Is the UK’s "smoke-free generation" plan destined to backfire?
In this episode of GFN News, host Zuzanna Kopacz sits down with author and freelance writer Jacob Grier to unpack the practical realities and hidden dangers of the newly passed UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
While the policy aims to create a smoke-free generation by phasing out legal tobacco sales for anyone born after 2009, Grier argues that the legislation ignores the needs of current smokers. Worse yet, by introducing sweeping bans on vape advertising and targeting alternative nicotine flavors, the bill threatens to shut down the very pathways that help smokers successfully switch to lower-risk harm reduction products.
Transcription:
00:00 - 00:59
[Zuzanna Kopacz]
Welcome to GFN News on GFN TV. I'm Zuzanna Kopacz. The UK government has recently passed the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, aiming to create a smoke-free generation by prohibiting tobacco sales to those born after 2009. Today, we are joined by an author and freelance writer, Jacob Grier, who shares his perspective on the policy and the potential unintended consequences. Hi, Jacob. You've raised concerns about the UK's generational smoking ban. What do you see as the biggest risk in how it might affect smokers' behaviour?
01:00 - 02:21
[Jacob Grier]
Well, I think the thing to note is that right off the bat, the headline policy here about prohibiting sales of tobacco to people born in 2009 and later does nothing for existing smokers, which is a great health concern. If you're an existing smoker in the UK, this law does not affect you in terms of your access to tobacco products. What it does potentially affect is your access to safer alternatives, which is very worrying. So it bans advertising for e-cigarettes and it potentially puts on the table an easier path to banning flavored vapes as well. So for these generations of people who smoke already, I think the immediate implication is that we may see it harder to encourage them to switch to safer products, which is a big risk, especially given the recent ban a couple of years ago on disposable vapes. So for existing smokers, as much attention as this law is getting, it doesn't do much for them at all in the short run. And then I think in the long run, which is something I'm sure we'll talk about more in this interview, you may see, you will likely see an increase in illicit products and illicit cigarettes, which would then by definition be untaxed. And so you may even see cheaper cigarettes coming onto the market, which would then even further discourage switching among existing smokers.
02:23 - 02:31
[Zuzanna Kopacz]
And do you think this kind of policy could influence how people move between traditional cigarettes and lower-risk nicotine alternatives?
02:32 - 03:08
[Jacob Grier]
For existing smokers, certainly. A lot will depend on how far the UK decides to go with new powers to regulate vaping and alternative products. If they take a fairly hands-off approach, then I think you can be somewhat optimistic, though the immediate ban on advertising is certainly concerning right from the beginning. If they take a stronger approach in terms of regulating or eliminating flavors, which we know are part of what makes vaping appealing and helps smokers switch, then I think you'd be very pessimistic about the results that this would have in the long term.
03:10 - 03:19
[Zuzanna Kopacz]
From a practical standpoint, how might this ban reshape access to nicotine products, both legal and potentially informal?
03:19 - 06:24
[Jacob Grier]
Well, on the legal front, it obviously affects a lot. And I think it does so in a really irrational way. The generational ban does not apply in a rational way to, say, safer tobacco products. It just bans tobacco across the board. And so you have products like, say, heated tobacco or snus, which have varied but still pretty strong records of harm reduction that are banned for no real reason. Like, you can certainly understand why someone would want to ban cigarettes, which are incredibly deadly, and, say, cigars and pipes, which also has significant health risks. But to then apply the same ban to heated tobacco and especially snus doesn't make a lot of sense. And then as the ban goes into effect and as people age into maturity, you'll end up in this absurd situation where, say, someone who's 50 years old could go and buy a cigar, but their 49-year-old friend would be prohibited. And it seems really unlikely that retailers or anyone will respect the situation as consenting adults age into being affected by these laws. I mean, we certainly see now it's a problem with youth access. A 17-year-old gets their 18-year-old friend to buy them a pack of cigarettes, or in the United States, it'd be 20 and 21. And it's hard to imagine that continuing into perpetuity. So obviously, concerns over illicit markets need to be taken seriously, and I don't think they are by the advocates of this ban. And we see this in other countries that have tried very restrictive tobacco policies. You can look to Australia, and they have incredibly high cigarette taxes, and they have required vapes to be sold only with prescription. So by some estimates, more than half of the cigarette market is illicit at this point. from people trying to evade taxes and vapes are by definition almost entirely illegal. And this has empowered criminal gangs and it's created a crime wave in Australia. It's really remarkable. You've had more than 250 arsons in the past few years, including one that took an innocent life when they hit the wrong house. And you see this in the UK, not to the same extent of the violence, of course, but there's illicit markets for tobacco there. There's a great investigation by the BBC where they went into shops and filmed retailers pulling cigarettes, untaxed cigarettes, out of floorboards and hidden caves. We've seen this with every drug. We've seen it with alcohol. We've seen it with cannabis. We've seen it in tobacco where people try to ban it. The illicit markets are resilient. People are clever. Where there's a profit opportunity, people will bring in products. So I think as this ban affects more people over the years, you'll encourage illicit markets in tobacco. And if they also go after flavored vapes, you'll encourage illicit markets in that. So I think that's something you have to consider in the cost of lost revenue from taxes, potential violence, the cost of enforcement. None of that is really factored into the decision to do this generational ban.
06:26 - 06:33
[Zuzanna Kopacz]
And if the goal is to reduce smoking harm, what outcomes should policymakers be focusing on as this policy is introduced?
06:35 - 07:34
[Jacob Grier]
I think they should focus on the same things that we'd all wish they were focusing on, even if we didn't have this policy, which is encouraging anyone who's going to use nicotine or who currently uses nicotine to do it in the safest possible way. So that means taxing things in somewhat proportion to their potential harm It means educational campaigns about vaping, about nicotine pouches, anything that's a safer approach than smoking cigarettes. I think we have a ton of conventional means of fighting smoking, which we're seeing are working. And that's rational taxes, restricting where people can light up, educational campaigns, and most importantly these days, introducing innovative products that are much safer than cigarettes. So hopefully, if the UK goes that route, we'll see less interest in smoked tobacco, whether it's legal or not. Of course, the risk is they will get that wrong and then more and more people will turn to illicit markets instead.
07:36 - 07:55
[Zuzanna Kopacz]
Thank you, Jacob. That's all for today. Join us next time on GFN TV or tune in to our podcast. And don't forget to follow us on social media for the latest updates from this year's Global Forum on Nicotine Conference. Thanks for watching or listening. See you soon.