Some Bad Things Have to Happen

On harm, prohibition, and liberalism

This week, the generational smoking ban became law. For those aged 17 and under, legalised smoking will remain tantalisingly out of reach, the age restriction rising with them. Unless it unravels, and it may, cigarettes will be de facto illegal by the end of this century. The ban itself is popular. The policy had support across the political spectrum, originating in Rishi Sunak’s premiership and surviving into Starmer’s Labour government. Nearly two-thirds of the public agree with it. Opposition has largely been restricted to the tobacco businesses (and, of course, they would) and those who follow in their wake.

There are obvious practical problems with the bill. It expects the shopkeepers of 2050 to assiduously discriminate between 42 and 43-year-olds at the point of sale. Like any prohibition, it gives succour to the grey and black markets, whose agents flout the law entirely. These criticisms have been largely cast aside. So too have arguments about personal freedom and choice.

The generational ban is the product of a health lobby that believes that the harm of smoking should not just be reduced but eliminated. No one, in their view, should be permitted to trade the enjoyment of a smoke for the risk of illness or premature death. It is a coherent and serious view, but one that rests on a highly questionable premise: that the optimal number of bad things happening is zero. This approach is becoming increasingly prominent in our politics, as we sit uneasily with harm.