Rishi Sunak To Ban Cigarettes for Brits
The U.K.’s “conservative” prime minister wants to prohibit people born in 2009 and later from buying cigarettes—forever.

People in England born on or after January 1, 2009, will be banned from ever buying cigarettes under plans announced Wednesday by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference, Sunak declared England's smoking age would be raised annually, so a 14-year-old today will never be allowed to buy cigarettes legally.
The prime minister claimed smokers put "huge pressures" on the country's National Health Service despite the fact smokers in the U.K. pay far more in taxes than they cost in terms of health care.
Critics expressed alarm that a notionally "conservative" prime minister is cheerleading such a radical restriction of consumer choice. "Not only is this prohibitionist wheeze hideously illiberal and unconservative, it is full of holes," says Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, a U.K.-based free market think tank. "It will create a two tier society in which adults buy cigarettes informally from slightly older adults and will inflate the black market in general."
"This is now a conservative government in name only because the prime minister has just taken a wrecking ball to the principles of choice and personal responsibility," said Simon Clark, director of the smokers' rights group Forest.
But cigarettes aren't alone in Sunak's war on nicotine—disposable e-cigarettes, which have been blamed for an uptick in youth vaping, could also be banned. The number of British youth who have tried vaping rose from 7.7 percent in 2022 to 11.3 percent in 2023. However, the same survey data shows no significant change in the proportion of youth vaping regularly. Laws banning vape sales to children are already on the books, and tobacco harm reduction advocates argue enforcing the law would be a better bet than playing prohibition whack-a-mole. "A ban on disposable vapes is a dangerous strategy," said Mark Oates of the campaign group We Vape when the policy was floated in September. "Children will find products on the black market and adults will go back to smoking."
The U.K. already has some of the world's strictest tobacco policies, with prices averaging $15 per pack, graphic health warnings, plain packaging, tobacco display bans, and comprehensive smoke-free legislation. But it's also, up to this point, been a champion of safer nicotine alternatives to cigarettes, such as vaping, with 9.1 percent of Brits using e-cigarettes, most of whom are ex-smokers.
Britain's public health authorities are eager to inform smokers that vaping is substantially safer than smoking and plan to hand out a million free e-cigarettes to encourage smokers to quit. Thanks in part to the popularity of e-cigarettes, Britain has one of the lowest smoking rates in Europe at 13 percent, yet the government seems determined to pursue a prohibition policy with all attendant risks of black markets and criminal activity.
Bhutan became the first country to ban tobacco in 2004 and suffered a boom in smuggling. The prohibition was repealed in 2020 and was recognized as a failure. South Africa banned tobacco during COVID-19 with similar results, entrenching the illicit trade. However, New Zealand became the first country to adopt a generational smoking ban under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in 2022, along with a mandatory reduction of nicotine in cigarettes.
Britain's embrace of incremental cigarette prohibition will likely encourage those across the Atlantic who want to see America follow a similar path. A California legislator proposed a generational smoking ban earlier this year, but it failed to gain traction. America's biggest anti-tobacco group, the Truth Initiative, recently called for a ban on all commercial nicotine, ending the legal sale of cigarettes, cigars, vapes, snus, nicotine pouches, hookah, and heated tobacco.
It's been 35 years since Britain banned smoking on airplanes, 16 years since all pubs and restaurants were forced to go smoke-free, and six years since all branding was removed from cigarette packs. At every stage, warnings that such coercive policies were a stepping stone to prohibition were ignored as hysterical overreactions by excitable libertarians. As the now-illegal cigarette ads used to say, "You've come a long way, baby."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Critics expressed alarm that a notionally "conservative" prime minister is cheerleading such a radical restriction of consumer choice.
Since when has 'choice' been an important element of 'conservative'?
Actually, choice is a significant part of modern conservative ideology. You must be boiling the concept of "choice" down to the issue of abortion. Which is fairly disingenuous as the limit on the "choice" that conservatives want to impose in their view is the preventing one person from being able to kill another person without proper justification.
As such, conservatives still believe in limiting choice reasonably. But when compared to progressives, conservatives are head and shoulders above on the issue of choice when framed accurately.
"conservatives still believe in limiting choice reasonably",
as reasonably determined by reasonable conservatives, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I assume this response was meant to be pithy? Hard to tell. Are you taking issue with the fact that conservatives aren't anarchists?
It's a sad attempt at poking fun at someone who takes himself way too seriously.
Now you're accusing me of taking myself way too seriously?
Do you suffer from a brain injury?
Of course. Only someone with a brain injury would have the gall to criticize someone as important and serious as you.
No, it’s just more along the lines of wondering where your bizarre assessment of me comes from based on a simple response to a comment? I’m just fascinated when people spout almost nonsensical statements based on strange narratives they created in their heads.
And this is before I even broach the question about your apparent significant insecurity in yourself that provided the motivation for you to make your initial comment. But we can leave that for another time.
Please, broach away, that's allowed, in distinction to my making comments about you. Broach away! I'm sure it will be as serious and important as your other comments.
Woosh.
Man. I'm actually feeling bad for you now.
Choice is NOT a significant or even minor element of ‘modern conservative ideology’. Which BTW is itself a misnomer of deceit since any conservative ideology worth a damn will not distinguish between some ‘modern conservative’ v an old-fashioned ‘traditional conservative’. Or is ‘modern conservative’ = ‘neoconservative’?
The entire point of ‘conservative’ – in even a Burkean sense (which is also deceptive because Burke was NOT a conservative) – is that choice/options need to be reduced since ‘what already is’ works just fine. Tradition itself initiates change through order/hierarchy. That is not up to some individual to initiate just because feelz. Public morality, to a conservative, is NEVER about increasing choice. It is always about ensuring that choice comports with some notion of family/traditional values. The notions of duty, honor, loyalty, norms/oughts, responsibility are all much higher order values (let’s call them virtues) than any individual action and are intended to constrain choice to what is deemed acceptable by some broader thang.
And no that restriction of choice is not limited to abortion. How about gender – homosexuality – what a teacher can say in a classroom – who can use which toilet – the list goes on forever. It is not about culture war issues. And yes prohibiting tobacco use has a LONG history as a conservative prohibition - 1575 Roman Catholic prohibition against its use in Mexico
And this restriction is not a bad thing. Conservatism is the most legitimate underminer of the worst habits of libertarians – unhinged individualism or egoism. Conservatives themselves are usually honest about that as bad habit. It is libertarians who try to put on conservative clothing in order to pass as a harmless sheep.
"Which BTW is itself a misnomer of deceit since any conservative ideology worth a damn will not distinguish between some ‘modern conservative’ v an old-fashioned ‘traditional conservative’. Or is ‘modern conservative’ = ‘neoconservative’?"
Okay, I apologize for not using your anachronistic definition of what conservative means rather than using the modern application as is ascribed to Sunak.
But instead of playing that game, I'm going to go ahead and stick with debating modern political ideologies and not ones of times long past.
So, to your examples:
Gender - the modern conservative positon is that you are free to do what you want in life and be who you want to be. But failing to advocate for and accept pseudo-intellectual concepts such as the modern gender fluidity and trans issues is not about choice, it's simply about respecting reality. Forcing other people's demands on society for what you call "feelz" is not a situation of choice, it's a forced acceptance of the absurd.
Classroom - limiting what teachers in their professional capacity can discuss with children is also not a situation of choice. To equate it as such shows the limited examples of conservatives not embracing choice. Most especially in the fact that conservatives would love to implement educational choice, which the left continues to stymie. But setting boundaries and rules for teachers is not depriving people of choice, it's simply establishing work requirements. This is more than reasonable and has only become an issue after the left has pushed the desire to bring hyper-sexual subjects to the minds of children.
Homosexuality - Not seeing any meaningful modern conservatives wanting to outlaw being gay. This is just false.
Use of toilet - this would be considered a reasonable limitation on choice. Just like conservatives would prevent people from urinating in a public square, they also limit the ability of men to use women's restrooms in order to protect women. This is a reasonable restriction on choice. Again, conservatives are not anarchists.
The list goes on - Sure, but it doesn't really include free speech, education, healthcare, thought, religion, jobs, economic practices, trade, humor, entertainment, etc.
Sorry, the ideology that leans more towards less government than the other ideology that leans more towards more government will always be more on the side of choice and freedom. It ain't remotely perfect, but in general it is quite true.
"Classroom – limiting what teachers in their professional capacity can discuss with children is also not a situation of choice"
If a heterosexual teacher can talk about their spouse to the kids, a homosexual teacher must be allowed the same. Otherwise it's prima facia discrimination.
You seem to be conflating issues and creating false context with your statement.
The discussion was about choice, limiting the actions of employees is not limiting someone's choice, it's setting the boundaries of what is acceptable for employment. Employers discriminate all the time to generate an office environment and product/service provision how they want. That's still not limiting choice of the public through government action.
Second, no where has anyone limited the ability for a teacher to talk about their gay spouse to kids. That's just a straw man position created about the Florida law. A law, mind you, that I don't agree with. But I can disagree with it without lying about it.
Public morality, to a conservative, is NEVER about increasing choice.
You got this one wrong skippy. What conservatives resist is forced compliance by leftist ideologies.
Latest examples: Men WILL share lockers with your daughters and we will jail you for objecting. Teachers will teach sexuality to 3rd graders. If you don’t agree with your 9 year old’s desire to transition, the state WILL remove the child from the home.
This isn’t about increasing choice. It’s about “bend the fucking knee” to the Left or else.
Cows are harmless but in Modi's India people still get axed for eating hamburgers . Sunak owes his ascent in no small measure to his IT billionaire father in law, who staunchly backs Modi.
But libertarians are literally harmless --- they don't want to take your money or ban you from doing things or send you to jail if you do them, as long as you don't harm anyone else. Conservatives can cause harm when they go too far in attempting to legislate morality, and progressives often go way too far in trying to ban guns, salt, soda, vaping, cigarettes, traditional values, etc.
But libertarians are literally harmless — they don’t want to take your money or ban you from doing things or send you to jail if you do them, as long as you don’t harm anyone else.
Many libertarians have a way of making sure they rationalize, redefine, and minimize 'harming others' as the acceptable cost of my personal 'liberty'. That lack of ethics re 'others' is precisely the consequence of unhinged worship of self.
"...Many libertarians have a way of making sure they rationalize, redefine, and minimize ‘harming others’ as the acceptable cost of my personal ‘liberty’. That lack of ethics re ‘others’ is precisely the consequence of unhinged worship of self..."
Assertions from lefty shits =/= evidence or argument.
Your opinion about what is and is not "life" isn't relevant to my life. If I wanted to have an abortion (can't as I'm a man, but in the hypothetical) I should be able to do so without any say-so by Big Brother.
"As such, conservatives still believe in limiting choice reasonably. But when compared to progressives, conservatives are head and shoulders above on the issue of choice when framed accurately."
Your use of the term "limiting choice reasonably" tells me you're not a libertarian or even someone who could reasonably be described as leaning libertarian.
Wait, so my discussing how conservatives approach matters is compared to progressives is indicative of how I believe ideologically? This is a bizarre position to take.
But I will admit, I'm not libertarian because libertarianism is utopic and unworkable in a pure form. Rather, I believe libertarianism is a good default/starting point, but that rules, laws, regulations, and government are necessary for a healthy functioning society, they just should be limited as best as possible.
Oh, and I'm pro-choice and don't agree with the conservative position on abortion. That doesn't mean that I can't understand conservative positions on abortion and understand those positions come from legitimate and reasonable mindsets. If you truly believe aborting a fetus is killing a person, which can logically be argued, then wanting to protect that person is a reasonable position to take. You might disagree with it, which causes you to respond to the matter emotionally, but it is a valid premise.
It should be no surprise that a "conservative" politician supports "illiberal" proposals. To most people, "conservative" and "liberal" are opposites. Academic expositions of "modern conservative ideology" have never been what conservative politicians actually stand for.
Um, okay.
Always cracks me up when they say smokers are a drain on health resources. I'd like to see the proof on that. Any data I've seen shows elderly people as being the largest drain on the health care system. Hmm, I wonder what kind of lifestyle activity will greatly reduce your chances of growing old? I think if the veracity of the health care system is of utmost concern they should ENCOURAGE smoking. Likewise for social security.
It's never enough. They always want more.
If by "they" you mean politicians and bureaucrats, then I agree. It matters not their party affiliation - they *all* want to run our lives in one way or another. Whether it's left-wing do-gooders who promulgate hundreds of pages of regulations on how to make a ladder, to the right-wing nutballs in Idaho who want to make it illegal to travel on a government road to get an abortion, they''re ALL nanny-staters.
Like socialism, prohibition will work this time.
Tell the Prime Minister to read up on American history regarding alcohol between 1920 and 1933, then reconsider his idiotic idea.
Or the War on Drugs and how it kept drugs off our streets, with no attendant loss of civil liberties, or police excess, or gangland warfare. Oh, wait....
During Prohibition, agents of the government got to rampage around, destroying property and throwing people into cages. They got to put increasingly worse poisons into industrial alcohol. They made organized crime much larger and more dangerous, which would have been an excuse to go full-fascist with secret police, special courts, and concentration camps, but the American people chose to end alcohol prohibition before things could go that far. (They've been trying for 90 years to reach that goal through drug prohibition instead, but the American people are beginning to question that, too.)
I think Rishi Sunak would be quite happy with all those results except the last one, and thinks he has a way to get a different response from the British people.
"Tobacco is the devil's own little flower garden, now let's legalize us some weed."
GB should swap this scheming creep for Imran Khan.
Childlike fantasy. Apparently millennial aged people in other countries are as daft as in the United States.
Just listened to the Fifth Column podcast when they had Josh Szeps on and he talked about issues in Australia. So yeah, the daftness isn't just a US thing. I kind of wonder if were the main exporters of it, though. LOL!
After that, they will come after the fatties, because they are a drain on resources.
Yup. Even though obesity and smoking have been studies by the NHS and both smokers and obese people cost LESS money, lifetime, than people at a normal weight who don't smoke.
You don't need actual facts. It's not about that. It's about being able to exercise power, saying "public good", so it supersedes individual liberty.
I'm aware of (and agree with) the assertion re smoking. But that is entirely because smokers pay significant taxes that more than offset the increased medical.
It would be interesting to see the same info for obese. I don't know what 'obese' taxes even are.
The assertion isn't about taxes, it's that people who live longer will consume more medical services in their lifetime. The young guy that dropped stone dead from a heart attack before any doctor knew there was a condition to treat almost certainly ran up much lower medical bills than someone who lives for longer. The guy that died slowly of lung cancer at 60 runs up the same bills for that as someone who dies slowly of something else at 90, but the guy that lived to 90 probably also used more medical services before the final illness.
OTOH, the guy that killed himself and a couple of others by drunk driving probably saved some cancer and diabetes treatments - but I think on the whole, drunk driving causes a lot more injuries to be treated than DOA's, so it is a burden on medical care.
Of course, this whole analysis is flawed because it ignores the value of a longer life. But I don't think this matters, because there's a more fundamental flaw in any such analysis by government. Both your lifetime and the cost of your medical treatment should be a private concern, not government concern.
The Wogs start at
Calais10 Downing street"Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves."
Are these lyrics now obsolete?
They have literally banned knives and sword canes. They want all Britons to be slaves.
I don't think you're allowed to sing that anymore. Because only black people were ever slaves and white people are oppressors and if you say otherwise you are a big racist poopyhead.
The British that felt that way have been emigrating or getting killed in wars for centuries. Maybe the only ones left are OK with slavery, as long as it's slavery to the government and somewhat disguised. Or maybe there's a huge potential pro-freedom revolutionary movement that has to stay quiet and wait for us to air-drop them a half-million rifles, because they made the mistake of letting their government disarm them.
Say you want a revolution We better get on right away Well you get on your feet And into the street
[Chorus] Singing power to the people Power to the people Power to the people Power to the people, right on
Who knew, that John Lennon was a closet monarchist/libertarian?
Sunpak is asserting that because the government pays for health care that means the state owns its subjects, and can tell them how to live. It is fascinating that the welfare state is the reimagining of serfdom.
If the issue is pressure on the National Health System, are they going to ban marijuana? Alcohol? How about forcing fat people to lose weight? I would venture that they have a more adverse effect on the NIH's expenses than the few smokers still left out there. Try it and see what happens.
Doesn't the government save money though, by paying less in pensions to people who do things that cut their own life expectancy?
Not government in general, even specifically the NHS.
Fat people and smokers both cost less than thin non smokers over their lifetime. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/?sh=4e74592464aa
Just the first google link, but there are plenty of hits out there.
If it's really about what the NHS spends, people should be encouraged to smoke and get fat.
Or dump the NHS.
They are doing something about obesity – restricting farming in the name of reducing carbon emissions and other pollution. When they run out of food, only the ruling elite will be fat. Of course, malnutrition will become the main cause of death, but that's not really a medical problem.
"smokers in the U.K. pay far more in taxes than they cost in terms of health care"
Is that an understated way of saying that smokers often die early?
Obviously this is wrong. If people did not smoke, they would never get sick, and they would never die, which saves the NHS incredible amounts of money.
Any party that calls itself "Conservative" damages its credibility whenever it does not call out a member for acting like a nanny for any reason, but especially tobacco use. And you can bet that if they act like a nanny state ass concerning tobacco, they will for other things. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are great examples.
Same goes for the Libertarian party
Prohibition ... with its rich history of catastrophic failure
You know who else wanted to ban smoking?
Hilter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAnHYYrzdvI&pp=ygUcbW9udHkgcHl0aG9uIGhpbHRlciBtaW5laGVhZA%3D%3D
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Terry Jones probably has been misappropriated by the transgender movement by now.
Hillary Clinton- she trashed hundreds of Presidential Seal White House ash trays
(1) Conservatives are not libertarians.
(2) Sunak is a clown.
Smokers as a group cost the government less money than non-smokers. NBC “.......smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs”