With the Tobacco and Vapes Bill clearing Parliament, a move to create a “smoke-free generation” has prompted strong debate among Independent readers.
The legislation – which will ban anyone born after 2008 from ever legally buying cigarettes – was described by ministers as a landmark public health intervention. But our community is divided over whether it strikes the right balance between protecting health and preserving personal freedom.
In a poll of readers, 40 per cent said the move will restrict individual choice too much, while the remaining 60 per cent supported the policy – though a quarter of those admitted it will be difficult to enforce.
Many questioned how the policy would work in practice. Concerns ranged from enforcement falling on shopkeepers to the potential for increased smuggling and black market activity. Others pointed to the significant tax revenue from tobacco, and the wider economic implications of people living longer.
A recurring theme was fairness. Several readers argued the law creates unequal rights between generations, suggesting the government should either ban smoking outright or not at all.
There was also scepticism about the motivations behind the policy, with some claiming it is driven more by revenue concerns than public health. Others drew comparisons with alcohol, questioning why similar restrictions are not applied there.
At the same time, some accepted the health case but still felt uneasy about restricting individual choice.
Here’s what you had to say:
A generational loophole for buying cigarettes
I do my best to make sure none of my kids ever take up smoking, but if they were to do it, I’d like to be around in 2069 when my then 60-year-old son will need his 62-year-old sister to buy cigarettes for him.
Who polices this?
Well... who polices this? Shopkeepers? What happens when it gets violent? And what about all those lovely tax revenues? Smoking produces billions more in tax than it costs. And what about all those people living longer, needing pensions for longer? What about all the extra resources medical care for long-term chronic illnesses require and need paying for? What about the smuggling and criminal gangs?
Calling this bill ‘designed’ is an abuse of language.
Either ban it outright or don’t
I hate smoking. I don’t really drink that much. I don’t mind the smoking ban. Not sure how I feel about a law banning a certain age from ever having a choice – either outright ban it, or don’t. It’s all about the taxes. Let the older generation die, whilst they figure out how to replace the income.
Personal choice despite known harms
There’s absolutely no doubt that smoking is bad for you. In my case it’s a habit as much as anything else, and I should know better, having lost my mother to lung cancer nearly 30 years ago. At the same time, we need to consider that the global population has quadrupled in the last century from about 2 billion to around 8 billion, and as much as the Hippocratic oath is incredibly honourable, it’s actually part of what’s messing up this planet. I miss my mother hugely, but then she always said she didn’t want to get old anyway (she’d be 81 now and very grumpy with everything going on, I know that much).
I also have experience of teaching English to some executives from British American Tobacco in the early 2000s while living in Rome. Very intelligent guys and we had a lot of laughs, but they were also incredibly cynical types and had a ruthless attitude to their work. Tobacco companies are very similar to the oil industry in that they will always find a way to sell their product no matter what any government might try to legislate.
Weirdly enough, I’d already started listening to Zappa’s You Are What You Is album when I stumbled across this article (it’s coming to its end now) and he described cigarettes as his ‘food’, hence his rather slim figure. Unlike most other rock stars, he didn’t drink alcohol or take any drugs though, from which many have died, as we all know. My point is that, in the end, we should all have the choice, whether it’s a good or bad one.
Illiberal
This move to ban smoking is fundamentally illiberal and a violation of personal freedom. I like to smoke an occasional cigar, perhaps once every 2–3 months. I am not addicted. That is my choice, my right, and does me no harm whatsoever. I strongly oppose the idea that government has the right to restrict the free choices an adult makes about those actions which affect only themselves. This is a dark day for British freedom.
Why not ban it outright
If they really cared about stopping people from smoking, then they would just ban the sale of tobacco products, including vapes, outright and make it illegal to smoke in public or in any enclosed spaces where there are children.
They won’t do that because they get around £10bn in taxes from tobacco sales every year.
I’m an occasional smoker and would be happy for there to be a complete ban, so long as it is still possible to buy nicotine gum.
Smoking rates have already declined significantly
Back in 1950 – roughly a lifetime ago – about 82 per cent of British men smoked (including Richard Doll).
His first publication in that year concerning the link between lung cancer and smoking persuaded him and a few others to quit the habit and, since then, smoking has declined until now about 14 per cent of men smoke. Fewer women smoke, but it’s just as bad for them.
Better for all if nobody smoked, but I’m not so in favour of these bans. The UK already has lower smoking rates than most countries and it is in decline. The awful and, I believe, quite harmful vaping habit is another story.
Personal freedom with shared responsibility
If someone wants to smoke and vape then that’s fine by me, just as long as no one else has to breathe in the poison or put up with the littering. Plus, manufacturers should be expected to shoulder the costs of healthcare and littering.
A similar approach should apply to alcohol, with manufacturers expected to shoulder the financial burden of any resulting crime and antisocial behaviour, in addition to the healthcare costs. Tougher penalties for those who commit crime and antisocial behaviour whilst under the influence.
Risk of boosting crime and black markets
So effectively creating a Class C drug for those born in 2008 and before. I bet drug dealers are wide-eyed at the prospect of greater profits, as anyone looking to smoke cannabis and requiring tobacco as filler will need extra service provision from them to supply it. A win for health that is a win for crime is a loss for public order. Furthermore, I don’t see it being the government’s business to decide what we eat, drink, smoke, inject or lather on our skin. ONLY provide warnings where applicable. All to save lives... well, let’s ban motorbikes next then, shall we? Or maybe dogs... or how about we ban procreating so nobody will be alive to die in the first place? I don’t understand for a second what the obsession with banning smoking is that parliament can find the time to legislate on, when there are a hundred other things far more pressing than interfering in people’s own lifestyle choices.
Want to share your views? Simply click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to have your opinions showcased.
Want your voice to stand out? Independent Premium subscribers enjoy priority for featured comments. Subscribe here.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
Czech students protest a government plan to overhaul funding for public media
Takeaways from former top UK official's testimony on the Mandelson appointment scandal
Smoking ban for people born after 2008 agreed as ‘landmark’ Bill clears Parliament
‘It can always get worse’: Readers warn voting Reform could backfire
Starmer looks less like a PM and more like a lawyer defending himself
Starmer admits his former spin doctor was considered for top ambassador job
