Double Standards

Every year, governments quietly enact bans on harmful substances. From asbestos to toxic pesticides, these decisions are made to protect public health, and they rarely provoke cries of "nanny state" interference. Most people understand the necessity of removing carcinogens from our environment to save lives and reduce healthcare burdens.

 

But when the UK government recently proposed a generational ban on cigarette sales - a measured approach to balance decades of harm, health costs, and scientific evidence - the backlash from FOREST (the smokers' advocacy group) was swift and predictable. Out came the tired accusations of infringing on personal choice and overreaching government control.

This reaction exposes a glaring double standard. If asbestos is deadly, we accept its ban as a public health necessity. If cigarettes kill - and they do, on an enormous scale - it’s suddenly about liberty and choice. Yet smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, burdening the NHS with billions in avoidable costs and wreaking havoc on families. The government isn’t instituting a generational ban for kicks; it’s a pragmatic solution to a long-term public health crisis.

An outright ban on cigarettes would indeed create significant issues, not least the immediate loss of tax revenue that tobacco sales generate - a necessary consideration in the short term. A phased, generational ban ensures the harms of smoking are tackled over time without destabilising public finances. It’s a compromise that prioritises future generations while recognising the complexity of the current landscape.

As for FOREST, their arguments seem to miss the mark. Addicts are not free agents; they are trapped by a substance designed to hook them for life. When most smokers start as teenagers, often unaware of the true difficulty of quitting, where is the personal choice in that? And when the healthcare system and taxpayers shoulder the immense cost of tobacco-related illnesses, whose "freedom" are we really protecting?

Critics of the so-called nanny state should examine their principles more closely. If government intervention to ban harmful chemicals is acceptable, why not the most lethal consumer product in history? This isn’t a debate about freedom - it’s about health, fairness, and ensuring a healthier future for generations to come.