Smoke, Mirrors, and The Cigarette Conundrum

I'd like to present a hypothetical situation. Take two strangers, one of whom is fourteen. The other is fifteen. They end up together and decide to get married after a string of unforeseen Richard Curtis-style events. The pair, both of whom smoke, will have a problem in twenty years. Now aged 34 and 35, respectively, the former will not be able to legally purchase cigarettes; the latter will be able to smoke whenever they please.

This potentially bizarre scenario comes from the mind of our current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. The goal of Sunak's "biggest public health intervention in a generation" is to gradually phase out the sale of cigarettes until a complete ban is achieved. While MPs have a free vote—one always guaranteed to be governed by personal conscience, rather than, say, ideology—should the policy receive royal assent, it will result in an annual increase in the legal smoking age, which is currently 18 years old. A person who is currently 14 years old would never be able to buy cigarettes legally.

It does offer some clarification, in a way. This potential legislation will, among other things, draw a distinct line between the technocratic managerialism of Sunak and the ersatz-libertarianism of the Johnson era. However, if this becomes law, it will be bad news for everyone, smokers included.

Sunak quickly shifted the conversation away from nanny-state regulation when he spoke at the recent Conservative Party Conference, branding smokers as a drain on public finances and the bane of the NHS. Sunak claims that smokers cost the NHS £17 billion a year. There you go. Problem solved! The NHS would have an additional £17 billion if smoking were completely eradicated. Grandad can finally get his broken hip replaced, and we can remove millions of people from the ever-expanding waiting list.

But things don't work like that. The Treasury would lose roughly £12 billion in tobacco duties if smoking were made illegal. Health and pension costs would increase for the government. The end result is a rise in taxes, which no one—not even non-smokers—would welcome. The harsh truth is that smokers provide a valuable service for the NHS by, er, dying prematurely, which helps save our country's vaunted health system a considerable amount of money.

Smoking is unhealthy, and you don't need to have lived on Mars your entire life to understand that. The dangers of smoking do their own bidding, from the harrowing anecdotal realities of living with a loved one who is dying of cancer to enormous images of diseased lungs on cigarette packets. However, many of us still enjoy a cheeky Marlboro with a cup of coffee in the morning or after dinner. The paradox of the human condition is that we frequently act in ways that are harmful to our health. Despite the fact that we drive every day, there is a very high risk of dying in a traffic accident.

Some of us define a good life as being long and healthy. For some people, including myself, that means having fun and enjoying yourself as much as possible. I don't necessarily mean live fast, die young (I'm forty-four, so I'm not exactly young, and I'm not exactly in good health), but rather make some wonderful memories before you shuffle off this mortal coil. To do so, one must inevitably engage in risky behaviour. Which is more important—freedom or safety?

Is there really a need to enact a ban, given that smoking rates are in decline? Around forty per cent of the population smoked in the 1980s; today that percentage is around 10 per cent—a decline of 75 per cent. It sends the signal that the tobacco industry is in decline.

A large portion of this can be attributed to an increase in vaping. The manufacturer of Marlboro has announced that it will stop selling cigarettes and concentrate on producing e-cigarettes. This decision was made not out of altruism but rather to protect its business model. E-cigarettes have helped millions quit tobacco, and vaping is 95 percent safer than traditional smoking. Lung cancer is not the biggest problem with disposable vapes; rather, it is littering.

Please note that this is a conservative policy—a party that claims to value liberty. The right to smoke must be protected. Not because it is a particularly wise lifestyle choice to make, but because adults must be free to make decisions that are unwise.

The government is trying to remove risk from society in a concerted effort to end smoking. But attempting to do so is like kicking water up a hill. What's next? I've heard that caffeine makes your heart beat faster. It's probably best if I don't give them any ideas.