The Maldives has recently been acknowledged for its ambitious tobacco control measures. Yet, while the government basks in the glow of global recognition, the reality is far murkier. The international praise for the strict tobacco laws paint a picture of public health success that starkly contrasts with the domestic situation: a booming black market, and widespread non-compliance.

The situation in Maldives is similar to Mexico–with both countries choosing the failed prohibition-only approach. In sharp contrast, evidence-based harm reduction strategy, adopted by countries like New Zealand, has shown success with moving towards eradicating the habit. By prioritizing international accolades and prohibition over harm reduction, the Maldivian government has inadvertently created a public health and security disaster that undermines the very goals it claims to pursue.

The international accolades do not reflect the current situation in the Maldives. The much-hyped tobacco control rules are nothing more than words on paper, failing utterly in their implementation on the ground. This was exactly what happened in Mexico, where tobacco control policies did not focus on a harm reduction strategy, and many predicted as the most likely outcome for the Maldives as well.

But the COP11 summit of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control chose to praise the policies of Mexico, where smoking rates remain far higher, while calling out New Zealand, a nation on the verge of becoming the first smoke-free country.

The WHO's decision to award Mexico does not reflect the reality of its health data. Despite official rhetoric against the tobacco industry, the reality is that Mexico's smoking rate stands at 15.4 percent , a figure that, to put it in perspective, is double that of New Zealand. This distinction seems to disregard the fact that Mexico's strategy has failed to curb consumption, while the New Zealand model, which focuses on harm reduction, is on the verge of eradicating the habit.

New Zealand was called out for an "alarming" increase in youth vaping. However, official statistics refute this perception, as New Zealand has managed to reduce adult smoking to 6.8 percent (the fifth lowest rate in the world) thanks to a harm reduction strategy that combines deterrent pricing with the regulation of lower-risk alternatives, such as e-cigarettes, to facilitate cessation.

In Mexico, the constitutional ban on vaping has proven counterproductive, as instead of eliminating its use, it has shifted demand to a black market controlled by illegal networks operating without health oversight. It has also led to a serious security crisis.

The parallels are striking: a ban intended to eliminate use has only managed to push the demand into a lucrative, unregulated black market. This shift not only compromises the quality of the products consumed (low-quality, cheap options in both cases) but also poses a serious security crisis, evidenced by the millions of cigarettes missing in the Maldives and the illicit networks controlling the black market in Mexico. The situation in the Maldives is thus exactly like a textbook example of the negative consequences witnessed in Mexico, where prohibition-only policies created a security and public health disaster.

The international applause received by the Maldivian government, much like the praise given to Mexico, serves as a stark reminder that global recognition does not equate to successful policy on the ground. The harsh reality in the Maldives is a soaring black market for low-quality, cheap tobacco, rampant non-compliance, and widespread disregard for smoking restrictions.

The current strategy, focused purely on prohibition without the crucial element of harm reduction has led to a situation where government officials seem more interested in international accolades than in acknowledging the domestic security crisis, health risks and economic downturn caused by the black market.

Until the Maldives government shifts its focus from performative, top-down bans to evidence-based strategies that prioritize genuine public health outcomes over global praise, its citizens will continue to bear the cost of policies that look good on paper but fail disastrously in practice.