Tag: Generational Tobacco Ban

Poll: Adults Should be Allowed to Buy Tobacco

Image: auremar
Almost three-fifths of people in Britain say that when people are 18 and legally an adult, they should be allowed to purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products, a new poll conducted on behalf of the smokers’ lobby group Forest has found.
Conducted by Yonder Consulting, the survey found that 58 percent of respondents think that if a person can vote, drive a car, buy alcohol or possess a credit card at 18, they should also be allowed to purchase tobacco.
Fewer than a third (32 percent) said they should not be allowed to purchase tobacco products when they are legally an adult at 18, while 10 percent said, “don’t know.”
Excluding “don’t knows,” almost two-thirds (65 percent) think that when people are 18 and legally an adult they should be allowed to purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products.
The poll comes on the final day for submissions to the government consultation on banning the sale of tobacco to future generations of adults born after 2008.
The consultation ends Dec. 6 and Forest is urging the government not to introduce a generational ban on the sale of tobacco but to follow the example of the new center-right government in New Zealand which has announced that it will repeal a similar generational sales ban introduced by that country’s previous Labour government.

Banning the sale of tobacco to future generations of adults is gesture politics by a prime minister who has run out of ideas and is desperate to leave a legacy.
Simon Clark, director, Forest
“As soon as you are legally an adult you should be treated like one and allowed to buy tobacco, if that’s your choice,” said Simon Clark, director of Forest.
“We can’t have a two-tier society in which some adults are permitted to buy cigarettes, and others are denied the same opportunity.
“Banning the sale of tobacco to future generations of adults is gesture politics by a prime minister who has run out of ideas and is desperate to leave a legacy.
“It ignores the consequences for law-abiding retailers, who will have to enforce this absurd policy, and drives a stake into the heart of traditional Conservative values such as freedom of choice and personal responsibility.”
The government consultation has also invited responses to proposals for further regulations on vaping products. Forest is urging the government to not ban disposable vapes, make vapes subject to excise duty, or restrict the promotion and display of vapes in shops.
According to Clark, vaping has been a free-market success story. “Millions of smokers who want to quit have done so by switching voluntarily to e-cigarettes and other reduced risk products, including heated tobacco and nicotine pouches,” he said.
“The issue of children vaping should be addressed not by imposing further restrictions on vapes but by enforcing existing age restrictions and punishing retailers who sell vapes illegally to children.”
December 5, 2023
Malaysia Passes Watered-Down Bill

Image: PX Media
Malaysia’s lower house of Parliament has passed the Control of Smoking Products and Public Health Bill without the controversial generational endgame (GEG) clause, reports the New Straits Times.
The legislation regulates advertisements, packaging and smoke-free places but excludes a provision that would have made it illegal for Malaysians born after 2007 to buy or consume nicotine products.
Health Minister Zaliha Mustafa said the GEG was dropped due to constitutional concerns. The Attorneys General Chambers had warned that the proposal contravenes Article 8 of Malaysia’s constitution, as it creates unequal treatment before the law between persons born before Jan. 1, 2007, and individuals born after the date.
Critics blamed Malaysia’s U-turn on tobacco lobbying.
Zaliha insisted that any shortcomings in the bill could be improved over time.
November 30, 2023
Health Advocates Slam Endgame Reversals

Photo: aletia2011
Health advocates condemned moves in New Zealand and Malaysia to scrap legislation that would have banned tobacco sales to future generations.
Passed by the previous government, the New Zealand measure would have outlawed tobacco sales to anyone born after Jan. 1, 2009. It also would have limited the amount of nicotine allowed in smoked tobacco products and cut the number of tobacco retailers by 90 percent.
After New Zealand’s elections earlier this year, the country’s new center-right coalition announced it would repeal the generational tobacco ban.
“This is major loss for public health, and a huge win for the tobacco industry – whose profits will be boosted at the expense of Kiwi lives,” Boyd Swinburn, co-chair of Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA) in New Zealand, was quoted as saying by Reuters.
HCA pointed to academic research that found the laws could have saved some $1.3 billion in health system costs over 20 years, and reduced mortality rates.
In Malaysia meanwhile, lawmakers decided to remove a generational tobacco ban from proposed legislation after that country’s attorney general questioned the constitutionality of the endgame clause because it would create two sets of laws for two groups of citizens based on age.
Former Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin, however, blamed the tobacco lobby for Malaysia’s U-turn.
“Don’t even think for a minute that GEG [generational endgame] was dropped because of some lame excuse of a legal argument proffered by the AG,” he was quoted as saying by The Star. “No, GEG was dropped because of the strong lobby from Big Tobacco.”
Despite the setback, Jamaluddin said the fight against tobacco would continue. “This is not over,” he said. “One day, public health will win.”
Even as New Zealand and Malaysia reversed their endgame clauses, England reiterated its commitment to its version of the plan. Asked whether Rishi Sunak would consider following New Zealand and Malaysia’s examples, a spokeswoman for the British prime minister said: “No, our position remains unchanged. This is an important long-term decision and step to deliver a smoke-free generation which remains critically important.”
November 28, 2023
U.K. Still Committed to Generational Ban

Photo: William Richardson
England remains committed to its generational tobacco ban despite New Zealand decision to ax a similar plan, reports the Central Fife Times.
Britain’s government has proposed legislation that would make it illegal for anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, to ever legally buy cigarettes, effectively raising the legal age of purchase by one year, every year.
The legislation was inspired by a generational tobacco ban passed by New Zealand’s former government.
Following New Zealand’s recent general elections, however, the new coalition announced it would repeal the legislation, arguing that there are better ways to improve public health.
Smokers’ rights activists urged England to follow suit by ditching its version of the generational tobacco ban.
“Having stolen the idea from the previous New Zealand government, the prime minister should follow the example of the next New Zealand government and scrap this crazy plan,” said Forest director Simon Clark.
Asked whether Rishi Sunak would consider following Wellington’s lead, a spokeswoman for the British prime minister said: “No, our position remains unchanged. This is an important long-term decision and step to deliver a smoke-free generation which remains critically important.”
A government-commissioned report published in June 2022 put the annual cost to society of smoking at about £17 billion ($21.51 billion).
November 28, 2023
New Zealand Ditches Generational Ban

Photo: asanojunki0110
New Zealand’s new coalition government plans to scrap the country’s controversial generational tobacco ban, which would have prohibited tobacco products for people born after 2009, reports CodeBlue.
The coalition agreement signed on Nov. 24 by the National Party, the ACT and New Zealand First in the wake of the country’s general elections calls for a repeal of amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 and regulations, which took effect Jan. 1, 2023,
In addition to prohibiting anyone from selling or supplying smoked tobacco products to people born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, the amendments would have restricted the sale of smoked tobacco products to a limited number of approved retail outlets and extended the act’s regulatory powers over the composition of smoked tobacco products, such as nicotine levels.
While ditching the generational tobacco ban, the new government vowed to get tough on vaping by banning disposable e-cigarettes and increasing penalties for illegal sales to those aged under 18.
Health advocates criticized the reversal of the amendments. “Way to start being health minister—by caving into the tobacco industry,” New Zealand’s former Health Minister Ayesha Verrall wrote on X about her successor, Shane Reti. “Repealing smokefree laws will mean thousands of deaths.”
Smoker rights’ group Forest welcomed the repeal, and urged British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to follow suit by abandoning similar measures in the United Kingdom.
“The policy treats future generations of adults like kids and it won’t work. It will simply drive smokers into the hands of illegal traders and criminal gangs,” said Forest Director Simon Clark.
“The consequences of the policy, which would eventually allow a 40-year-old to legally buy cigarettes while denying that right to a 39-year-old, are absurd.
“Having stolen the idea from the previous New Zealand government, the prime minister should follow the example of the next New Zealand government and scrap this crazy idea.”
On the same day of the announcement in New Zealand, Malaysia approved revisions to the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023 that decoupled that country’s planned generational end game ban from the tobacco and vape control bill.
November 24, 2023
Malaysia Minister Vows to Table Smoking Bill

Photo: somemeans
Malaysia’s health minister has vowed to table the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Bill 2023 before the end of the current parliament’s session on Nov. 30, reports The Star.
“God-willing, I assure you that we will table this Bill before the end of the current Parliament session,” Zaliha Mustafa was quoted as saying.
His comments came after the Attorney General Chambers reiterated an earlier statement that the Generational Endgame Ban (GEG) clause of the proposed legislation can be challenged in court.
The GEG seeks to ban tobacco and vape products for anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2007.
The Attorneys General Chambers insist this provision contravenes Article 8 of Malaysia’s constitution, as it creates unequal treatment before the law between a person born before that date and individuals born after the date.
It was unclear from contradictory reports whether the bill heading to parliament still includes the GEG. An earlier report by CodeBlue suggested the clause had been removed in response to the constitutional concerns raised by the Attorney General Chambers.
The legislation also includes provisions on registration of tobacco products, advertisement, packaging and smoke-free places, among other items.
November 19, 2023
King’s Speech: Activists Decry Generational Ban

Image: Michael
Smokers’ rights group Forest condemned the U.K. government’s official announcement of legislation that will deny future generations of adults the right to purchase tobacco.
During the opening of the new session of Britain’s parliament today, King Charles presented the government’s plans for new legislation, which includes a generational tobacco bill, as reported by the BBC and other news outlets.
The proposed legislation would make it illegal for anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009, to ever legally buy cigarettes, effectively raising the legal age of purchase by one year, every year.
The government is also looking to bring in rules regulating the flavors and descriptions of vapes that critics say are targeted at children.
“This is the worst form of nanny state regulation because it treats consenting adults like children,” said Forest Director Simon Clark.
“If you’re old enough to vote, drive a car, join the army, and purchase alcohol, you’re old enough to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products.
Clark warned that the legislation would boost the black market.
“The biggest benefactor from prohibition won’t be public health but criminal gangs and other illicit traders,” he said.
“Given everything else that is going on in the world, at home and abroad, it’s staggering that a Conservative government would waste valuable parliamentary time banning the sale of tobacco to adults who are perfectly capable of making informed decisions for themselves.”
November 7, 2023
A Pipe Dream?

Photo: Filipa
Britain’s plan to create a smoke-free generation could be momentous if implemented properly—and herein lies the problem.
By George Gay
The Guardian newspaper on Oct. 6 published a trenchant cartoon by Ben Jennings that showed an angry-looking U.K. prime minister driving or stuck in traffic on a road heavily polluted with vehicle fumes. But it is not the vehicle fumes that are making Rishi Sunak angry. He is shouting at a pedestrian student choking on the fumes as he makes his way to school: “Maybe you should stop smoking.”
For readers not based in the U.K., I should explain that, two days earlier, the prime minister’s office had issued a news bulletin titled, “Prime Minister to create ‘smoke-free generation’ by ending cigarette sales to those born on or after 1 January 2009,” while, previously, we had been told that Sunak was considering taking away the powers of local governments to protect children by preventing cars being driven right up to school gates.
I hope that the Jennings cartoon was seen by those public health officials who are quoted in the bulletin as not only supporting the policy, which is a reasonable stance for them to take, but as heaping praise on the prime minister for looking after the interests of young people. They might like to ponder the way Sunak, as chancellor under prime minister Boris Johnson, resisted calls for extending the provision of free school meals to needy children; the way he has served in a government that has allowed more than 100 schools to become structurally unsound; the way he remained in government while it rolled out a chaotic pandemic-period education program, possibly ruining the life chances of countless children; the way he has in mind to prevent local governments from introducing lower speed limits and car-free zones, both of which have positive consequences for children; the way he has condoned the placement of lone asylum-seeking children in hotels, despite the high court’s having found the practice unlawful; and, possibly most heinous of all, the way he condoned the painting over of cartoon murals at other centers housing children seeking asylum lest the centers became too welcoming.
I hope the public health people concerned do think about these matters, which are by no means exhaustive, and each of which will negatively affect the mental and physical well-being of children under the care of Sunak, a committed fossil fuel aficionado. And I hope that, in the future, before being drawn into the political sphere, they bear in mind that politicians regularly use children much as conjurors use their assistants.
I should let it be known also that Sunak heads a party that has been in government for 13 years, that is deeply divided and unpopular and that faces an election next year. In fact, his situation puts me in mind of Maynard Keynes, who apparently once made the point that when something momentous was at stake, the last things you needed in the mix were politicians trawling for votes.
The success or otherwise of this policy will hinge on satisfying, clean nicotine products remaining available even to young adults who will not be able legally to buy cigarettes.
Objections
Having said all that, I must admit that I think the proposed policy could be important, if not momentous. Nevertheless, I am conflicted because whereas I think the policy could offer huge advantages, it will do so only if it is implemented properly, and herein lies the problem. It is being rolled out in its initial phase by politicians trawling for votes.
One of the objections put forward by those opposed to such a policy is that it amounts to a creeping prohibition that aims eventually to disallow smokers from obtaining the products they seek. But is this correct? I can sympathize with those who worry about how such a policy might lead to a “creeping” overreach that takes in current smokers, but I wonder whether this could be described as “prohibition.”
Look at it this way: If there is one message that most tobacco harm reduction advocates have been keen to get across in recent years, it is that smokers smoke for the (benign) nicotine while being laid low by inhaling the tar that is a product of tobacco combustion. So, in fairness, while granting that the government is not proposing that current smokers should not be allowed to obtain cigarettes, it must be conceded also that it is not even proposing that they, or future generations of people, should not have access to nicotine, the substance that smokers want. And even if there is policy creep, the way things currently stand, smokers will not be subjected to a true prohibition because they will have access to nicotine. The proposal seems to my way of thinking to be only about stopping future generations and, given a bit of creep, current generations from inhaling tar, which, apparently, is not what smokers want but the thing that masks the otherwise unpalatable taste of nicotine and harms them.
Meanwhile, some people believe that a major issue with the proposed policy is that it simply won’t work—that those who are underage will be able to obtain cigarettes through family members, friends and retailers who turn a blind eye to the law. There is clearly truth in this because the underaged can obtain cigarettes now, but I cannot see that this matters a great deal, at least at a societal level. In fact, it might provide something of a safety valve for the policy. We have vehicle speed limits in the U.K. that are broken by most people on most days, but those limits nevertheless tend to reduce the speed at which people would otherwise drive. People might drive at 35 mph in 30 mph areas, but few do 45 mph. That such a system works can be seen from the fact that few outside of those on the lunatic fringe of libertarianism would agree to speed limits being abolished, allowing petrol heads to drive through cities at 150 mph. And so it is that the tobacco purchasing age law, along with the continuing availability of satisfying, cleaner nicotine products, would have the effect of reducing the number of people taking up smoking. But, of course, it would not stop it.

The way things currently stand, smokers will not be subjected to a true prohibition because they will have access to nicotine. | Photo: VPZ
Offering Alternatives
Nevertheless, as suggested above, the policy does raise concerns in my mind to do with the timing of it and the commitment to it of the current government and even a future government of a different stripe. Also as suggested above, the success or otherwise of this policy will hinge on satisfying, clean nicotine products remaining available even to young adults who, because of their age, will not be able legally to buy cigarettes. This is fundamental to me. I cannot imagine, as others apparently can, a future unchanging utopia where no one uses recreational drugs. And given I am correct in my assumption, cleanly delivered nicotine should have its place in the future. It is a popular and relatively safe drug, especially when compared with something such as alcohol, which, for reasons I can only guess at, is given a free pass by most public health people even though its consumption is a bigger drain on society than tobacco consumption.
But I digress. The reason I am not convinced the policy will be implemented in a coherent way is that the government, as part of its Oct. 4 news bulletin, said it was planning “a further major crackdown on youth vaping by announcing an intention to consult on plans to reduce the appeal and availability of vapes to children.” The consultation is to take in flavors and product descriptors, disposable vapes, point-of-sale displays, and packaging and product presentation.
It doesn’t take a genius to know which way this is going. The government says it wants to ensure it gets the balance right between protecting young people and supporting adult smokers to quit, but this is politics, and the “child epidemic” lobby will be allowed to have its finger pressing down on its side of the balance. And if the appeal to adults of clean nicotine products is significantly reduced, then it’s game over. The policy will simply pass the ball to those waiting to fuel the illegal trade in vaping devices and, probably, cigarettes.
Rushed Policies
But having said that, the policy could work in theory even though satisfying, cleaner nicotine products were not available, though it would take an investment in policing, the judiciary and the prison service to which no government would commit. The news bulletin said that “[e]nforcement activity will also be strengthened, with an investment of £30 million ($36.42 million) to support agencies such as local trading standards, HMRC [tax collection] and Border Force to take action to stop underage sales and tackle the import of illicit tobacco and vaping products at the border.” You would have to be terribly naive to believe that this amount would be guaranteed, and, in any case, it would be nowhere near enough and would probably not even make up for the disinvestment made in respect of these agencies during the Conservative governments’ 13 years of austerity. The major reason why young people are currently able to obtain vapes so easily is that the funding of trading standards was hugely undermined.
Another reason why the policy, though not without merit, is likely to fail is that it probably has not been thought through properly. The U.K. currently is awash with policies rushed out in order to make it appear, ahead of the election, that the government has a purpose. A recent announcement on railway investments was shot through with errors and failed even to place Manchester, the U.K.’s third-most populous city, correctly on a map.
The tobacco news bulletin is a rambling, repetitive affair that apparently aims to make up with quantity what it lacks in quality. Consequently, we are told on seven occasions that smoking costs the country billions. There are 77 references to smoke or smoking, but you could be forgiven for missing the point that the ban on sales will apparently apply to tobacco products, not just combustible products, because this gets only two mentions. It is full of the usual platitudes that don’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny, such as “[n]o parent ever wants their child to start smoking.” It appears to include one glaring error in saying, “It is already illegal for children to vape.” And it quotes the chief executive of Cancer Research U.K., Michelle Mitchell, as saying, “[t]he prime minister deserves great credit for putting the health of its citizens ahead of the interests of the tobacco lobby,” without adding a caveat to say that if the government had listened to Philip Morris International years ago, the country would already be a long way down the track to being a smoke-free nation.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

November 1, 2023