discrimination human-rights new-zealand drugs age
What is the legal status of New Zealand&#39;s tobacco legislation vis-a-vis the Human Rights Act of 1993?
<p>The government of New Zealand recently passed a law aimed at eliminating tobacco usage. Rather than prohibiting the purchase of tobacco products altogether, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/14/new-zealand-tobacco-cigarettes-ban/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the law instead prohibits their purchase by anyone born after 2008</a> and would require stores to refuse to sell tobacco products to such people.</p>
<p>To my understanding, the <a href="https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Human%20Rights%20Act%201993_resel_25_a&amp;p=1%2F" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Human Rights Act of 1993 prohibits discrimination based on age unless the person discriminated against is under 16.</a> The New Zealand supreme court apparently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/world/australia/new-zealand-and-australia-ponder-a-lower-voting-age.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recently ruled</a> that things such as a voting age of 18 violate these rules. Currently, anyone born after 2008 is under 16, but the law will presumably apply equally in, say, 2025.</p>
<p>Does the new tobacco legislation run afoul of the Human Rights Act? Or does it avoid any issues or create an exception?</p>

<h2>It’s probably fine</h2>
<p>I refer you to para 41 of the judgement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For ease of reference we note that s 5 provides that the protected rights and freedoms “may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Restrictions on eligibility to vote are hard to justify in a free and democratic society. Tobacco use is not so central.</p>
<p>Were the issue to come to trial the government could argue:</p>
<ul>
<li>it has the power to prescribe substances that are injurious and addictive, which it undoubtably does.</li>
<li>There are many people born after 2008 who are addicted and cutting off their access would create great personal hardship for them.</li>
<li>Furthermore, the ongoing demand would create incentive  for criminal activity in smuggling illegal tobacco.</li>
<li>Everyone born in or after 2008 is not addicted to tobacco so banning it would not cause hardship</li>
<li>Similarly, the waning demand from older people could be met legally reducing the scope for organised crime.</li>
</ul>
<p>In brief, the ban is probably “demonstrably justified”.</p>
