The Isis On: Smoking (again)
If you’ve been following The Isis Magazine for some time, you’re probably sick of us talking about smoking. Alas, here we are again. New laws mean that we have no choice but to keep the conversation going—this time in a debate format. The recent Tobacco and Vapes Bill proposes a number of changes to the regulation and sale of tobacco and nicotine products in the UK. What hit the headlines hardest is the proposed ban on the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009, even once they’ve turned 18. The bill has faced mixed reception from the public, with supporters noting the positive impact it will have on public health, while critics condemn it as an infringement on individual freedoms. Of those opposing, Nigel Farage has notably argued against the bill, likening it to legislation passed during the Cromwell Era.
In Favour of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill
We live in a society of addiction. It’s a sad truth, but one that we must come to terms with if we hope to make positive change. In the same vein, I believe the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a step in the right direction in tackling an issue that has become so normalised in British culture.
The NHS estimated that there are around 74,600 smoking-related deaths in the UK each year, which they identify as “the leading cause of preventable death”. I believe the evidence points to the fact that such deaths could have been prevented, had a casual culture of addiction not been propagated in British culture. Despite such statistics, the debate around smoking still devolves into one of ‘personal choice’, obscuring its fatal human impact. Each of these deaths represents an individual who is a victim of the social situation they find themselves in.
But why do people start smoking? Some may just be predisposed to the addiction. Studies show that exposure to smoking from a young age can increase the likelihood of becoming a smoker later in life, contributing to the intergenerational patterns of smoking. Some also fall victim to the tobacco lobby, whereby tobacco companies and associated groups use persuasion tactics and monetary influence to erode healthcare initiatives that put their profits at risk of falling. Tobacco corporations have a long history of trying to sway politicians by offering hospitality and tickets to events. Recipients include former Health Secretary and Deputy PM Therese Coffey and former Chancellor Philip Hammond, with the vast majority being Conservative Party MPs. Our leaders have been influenced by these so-called ‘favours’ offered by tobacco corporations to allow the sale of unnecessary carcinogens and toxins.
As for vapes, we all ought to consider them the new health crisis, and one that is affecting our generation in a unique and particularly sinister way. For our generation, they have served as a gateway into addiction rather than the solution they were once styled as. However, once the smoke clears, it is obvious that this is just another attempt from tobacco corporations to bolster their profits, hidden behind the guise of so-called “healthier alternatives”. Popular brands like Blu, Logic and Vuse are owned by corporations that report revenues in the tens of billions of pounds every year. It has created a new generation of individuals trapped into the cycle of spending and health decline.
All these factors indicate to me that smoking is not in reality a matter of ‘personal choice’. You are unlikely to meet anyone that enjoyed their first cigarette, but it is through cultural precedent and corporate greed that smoking continues to plague their lives. Individual actions do not exist within a vacuum, and as such I don’t think it can be argued that such choices are genuinely made with absolute liberty.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill is the first piece of legislation (and hopefully not the last) fighting to turn the tide on addiction. The Government is finally taking the matter seriously and putting their duty of care for the British people above the profits of tobacco corporations.
Similar legislation was passed in New Zealand, and subsequently repealed in 2023 after the government changed hands. Critics of the law cite New Zealand as a case study for the ineffectiveness of a smoking ban for younger generations, but I would argue that the repealing of the act was a result of a party that prioritises corporate profit over public health coming to power. Even in New Zealand the law was welcomed, with 67% of people supporting the nation’s leading position in smoking legislation. Unlike the equivalent in New Zealand, the UK bill has garnered cross-bench support in Parliament, so I am hopeful it will last well into subsequent governments’ leadership.
You may label me naïve or unrealistic for my support for this act, but I truly believe in its potential to change our health forever. It tackles the root of one of the world’s most pertinent issues and does so decisively, something that has been missing from Westminster’s governance recently. I think that if this act stops just one young person from entering the world of addiction, then it will have been successful. Young people’s health is worth protecting, and it is high time we fight the tyranny and influence of those that profit off our weaknesses.
Milton McGrory
Against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill fails on the most basic principle. Time and again, government attempts to criminalise our vices—whether that be smoking, drugs, or alcohol—have not just been futile but actively harmful. Nothing in this bill reassures me that this time will be any different.
Criminalising cigarettes for an entire generation will result in a sharp rise in the prevalence of their unregulated, illegal counterparts. We can already begin to glimpse an insight into the risks this poses by observing the current cigarette black market—a trade which has grown at alarming rates due to increased tobacco duties and the cost-of-living crisis. These cigarettes, peddled through corner shops, will likely become increasingly accessible post-ban. The Hull Local Government Association first raised the alarm, detailing how some of the illegal cigarettes recovered in raids contained “human excrement, dead flies and asbestos”. With such dangerous and potentially deadly corners already being cut, a generational ban will skyrocket demand, exposing many young people to untold harms.
The argument that smoking is not a personal choice but a product of youth exposure could just as easily be applied here as it has been to the proposition. With such an arbitrary line drawn on 1 January 2009, the first victims of this ban will still be heavily exposed to smoking in the media and amongst their older peers. If anything, their older counterparts’ unique access to cigarettes will likely elevate the banned items further as a status symbol and social demarcator. Even if you buy into the argument that cigarettes will fall out of vogue as the ban persists, the initial spike in demand will still help to bolster the illegal trade, likely cementing it within black markets.
Regardless of whether cigarettes and vapes become less prevalent post-ban, there is constant innovation in the nicotine market. More recent novelties like snus, alongside the myriad of new products which will inevitably pop up to fill the gap in the market, will simply offer a new way for the ‘smokefree generation’ to get their fix. As is the unscrupulous, debasing nature of capitalism, almost all of these new products will probably come packaged with a novel health threat. Thus, criminalising nicotine products inevitably becomes a futile game of whack-a-mole.
With all the practical concerns that this bill raises, it seems as though our law-makers have been dealing in principles instead of practicalities. We can probably all agree that a ‘smokefree generation’ would be absolutely ideal, but legislative debates aren’t philosophy tutorials. Governments should propose policies that create working solutions, rather than offering utopian visions of society decades from now.
In fact, I’d question whether the ‘smokefree generation’ is ideal at all. Of course, that’s not me coming out in favour of lung cancer—although I think there are some credible arguments critiquing the nanny-state paternalism required to generate anything resembling ‘smokefree’. But my real quibble is with ‘generation’. How can selectively infringing the liberty of the young whilst allowing the old to romp around, self-destructive and free, be a fair or ideal policy? If cigarettes are bad and prohibiting them will succeed, surely they should be banned for everyone? The government has a duty of care to all its citizens after all. This would obviously create practical challenges, but so does a selective ban.
By selectively criminalising on the arbitrary line of January 1st 2009, the government is unfairly targeting the younger generation. Why should they be perpetually infantilised? Why, in 2075, should a 68 year old be able to smoke freely but a 66 year old be denied that same right? The idea is not just absurd but enraging; of course the boomer generation who fucked the world for young people in the first place are now turning around to tell us we can’t enjoy a cigarette amidst the doom and gloom they created. It’s not like the generation after 2009 needs to be saving money for their houses, when they’ll probably never get on the property ladder anyway. Having destroyed their future, the government is now robbing Gen Alpha of a tiny consolation prize.
The policy is also discriminatory in itself, since age, under the 2010 Equality Act, remains a protected characteristic. Public consensus largely condemns any former legislation which discriminated against one adult group “for their own good”, whether that be women barred from certain workplaces, political spheres, and freedoms by misogynistic paternalism or young gay men subject to far more restrictive consent laws for the “protection” of teenage boys. Although I’ll admit these examples take the argument to a slightly facetious extreme, perhaps it may be valuable to apply contemporary disapproval of these older laws to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Supporters of the ban will still label it a decisive first step. Maybe it’s not ideal to discriminate against a generation but we need to start somewhere, they argue. I call bullshit – if the government wants to be decisive, then criminalise tobacco. But they won’t because they can’t face the potential uproar. Why? Because it’s far easier to discriminate against a generation who aren’t able to hold you accountable yet.
All that said, if I still haven’t managed to convince you with earnest arguments, then perhaps a hyperbolic visualisation exercise might help. Picture this. The year is 2075. Smoking area romances are dead and gone. The club scene is ruined. No one is accidentally doing mindfulness by leaving crowded spaces to breathe outside for a couple minutes. Aesthetic digicam houseparty pics with people smoking are an artefact of the past. Instagram photo dumps are no more. The service industry has collapsed because no sane person could survive a 12 hour hospitality shift without a smoke break. You turn to your grandson at the kitchen table; he’s shoving his fingers into his bleeding gums to retrieve a 2400 dot super mega snus, equipped with a tamagotchi-style screen. This is the future our government wants.
Laura Beard
Words by Milton McGrory and Laura Beard
Graphic by Molly Lugsden
