The government of the United Kingdom — apparently no longer satisfied with restricting speech and the ability to peacefully assemble — is poised to further exert its will upon its citizens’ lives with a stunning new bill. Once it goes into effect next year, the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 will prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009. The bill is idealistic, unlikely to be effective, and is emblematic of a paternalistic philosophy of governance whose greatest fear seems to be constituents making decisions for themselves.
By making it illegal for anyone born after the cutoff date to ever purchase cigarettes, tobacco, or rolling papers, the bill seeks to phase out tobacco availability with the explicit — and utopian — goal of creating the first tobacco-free generation in U.K. history. This would effectively increase the legal smoking age with each passing year, offering adults different treatment under law based on when they turned 18 years old. The bill also includes tighter regulations on vape products, including restrictions on flavors and advertisements.
The bill sailed through Parliament with cross-party support, and this Wednesday, it received royal assent, the final formality in the legislative process.
It appears British lawmakers have forgotten the lessons of history. America tried this model of public health policy in the early 20th century with prohibition, which led to little besides a prospering black market and the deaths of thousands who turned to illicit alcohol for their fix. In Australia — a country widely praised for its strict policies on nicotine products — a booming illegal market accounts for nearly all vapes and over half of the cigarettes on the street. Pushing users toward a less regulated version of a harmful product just makes the problem worse.
The role of government is not to infantilize its constituents, but, in effect, that is all this bill does. It goes without saying that no one wants children smoking cigarettes. But have we forgotten that children eventually grow up and deserve the right to dictate their adult lives themselves? This bill implies that in 2074, a 65 year old should be able to buy a pack of cigarettes, but not a 64 year old, who, of course, was too young to vote when the bill passed. That is illiberal and impractical.
The bill is a disproportionate response to an overblown crisis. Smoking rates have already been falling steadily for decades in the U.K., while, at the same time, obesity has skyrocketed, securing the U.K. one of the highest rates of obesity in western Europe. In England and Scotland, some research suggests that the obesity crisis has contributed to more deaths per year than smoking for almost a decade now. Parliament’s response to this ballooning crisis has been far less draconian. It recently strengthened a preexisting “sugar tax” on drinks containing above a certain threshold of sugar per 100 mL. Why should sugary drinks be taxed, but tobacco banned? Is the freedom to drink soda more fundamental than the ability to smoke a cigarette?
The U.K. government has better options than an outright ban on cigarettes, and nothing is stopping it from exercising them. Though less politically salient, carefully calculated tax rates on tobacco products can disincentivize new smokers without making a black market profitable and help direct users toward less harmful ingestion methods like electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches. This act won’t stop an entire generation from smoking. It will just force them to do it illegally and in more dangerous ways.
