For many South Africans, smoking is part of a daily routine. A cigarette outside work. A smoke break at a restaurant. A quick vape in a public space. Buying a packet from the shop counter without much thought.
However, that everyday routine could soon become far more restricted.
After years of delays and political back-and-forth, South Africa is now moving closer to introducing much tougher smoking and vaping laws.
Explore Pixelfish’s free tools and downloads today.
These changes are aimed at reducing tobacco use, protecting children and limiting exposure to second-hand smoke.
The move follows the Portfolio Committee on Health officially adopting a motion of desirability for the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill during its meeting on Wednesday, 24 June 2026.
According to the committee, the motion passed with an overwhelming majority, with 10 of the 11 members voting in favour and only one voting against.
In simple terms, this means Parliament has agreed that the subject of the Bill is worth taking forward. However, it does not mean the law is already in force.
Broadly, the Bill seeks to introduce stricter rules around smoking and vaping by:
- Banning smoking and vaping in more public spaces, including certain private spaces where children are present;
- Introducing plain packaging with graphic health warnings;
- Removing tobacco and vaping products from visible retail displays;
- Prohibiting advertising, sponsorships and promotions linked to tobacco and e-cigarette products;
- Restricting sales through vending machines;
- Bringing vaping products under tighter legal control.
For smokers, this could mean fewer places to legally light up. For vapers, it could mean being treated much closer to cigarette users under the law. For shop owners, it could mean major changes to how tobacco and nicotine products are displayed and sold.
Violations of the proposed law could carry serious penalties, including substantial fines and lengthy jail terms.
However, the Bill still has several steps to go through before it becomes law.
The latest development follows an extensive public consultation process, which was reissued after the formation of the seventh administration following the 2024 National Elections.
During the meeting on Wednesday, 24 June 2026, committee Chairperson Faith Muthambi said the scale of public participation showed democracy in action.
She noted that the committee took the Bill to 27 municipalities across all nine provinces, drawing approximately 7,900 South Africans to public hearings and recording 1,113 oral submissions.
“The committee also hosted virtual hearings, and heard a further 52 submissions from every corner of our society – doctors and scientists, public-health researchers and academics, traditional healers and faith leaders, medical schemes, labour and civil society, as well as ordinary citizens who simply wanted their voices on the record,” said Muthambi.
She added that approximately 40,000 written submissions were received by the committee, while the Department of Health, led by the Minister and Deputy Minister, regularly briefed members and responded to issues raised by citizens.
According to Muthambi, the Bill is one of the most thoroughly consulted pieces of health legislation handled by this Parliament.
However, she also made it clear that the committee has not simply accepted the Bill as it stands.
A key issue now being considered is whether all tobacco and nicotine products should be treated the same. This is particularly relevant when comparing traditional cigarettes, which involve burning tobacco, with non-combustible products such as certain vaping alternatives.
Muthambi said the committee had learned through scientific submissions and internal discussions that not all tobacco and nicotine products carry the same level of public health risk.
She explained that combustible products, which burn, present the greatest danger, while non-combustible products do not necessarily belong in the same category.
According to Muthambi, a law that pretends otherwise is not stricter, but less accurate.
“This committee has endorsed the need for differentiation, and I am pleased that the Department of Health, through its responses to public comments in March 2026, has also officially accepted differentiation as a guiding principle, and has subsequently made some concessions and proposed amendments to this effect. As my predecessor noted, ‘harm is harm’ is not scientifically based, and we cannot use this approach as a guiding principle for this legislation,” stated the chairperson, adding that this was neither a commercial argument nor a plea from special interest groups.
According to Muthambi, this position is also reflected in the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which South Africa has ratified.
Article 1(d) defines tobacco control as a comprehensive range of supply, demand and harm-reduction strategies aimed at reducing consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke.
Therefore, she said, harm reduction must be applied carefully and should not be dismissed as a loophole in tobacco control.
“As a committee, we have come to recognise this principle, and this version of the Bill, as it stands before us, does not yet deliver it. In its current form, it regulates combustible and non-combustible products through the same approach, which we have now learned is not the best approach for our public health.”
Muthambi stressed that differentiation does not mean weakening protections, especially where children are concerned.
“Let me be equally clear about what differentiation does not mean. It does not mean lowering our guard where it matters most. Protection of young people must be stronger for combustible and non-combustible products alike. No child should be initiated into nicotine in any form, and a risk-proportionate framework makes that protection firmer, not weaker,” said Muthambi.
She further noted that no country on the African continent has yet built a tobacco and nicotine framework that is genuinely risk-proportionate, evidence-led and future-proof.
“South Africa can be the first, and the world is watching how we do it. We can pass a law that other parliaments study: not because it was the harshest or the most permissive, but because it was the most intelligent one that brings all products into scope, protects children and youth fiercely, confronts illicit trade squarely, and distinguishes honestly between what burns and what does not,” she said, adding that the subject matter of the Bill was highly desirable.
Muthambi further maintained that while South Africa needs this law, the vote was not an endorsement of the Bill in its current form, but rather a mandate to improve it.
“By voting to advance this Bill, we commit ourselves to a clause-by-clause process in which differentiation and harm reduction are not an afterthought, but the lens through which every provision is tested. That is the change we are voting for today. So let us advance this Bill and do the harder, finer work of making it worthy of the principles we have come to recognise, and of the people who gave us forty thousand reasons to get it right.”
The Bill will now move to clause-by-clause deliberations, where Members of Parliament will consider possible amendments.
Once this process is completed, the committee will finalise its report and submit it to the National Assembly for further debate.
For now, smokers and vapers do not need to panic, as the law has not yet come into effect.
However, the direction is clear.
If the Bill is eventually passed, smoking and vaping in South Africa will become far more controlled. Cigarettes and related products will be less visible in shops, packaging will become more graphic and less branded, and lighting up in shared spaces will become far more difficult.
For non-smokers, especially parents, the proposed law offers stronger protection from second-hand smoke and nicotine exposure. For smokers, it signals the steady disappearance of convenience.
The heart of the debate now lies in balance: how far South Africa should go in restricting smoking and vaping, while still recognising that not all products carry the same level of risk.
Either way, the casual smoke break many South Africans know today may soon look very different.
Be sure to leave your comments below and do not forget to read:
2 Responses
That is not much of a problem here the real issue that nobody is talking about is bring back the provincial hospital. Leave smokers alone that’s not taking lives so much as when a person is having a heart attack and must be rushed to madadeni hospital that is quite a distance, the person will even die before reaching, whereas we have a huge hospital in Newcastle but it’s used for mother and child, so old people with heart issues don’t matter but woman that intentionally fall pregnant and have 100 babies, is that important? The people of Parliament must not make smoking back when they can’t think properly about what is right and wrong. We need our provincial hospital back. Lives will be saved faster than driving to a distant hospital. Moreover if they bring the hospital back, woman will not have so much children and unwanted pregnancy will be prevented. People from parliament and municipality must think for people not themselves. Mxm.
It is strange how their is tax money spent on hammering one product in the market place that is harmful. Armed with a sixty sixty card, I can order R10 000’s booze with no problem and booze is a serious cancer causing product. Children eat fast food, proven to be a cause of multiple comorbidities and cancer. Trucks of products filled with sugar, are sold with no warnings or restrictions to millions daily. Sugar is a proven cancer fuel and is one of the first things you are told to stop when diagnosed with the disease. This means, someone is making money off of messing with tabaco – it’s not like this is being done out of the goodness of people’s hearts on a pro bono bases.