Cost is not the only reason people buy illicit tobacco – for some, it’s an act of defiance

Recent estimates suggest illicit tobacco now accounts for between 50% and 60% of tobacco consumed in Australia. Rapid growth in the Australian illicit tobacco market raises concerns a similar situation could evolve in New Zealand. The high cost of tobacco and substantial price differences between legal and illegal tobacco – between NZ$40 to $60 for a pack in the supermarket compared to NZ$10 to $25 on the illegal market – mean illicit tobacco offers substantial savings. However, our recent in-depth research with 20 people who use illicit tobacco in New Zealand suggests cost savings are only one reason why they engage with this market. Illicit tobacco purchases enable people to resist government policies they consider unfair. People also engage in complex rationalisations that reframe illicit tobacco use as normal and legitimate. Understanding these rationalisations provides important insights into how illicit markets arise and expand; this knowledge could inform policy responses and counter strategies. Many participants described struggling with the cost of living and felt forced to make difficult choices about how they spent their limited income. Cheaper tobacco enabled them to keep smoking and manage the costs of food, power and clothing. However, they recognised this decision came at the cost of a less satisfying smoking experience. For example, some found loose tobacco harsh and almost unpalatable, and worried it may have been adulterated. Others reported that contraband cigarettes felt weak and some smoked more to obtain the same nicotine dose and satisfaction. Yet financial savings outweighed these concerns and accepting quality trade-offs appeared rational when people felt dependent on smoking but unable to afford over-the-counter cigarettes. Rationalising to reframe illegal actions Some participants viewed illicit tobacco purchases as an act of defiance: avoiding excise tax from a government they believed treated them unfairly. Many felt stigmatised, judged and punished for having become addicted to nicotine and used illicit tobacco purchases to regain lost agency. Participants argued the government had not invested excise tax revenue in healthcare support, housing or other areas that would benefit them or their communities. They understood illicit tobacco sales were illegal but differentiated between their illicit tobacco purchases and what they described as “real” crime. For example, they did not think their purchases harmed anyone and many viewed sellers as helpful people trying to make extra money while supporting their communities. Some participants sustained these beliefs by practising what we describe as “convenient unknowing”. People avoided asking questions about the source of the tobacco or how sellers had obtained it. Ensuring they did not know these details enabled participants to continue using illicit tobacco without having to confront potentially unsettling information about criminal networks or harm to others. How to use these insights Our findings reinforce the need for a comprehensive strategy to address illicit tobacco supply. We have previously called for retailer licensing, robust and independent tracking and tracing systems, stronger monitoring and enforcement, and accession to the World Health Organization’s protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products. Recently announced measures in New Zealand (yet to be passed into law) propose increasing penalties for packaging breaches and retail offences. Knowingly selling tobacco in packages that do not comply with legal requirements would attract a maximum fine of $100,000 (doubling the existing maximum penalty). However, during the past 12 months, the Ministry of Health has not prosecuted anyone for breaching tobacco packaging rules. While useful, steps based on non-compliant packaging do not appear as specific as Australian state and federal measures, which address possession, purchase, sale and supply. As well as addressing illicit tobacco supply, interventions could reduce demand by challenging the rationalisations our participants had constructed. For example, keep it out, a campaign run in north-east England, complicated “convenient unknowing” by exposing connections between illicit tobacco and criminal activity. The campaign outlined how illicit tobacco supply made tobacco more accessible and promoted smoking uptake among young people. Evaluations showed greater knowledge of these harms reduced interest in purchasing illicit tobacco. Although participants in our study felt pessimistic about whether the illicit market could be addressed, they made two important suggestions that merit further review. First, addressing structural factors such as poverty and unemployment associated with smoking uptake. Second, developing support programmes that recognise whānau relationships and have a community rather than individual orientation. New Zealand’s upcoming election offers an opportunity for the new government to consider a comprehensive response to illicit tobacco, including how to address economic and social conditions that make illegal tobacco products attractive.