the industry new customers and changing social norms over time.

The public-health case: youth smoking in the Maldives

Advocates point to alarming youth nicotine use patterns that make dramatic action tempting. Maldives youth surveys and Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data show very high rates of tobacco use among adolescents in some measures — in certain GYTS reporting, nearly half of surveyed students reported current use of some form of tobacco. That kind of prevalence among 13–15-year-olds is far higher than in many high-income countries and drives anxiety among policymakers. Public-health supporters argue that conventional tobacco control (taxes, warnings, sales restrictions) has been insufficient to reverse the trend and that cohort bans offer a structural solution.

But the data are nuanced. Different surveys capture different measures (smoking cigarettes vs. any tobacco product vs. experimental use), and prevalence has fluctuated across years. Solid evaluation will require careful baseline measurement and long-term monitoring — something the government and researchers must commit to if the policy’s impact is to be judged scientifically.

Precedents and political fragility: the New Zealand cautionary tale

A common rejoinder is to point toward New Zealand, which in recent years proposed a similar “smoke-free generation” law and then saw that policy unravel when a change in government repealed it. That episode underlines the political fragility of generational bans: they require cross-party durability, clear fiscal tradeoffs, and public buy-in to survive electoral cycles. Legislating a cohort prohibition is not a one-off technical fix — it’s a long-run political commitment.

Enforcement realities: islands, tourists and border control

The Maldives is an archipelago of some 1,200 islands with roughly 200 inhabited; it is highly dependent on tourism. That geographic fragmentation complicates enforcement. Will island resorts police smoking among guests? How will customs and airport security prevent illicit importation? Some news outlets have noted ambiguity about whether the ban covers foreigners — a few reports suggest the law applies to everyone within Maldives borders, including visitors, and that penalties (fines) may be levied on users detected vaping or smoking. If tourists are affected, the policy could create friction with an industry that treats visitor comfort as sacrosanct.

Practically, enforcement options are costly: routine checks, local inspections, public awareness campaigns, and sanctions. The government will have to choose whether to prioritize criminal penalties, administrative fines, or soft-touch interventions (education, cessation support for younger users who are already addicted). Absent generous cessation support for current adolescent users, there’s a risk of producing a cohort that is criminalized rather than helped.

Equity and ethics: protecting young people or restricting freedoms?

There is a normative debate about whether it is just to deny a person the legal right to a product for life based purely on birth date. Proponents emphasize protection: the state can legitimately act to prevent addiction that shortens lives and drives health inequality. Critics warn about age-based discrimination, slippery slopes in state control of personal behavior, and the danger of stigmatising entire cohorts.

For the Maldives, a key equity question is intra-country: do youth in remote islands, who may have less access to health education and alternatives, face disproportionate enforcement? How will the policy address the socioeconomic drivers of tobacco use — poverty, social norms, and targeted marketing?

Market responses and illicit trade risk

History shows that strict restrictions on legal supply can expand illicit markets if demand persists. Tobacco firms and middlemen have strong incentives to circumvent rules — particularly in tourism hubs where cash and informal supply chains are extensive. Analysts will watch for price differentials, smuggling routes, and a possible rise in black-market products (including unregulated vapes). Mitigating illicit trade requires robust customs, cross-agency cooperation and regional information sharing — costly capacities for any small island state.

What success would look like — and how to measure it

If the Maldives is serious about evaluation, success metrics should include: (1) reduced initiation rates among specified age cohorts (measured longitudinally), (2) declines in youth nicotine dependence indicators, (3) evidence of declining overall adult smoking prevalence over decades, and (4) minimal displacement into illicit supply. Equally important are process indicators: public awareness levels, cessation program uptake, enforcement actions taken, and tourism metrics to detect any meaningful effect on visitor numbers.

The wider signal: could other countries follow?

Several countries have contemplated cohort bans; few have implemented them. If the Maldives’ policy proves durable and demonstrably reduces initiation without major social harm, it will be a powerful precedent for low- and middle-income countries (and small island states) grappling with youth nicotine epidemics. If it fails — through weak enforcement, political reversal, or unintended harms — it will serve as a cautionary tale. Either way, tobacco-control researchers will be watching closely.

Bottom line: visionary policy — now comes the hard work

The Maldives has chosen an ambitious, perhaps radical route: a law that reshapes rights along a birth date and bets on norm change rather than adult cessation. The policy’s promise is undeniable; stopping a new cohort from taking up smoking could save lives down the road. But promise is not policy. The real test will be implementation: how the state supports current adolescent users, how it prevents illicit supply, whether enforcement respects rights and equity, and whether political commitment survives electoral cycles.