On World No Tobacco Day, May 31, 2026, Minister of Homeland Security, Labour and Technology, Ali Ihusaan announced that the government is considering lowering cigarette duty from MVR 8 to MVR 4, citing a World Health Organization recommendation.
The claim has circulated widely. But the actual WHO study remains difficult to verify. Still, the government's message is clear: we are following WHO evidence and research and “back-tracking” on the very regulation that WHO gave the President a special-recognition award for.
If that's the case, there's a bigger question the government should be asking itself: What do people that have worked at WHO actually think about ending the smoking epidemic?
In April 2026, a research article was published in the journal Nature Health. It was written by three former WHO officials: Robert Beaglehole, Ruth Bonita, and Tikki Pang. These are people who spent their careers at the highest levels of global tobacco control.
Their research is straightforward: current tobacco control measures aren't reducing smoking fast enough. The current approach—higher taxes, advertising bans, cessation support—is not delivering the results needed. What's missing, they say, is recognition that quitting smoking is not a single jump. For most people, it's a process. And that process needs options.
Their finding: "Countries with higher cessation success rates provide pathways for step-by-step reduction, not just the choice to quit completely or keep smoking."
In other words: if you only give people two options (quit all at once, or keep smoking), most will choose to keep smoking. But if you give them a middle pathway, such as regulated alternatives to cigarettes, more people will move away from smoking gradually.
The research specifically highlights New Zealand as a case study. Smoking rates there had been declining slowly for years, despite strict tobacco control measures. Then the government allowed regulated vapes and e-cigarettes products to be more accessible. Within a few years, smoking rates dropped sharply. More people quit. More people moved away from cigarettes.
The researchers also note that this was possible while still protecting young people: youth smoking did not increase. The approach protected both goals, helping people quit smoking AND keeping young people away from tobacco.
So where's the disconnect?
The Maldives government increased cigarette duty in 2024, concerned that people banned from vaping might switch to cigarettes. It was a reactive decision based on worry, not research. Now the government is considering lowering the cigarette duty based on a WHO recommendation (still unverified). Supposedly informed by evidence.
But here's the question: if the government is serious about following WHO research, why isn't it considering what these researchers and countries like New Zealand have actually shown works? The Maldives treats all tobacco and nicotine products identically. People have no pathway to gradually reduce risk. So they stick with cigarettes. The research is clear: when everything is treated the same way, people don't understand the differences.
Right now, the question is not whether the government should lower cigarette duty. The question is: if you're going to base policy on evidence, why stop halfway? Why not also consider the evidence on what actually helps people move away from cigarettes?
