Cigarettes Kill. Don’t Ban Them.

In a global first, the U.K. is about to ban cigarettes for an entire generation. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, is currently making its way through the House of Commons and once in force, will raise the age-of-sale for all tobacco products by one year every year, meaning that tobacco can never be legally sold to anyone born on, or after, January 1, 2009.

History shows time and time again that nanny-statism as well as forcibly curtailing popular products backfires, leading to illicit use and lawbreaking, and has the unintended consequence of doing more harm than good. Such a measure would be a democratic affront, risking a sweeping expansion of executive tendrils, infringement of privacy of person, unenforceable criminalisation, and the dawn of a new era of unjust mass incarceration of minority communities.

First of all, proponents claim these edicts will save hundreds of thousands of lives. They will not. As happened during America’s baleful bout with prohibition a century ago, whereby the manufacturing and sale of liquor were outlawed, these measures would gin up black market activity. Illegal production of cigarettes and cigars will crop up and banned products will routinely be smuggled in from other countries, revitalizing transnational organized crime.

New Zealand most recently reversed course on its historic smoking ban after learning it would fuel a booming black market, handing control to criminals instead of reducing smoking rates. The policy’s strict restrictions made legal tobacco harder to access, driving demand for illicit sales and creating enforcement challenges. Pushing tobacco underground won’t stop smoking.

Advocates also opine that these new regulations are necessary to protect youth. Anyone with experience with teenagers and attentiveness to data would recognize that education proves effective while compulsion usually backfires. Countries like Australia and Uruguay, by implementing stringent packaging laws and graphic health warnings, coupled with high taxes on tobacco products, have witnessed significant declines in smoking rates. In Canada, a years-long commitment to grassroots-level education and the end of targeted advertisements by Big Tobacco toward youth has yielded positive results.

In 2011, 75% of British young adults in high schools never smoked cigarettes. That number is now closer to 90% and growing. Data from another report by Canada’s Department of Health corroborated a second point: actions akin to the U.K. cigarette ban in Canadian provinces but over flavored e-cigarettes instead, have had little to no impact on the accessibility of those products to students. The youth that do, in fact, engage in substance use often struggle with critical mental health challenges and come from vulnerable segments of society. There are many things that those young people need, and further stigmatization is not one of them.

The crux of the argument against a ban lies not in the denial of the pernicious effects of smoking, but in the recognition of the complex socio-political and economic fabric into which tobacco is inextricably woven.

The “War on Drugs” in the U.S. provides a cautionary tale on how public health policies can devolve into instruments of racial repression. A cigarette ban would be no less unjust, replete with surveillance, police brutality, and disproportionately high incarceration rates among communities of color. Criminalizing cigarettes would overwhelm the justice system, leading to abuses of power and an uneven application of the law.

The United Kingdom, with hindsight of both global and domestic experiences in tackling the tobacco challenge, should eschew such prohibitive tactics. In times of crisis, the allure of disregarding foundational freedoms for immediate gains can be tempting, but let’s not forget that means are as important as ends. Alternative strategies like comprehensive public health campaigns and cessation support, which respect civil liberties while showing efficacy, have shown promise without the pitfalls of draconian bans.