To the surprise of some, the Prime Minister used his conference speech in Manchester last year to announce a New Zealand-style lifelong ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after a cut-off date of 31 December 2008. The ban, which has since been announced in the King’s Speech as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could apply to all tobacco products: cigars, pipe and heated tobacco included. The Bill also introduces restrictions on the sale of vapes, though not an outright ban.
Is the ban necessary, is it practical, and what are the political motivations behind it? This was the subject of a roundtable discussion held at The Spectator’s offices, sponsored by Philip Morris International.
Philip Morris, explained the company’s External Affairs Director Duncan Cunningham, has already embarked on a strategy to reduce harm from smoking. Already, 35 per cent of its global revenues come from what it calls ‘reduced risk’ products – notably heated tobacco in the form of a product known as Iqos. In contrast to vapes, this uses real tobacco. But unlike traditional, combustible cigarettes it does not burn the tobacco. The result, it is claimed, is that the user inhales 95 per cent fewer harmful chemicals. Heated tobacco has only been around in earnest for the past five years, so there is little real-world data on its health effects. Heated tobacco products will, nonetheless, be covered by the proposed ban.
Some have queried the point of banning cigarettes, given that smoking is in sharp decline anyway. The latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey shows that the rate of smoking among adults has fallen to 13 per cent (6.5 million people), and that only 8 per cent of the adult population smoke every day – with the sharpest fall over the past 15 years among women. Half the population have never smoked – a huge contrast from 50 years ago when half the population were regular smokers. Perhaps most importantly, the number of children reporting to have tried cigarettes is down to its lowest levels on record.
Why, then, does the government see smoking as such a priority, asked academic and pollster Matthew Goodwin? ‘The textbook election strategy is that you pick the issues which people care about most and demonstrate competence in them’, he suggested. A smoking ban does not feature highly on the public’s list of priorities. The only time it tends to be raised by voters is in conjunction with the decline of the High Street – older voters tend not to like youths sitting around smoking or vaping. Many, indeed, see younger people vaping and assume they are taking an illegal drug.
Nor, it has to be said, is public opinion very easy to determine, as it depends on how you ask the question. The idea for a phased out smoking ban was originally crafted in New Zealand under Jacinda Ardern – and immediately tossed out when the new government was elected. If you ask Brits whether they support a ban with an age cut-off – as the government is proposing – 73 per cent of British voters say they do. Ask them if they agree with an outright ban on the sale of tobacco and support drops to 52 per cent. Give voters a menu of possibilities and the picture changes further still: a third are for a (now rescinded) New Zealand-style ban, 29 per cent for a total smoking ban, 27 per cent don’t want any kind of ban, and 14 per cent are undecided. There is little of an age or political divide in public opinion. Liberal Democrat voters are slightly more likely to back a smoking ban, but not by a great degree.
Are the government’s proposals even practical? The ban has been sold to the public as a means of stopping children smoking, which is illegal anyway. But one day it will mean a 51-year-old will be allowed to buy cigarettes and a 50-year-old won’t be. How will retailers be expected to handle that? There was concern around the table that the smoking ban might be used by a future government as an excuse to introduce ID cards.
Just because the government tries to ban something doesn’t mean it will be successful. Already one in five cigarettes smoked in Britain – and one in three in deprived areas – are in some way illicit. They are often smuggled in, being sold brazenly in corner shops. There was concern, too, that a ban on cigarette sales will force smokers towards illegal drugs – if forced to seek out underground dealers, those dealers are also likely to be selling cannabis or harder drugs. The government stands to lose substantial revenue from a ban on cigarette sales. How will it make up the revenue? Possibly through taxes on vapes.
And what about the liberty argument? Rishi Sunak has asserted that a smoking ban is part of the government’s levelling up agenda – as it is poorer communities which tend to have higher rates of smoking. But then is smoking really the biggest problem in those communities? In the 2000s, former Labour Home Secretary John Reid challenged those who were out to save the working classes from their smoking habit by citing the case of a single mother bringing up children after a broken, possibly abusive relationship, and arguing that she might see a cigarette as one of the few pleasures in her life. The argument is as applicable now as it was then. Might those who are banned from smoking end up seeking escape in even more destructive habits? There were worries around the table, too, that a smoking ban might turn out to be the precursor to a ban on alcohol, or on junk foods.
So far, argued political analyst Ed Rennie, health campaigns against smoking have been based on pragmatism. The instance where smoking has been banned – indoors, in workplaces and public buildings – was because of the effects of secondary smoke on others. ‘But the pragmatism has gone’, he argued. Previous health campaigns have cut the smoking rate dramatically without seeking to ban it. With only 13 per cent of adults still smoking, the Prime Minister’s proposals couldn’t have as dramatic an effect in reducing the smoking rate – however warmly or coolly they might be welcomed by voters.
Comments