The House of Representatives has approved the Miscellaneous Provisions (Alcohol, Cannabis, Dangerous Drugs, Gambling and Tobacco) Bill, 2026, advancing a key United National Congress election promise. The legislation would raise the legal age for purchasing and consuming alcohol and tobacco from 18 to 21, while restricting cannabis possession and gambling to those aged 25 and over. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
The Government’s objective is understandable. Alcohol abuse, tobacco use, gambling and substance misuse can cause lasting harm to individuals, families and communities. Any responsible administration has a duty to reduce those risks, particularly among young people.
Good intentions, however, are not enough. The critical question is whether these new age limits will achieve the desired outcome.
At 18, citizens are recognised as adults under the law. They can vote, marry, enter contracts and qualify for a driver’s permit. Yet, under the proposed legislation, those same adults would be barred from legally purchasing alcohol or cigarettes until age 21, and from possessing cannabis or gambling until age 25.
Such distinctions require a clear and persuasive evidential basis, particularly the decision to set 25 as the threshold for cannabis possession and gambling. Parliament should seek a fuller explanation of why these specific ages were selected and what evidence suggests they will materially reduce harmful behaviour.
Without that evidence, there is a risk the measures will appear arbitrary rather than effective.
There is also the possibility of unintended consequences. Restrictive laws do not automatically eliminate demand. In some cases, they simply redirect it.
Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo himself acknowledged that risk while debating the Remote Gambling Order, warning that excessive restrictions can drive activity into an underground economy beyond the reach of regulators and tax authorities. That caution should remain part of the discussion as Parliament considers these proposals.
The issue is not only one of public health. It also has fiscal implications.
Budget estimates project $1.823 billion in excise duty revenue this year, including substantial contributions from beer, rum, spirits and cigarettes. Government also expects approximately $400 million from betting and entertainment taxes. Those projections follow last year’s increase in customs duties on alcohol and tobacco products, a measure expected to generate an additional $1 billion in revenue.
There is no contradiction in taxing products the State wishes to discourage. Excise taxes frequently serve both public health and revenue objectives. But if the Government expects legal consumption to decline because of tighter age restrictions, it should also explain the likely impact on revenue collections, enforcement costs and illegal market activity.
The bill’s identification requirements also deserve closer scrutiny. Proof of age would be required for purchasing alcohol and tobacco, possessing cannabis and entering gambling establishments. Government should clarify whether identification will be requested from all adults or only where age is reasonably in doubt. Businesses and citizens alike need certainty about acceptable forms of identification, compliance obligations and liability.
The Senate’s role is not to question the goal of protecting young people. It is to determine whether the measures proposed are evidence-based, workable and likely to succeed. Before these restrictions become law, the country deserves clear answers about their effectiveness, cost and consequences.
