Smoking is more than simply a bad habit that costs ridiculous amounts of money and kills people – smoking is a contentious political hot potato that raises issues such as personal freedom of choice and economic checks and balances. Over the last couple of weeks, the papers have been filled with stories from the opposition government in the UK which says they will completely ban the sale of tobacco products should they come into power.
But is it really that good an idea?
While a total ban on smoking inside public buildings is now completely normal in most developed countries, the next argument coming through political parties is whether the cigarette itself should be totally banned -essentially outlawing the sale of all tobacco products.
While the understandable benefits to a nation’s health are the biggest ‘pro’ argument, there are a number of arguments against a total ban that need also be taken into account. We weigh up the arguments here.
In favor of a total ban on cigarettes
Public Health Benefits
Despite a significant decline in the number of adults smoking, cigarettes are still the cause of a significant proportion of deaths in the UK, contributing to 15 percent of cancers. According to 2019 figures, 125,000 deaths in the UK were attributed to tobacco.
Advocates for a total ban on cigarettes highlight the significant public health benefits it would bring. The evidence that links smoking to many preventable diseases and premature deaths, including cancer, heart disease, and respiratory ailments, has been stacked up over decades of studies and research. It stands to reason that if the products themselves were completely taken out of the equation, then eventually, we would see their effects reversed.
Removing the economic burden on public health
A total ban on cigarettes would alleviate the economic burden associated with smoking-related healthcare costs. The expenses incurred in treating smoking-related illnesses are significant – for example, the cost to the UK NHS is estimated to be around £17 billion – money that could be redistributed to other more needy areas of public health and social care.
But it is not simply a case of what it costs – but also a case of what it takes away in terms of productivity losses due to illness and premature death. By eliminating smoking, the financial resources currently allocated to treating smoking-related diseases could be redirected toward preventive measures, education, and other healthcare needs. Moreover, a ban could foster a healthier and more productive workforce, reducing absenteeism and improving overall productivity.
Arguments against a Total Ban on Cigarettes
An attack on personal freedoms
We all have the right to make our own decisions, and that includes making our own mistakes. Every time we step outside our front doors, we put our lives at risk.
Tobacco products are expensive items – and a significant proportion of the price tag is given straight back to the government. So it could be argued that smokers are paying for their own risk. Should they get ill due to their decision to smoke, then they have paid for the right to be treated as a result.
That notwithstanding, taking away that decision could be considered an infringement on personal freedoms and individual autonomy, which is only setting a precedent for further encroachments on personal freedom, raising concerns about the role of the government in regulating individual choices. If someone wants to huddle in cold and draughty smoking shelters on their tea break to puff on a cigarette, that is their individual choice.
Creating an ‘under counter’ economy
Prohibition in the States during the 1920s did not work. It merely created an underground culture of speakeasy bars and violence. Narcotics are illegal substances that have resulted in decades worth of black markets and mafia rule, which has caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders.
A complete ban on cigarettes will only exacerbate an already thriving black market for illicit tobacco products. The current market is avoiding the additional tax so that people can buy the products cheaper. If no one can buy them on the open market, this will push trade into the underground markets – outside of government control and straight into the hands of the criminals.
