CHRONIC. Should we move towards a tobacco ban?

Clément Viktorovitch returns every week to the debates and political issues. Sunday April 21: the decision of the British Parliament to refuse the sale of cigarettes to all people born after January 1, 2009.

It’s a radical decision, to say the least: in the space of a generational renewal, there should be no more smokers in the United Kingdom. A world first, at least if the ban is applied: New Zealand passed a similar law in 2022, but it was repealed by the conservative government last November.

In the United Kingdom too, the measure is highly contested by some conservatives. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, called for the memory of Winston Churchill, a great cigar lover. Is smoking an integral part of British identity? It seems to me that we could at least discuss it… Liz Truss, also a former Prime Minister, attacked from another angle: she criticized an infantilizing decision, and castigated a “nanny state”, which claims to be able to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

“This decision effectively amounts to limiting a freedom. But it must be remembered that all states in the world restrict freedoms to protect individuals against themselves.”

Clement Viktorovich

on franceinfo

Whether in France or Great Britain, you are not allowed to use hard drugs or sell your organs, even if you really want to. Freedoms are never absolute: they are only a cursor, which can always be the subject of public debate.

Main argument against this measure: the risk of relaunching the black market. An argument all the stronger given that at a time when many states are trying to fight against cannabis sales networks, creating a new underground market seems to be going in the wrong direction. On the other hand, the analogy with Prohibition (ban on the sale of alcohol in the United States between 1920 and 1933) works quite poorly, for a simple reason: the decision taken this week is supported by a majority of British people. 59% are in favor, according to a survey for the Daily Telegraph. Furthermore, we know that one in two people, on average, want to quit smoking and regret having started, according to a study published in 2020 in the journal Public health. In this sense, it is not absurd to consider radical measures against smoking.

What if we thought about it in France?

Historically, Britain has been much more successful than us in combating the ravages of tobacco. The country now has only 13% regular smokers, compared to 32% in France. Moreover, if smoking has declined in France over the last ten years, it is partly because we were inspired by British public policies. It could therefore be interesting to continue to look closely at what is happening across the Channel.

Especially since the fight against smoking today involves a real question of social justice. It’s simple: in the 1960s, tobacco consumption was fairly uniform across the population. This is no longer the case today. The prevalence of smoking is much higher among less advantaged individuals. For example, there are 42% smokers among the unemployed, which is ten points more than in the general population. However, for years, one of the most used measures to reduce tobacco use has been increasing the price of cigarette packets. It’s effective: all studies show that it reduces consumption, and therefore helps save lives.

“For those who, despite all their will, are unable to stop, the increase in the price of the package is nothing other than a tax increase. An increase which weighs, above all, on the poorer: this is the definition of an unfair tax.”

Clement Viktorovich

on franceinfo

Banning tobacco for an entire generation would drastically reduce the number of people who start smoking, which still remains the best way to fight against smoking without having to tax or stigmatize smokers. And for those who are, perhaps rightly, concerned about restrictions on freedom, I ask: what freedom is this? The freedom, each and every one of us, to poison ourselves? Or the freedom for tobacco companies to make a fortune by poisoning us?