On World No Tobacco Day 2026, the government launched a five-year campaign aimed at creating a tobacco-free society. The approach combines school education, community engagement, and new healthcare infrastructure. Currently, 494 healthcare professionals trained in cessation support are positioned across all atolls, backed by a National Quitline. These new efforts follow the second amendment to the national tobacco framework, which introduces a generational ban preventing anyone born after 2007 from purchasing tobacco. To reduce access barriers to clinical treatments, this amendment also removes import duties on smoking cessation products like nicotine replacement therapies.
President Muizzu framed these measures as a vital part of a "comprehensive health policy aimed at transforming our community into a healthier one". Yet, simultaneously, cigarette import duties were reduced by approximately 50 percent, making regular cigarettes significantly more affordable and accessible to the public. This glaring pricing contradiction raises a much deeper question: How effective is our current quitting framework in reality?
The government has positioned clinical support—specifically a Quitline and trained medical professionals—as the primary safety net for citizens. But from a practical perspective, is a rigid, "quit-or-fail" model truly realistic for the average heavily addicted smoker? Evidence consistently shows that most smokers do not successfully quit on their first attempt. When a smoker inevitably relapses, what does this framework actually offer them as a fallback? Furthermore, while pharmacy treatments are now duty-free, does the average Maldivian consumer even know they exist or how to use them? A well-meaning policy on paper does not always translate to practical awareness on the street.
More critically, by firmly maintaining a ban on vaping products, the government has eliminated one of the most widely used tech alternatives adopted globally to help people step away from smoking. By criminalizing smoke-free tech while simultaneously slashing taxes on traditional cigarettes, the framework severely narrows a smoker's choices to a strict binary. They are forced to either successfully navigate the medical system, or they can simply buy the now-cheaper cigarettes.
If the ultimate goal of this campaign is to genuinely reduce tobacco consumption and non-communicable diseases, shouldn't the Maldives consider embracing a broader spectrum of regulated, less harmful options? As the government rolls out this second amendment, we have to ask: does this fix actually leave the everyday smoker in a better place than where we started?
