It has not been so long since London’s lower House of Commons voted by a majority of its MPs in favour of proposed legislation by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to ban the purchase of tobacco to anyone who becomes an adult after the ban would come into force, and allow it only for those who are already adults, up to and before its implementation.
The draft law, which prohibits the purchase of tobacco by all future generations of adults on the basis that they were born after 2009 and the generation to which they belong, aims to eliminate the purchase and use of tobacco by limiting the number of people who are “entitled” according to its provisions to obtain it year after year until in the end there will be no one. This is achieved by making use of the technique of banning the purchase of tobacco to future citizens who are about to reach adulthood after the entry into force of the law, allowing it only to those who were already adults by the time it came into force.
The implementation of such a “programme” coincides with the separation of those born after and before 2009, which will take place starting from the year 2027, with regard to the use of tobacco through its supply from the market, which will undergo its gradual disappearance, and the corresponding separation of degressive rights and incremental obligations which are available to all citizens.
One would expect that since the act was passed by a majority in the lower House of Commons of the representatives of the British people for it to become law by definition, although not everyone would wish for it either, but laws in Britain do not come into force until they have attained Royal Assent and examined by the upper House of Lords; it is up to them to avoid implementing it for the time being and to find possible amendments to a gradual and ultimately complete smoking ban.
One of the amendments could become to raise the minimum age required to buy tobacco to 21 years and the resulting avoidance of its generational ban with a variable and increasing minimum permitted age. This alternative is to be proposed by the Irish government in the parliament of the neighbouring country with the United Kingdom, and is the law in most US states enacted during the presidency of Donald Trump.
There were 383 votes in favour and 67 against the prohibition bill since 16 April, when it was passed by the lower House of Commons; a committee for amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes bill has been set up to examine possible amendments and the bill is pending consideration by the House of Lords, although a majority of the representatives of the people have approved it. A five-yearly general election is expected later this year, followed by the potential electoral victory of the Labour Party, a spokesman for which said that his party would fall “like a ton of bricks” for the eventual enactment of a similar ban and the ban bill as law.
The tobacco industry magazine specializing in the Asian tobacco market, Tobacco Asia, reports on the prohibition law introduced by the Indian Prime Minister of Great Britain and passed by the lower House of Commons in London, that “In the realm of public policy, the line between protecting citizens and encroaching on personal freedoms can often blur. The UK’s recent passage of a law to ban tobacco sales to future generations is a prime illustration of this delicate balance – or an egregious example of the nanny state in action. At first glance, the intentions behind such legislation may seem noble, a bold step towards reducing smoking-related illnesses. After all, combustible tobacco use has been linked to health issues such as lung cancer, and preventing young people from ever starting to smoke could potentially save lives and reduce the burden on healthcare systems. However, a deeper examination reveals the inherent flaws and dangers of this approach.”
Tobacco Asia magazine continues by saying that “One of the most fundamental principles of a liberal democracy is individual autonomy – the right of individuals to make their own choices, even if those choices may not always be seen as being in their best interest. By outlawing tobacco sales to future generations, the UK government is effectively usurping this autonomy and paternalistically dictating what its citizens can and cannot do. Ultimately, the UK’s new law banning tobacco sales to future generations is a misguided and heavy-handed approach to public health. Instead of respecting the autonomy of its citizens and addressing the root causes of tobacco addiction, the government has opted for a draconian policy that tramples on individual freedom and sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach. If the goal is truly to create a healthier society, policymakers would do well to reconsider their approach and focus on empowering individuals to make informed choices about their own health and well-being.”
The editor of the magazine Nattira Medvedeva points out that “One of the most significant challenges the industry has faced in recent times is increased regulation. Regulatory agencies around the world increasingly implemented strict anti-tobacco measures, including advertising bans, smoke-free laws, and graphic warning labels on packaging. However, rather than capitulating in the face of these challenges, the tobacco industry responded with innovation, embracing regulation as an opportunity for growth and continuously investing in R&D [Research and Development]. Of course, the tobacco industry’s resilience has not gone unchallenged. Every new product developed, every scientific study, every attempt to participate in or contribute to issues such as tobacco-related health concerns or combating illicit trade – are generally met with suspicion, dismissal, dissemination of misinformation, or even more regulations trying to exert control over the industry. Oftentimes, these regulations also seek to control consumers, to the point where the right to make informed choices is taken away from them, encroaching on their autonomy. The UK’s generational tobacco ban, the US’ proposed menthol ban (postponed till further notice), and Australia’s vape ban, for example, have stirred debates about governmental overreach, often characterized as a “nanny state” approach”.
SCRAP THE SMOKING BAN 