UK smoking ban: and I thought Americans were weird

[TheVat]

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/uk-lawmakers-approve-lifetime-smoking-ban-todays-under-18s-2026-04-22/

Can someone explain a society deciding that smoking imposes too high a health burden, but then doing this half-assed ban?

You raise the legal age by one year, every year, so in ten years a 27 year old has to either sit and watch slightly older companions smoke or beg one off them (or ask them to buy a pack for them, here's X quid and a little extra for your trouble, mate)? This is absurd. Either ban cancer sticks or don't. What sort of cockamamie idea is this slow roll of age segregation which practically screams "Just try and enforce this, coppers!"

 

[DaveC426913]

You raise the legal age by one year, every year, so in ten years a 27 year old has to either sit and watch slightly older companions smoke or beg one off them (or ask them to buy a pack for them, here's X quid and a little extra for your trouble, mate)?

So, anybody who is already smoking gets to keep smoking. And anyone who has not (legally) started smoking never gets to.

Essentially, no one gets anything taken away from them that they once had.

That 27 year old never started smoking, so he doesn't miss it. What does he care if his friend smokes?

This is absurd. Either ban cancer sticks or don't.

You'd have riots.

What sort of cockamamie idea is this slow roll of age segregation which practically screams "Just try and enforce this, coppers!"

Granular enforcement is likely not the point. I'm sure they're playing a long game. It may be difficult now, but in five years or so, it won't be hard. The difficulty eventually approaches zero.

 

[Sarkus]

Can someone explain a society deciding that smoking imposes too high a health burden, but then doing this half-assed ban?

£8bn a year in tax. If they ban outright that's the hole in the public finances they would need to fill from somewhere. It's not massive, but a gradual phasing out, other than for the reasons DaveC has mentioned, means the government can slowly work to replace that tax revenue... or reduce spending (e.g. on the NHS due to smoking being a reduced issue).

It's ultimately being done this way for a number of reasons, though. Financial, social, even so as not to burden the NHS with many people suddenly being told to quit smoking. It's a big forced change to society, and while smoking has massively decreased over the past 30 years or so, I think it's okay to go slow.

 

[billvon]

Can someone explain a society deciding that smoking imposes too high a health burden, but then doing this half-assed ban?

In 1983 I was living in NY and going to school in Boston. NY raised the drinking age from 18 to 19 to 21 with no grandfather clause. In Mass it went from 18 to 20 to 21 with a grandfather clause.

In NY I went from legal to illegal twice. It was annoying and even bouncers were getting sick of it and not really enforcing it. "Geez I could let this guy in yesterday and now he's too young?"

In MA I made it under the wire and was legal for the next 3 years. This made a lot more sense. (It also made me very popular with people planning parties.)

 

[Roosters for ever]

There is an on-going campaign in Australia, illustrating the known, proven dangers of tobacco and vaping. Starting many years ago with increasing taxes on cigarettes, so that today packets of cancer sticks costs between $40 and $50 a pack.
Also every packet by law must exhibit the following warning on their product.

 

[TheVat]

Thanks all of you for perspective. Part of my perplexity was that peer groups don't sort neatly into narrow age ranges, plus the social effect of being with people who smoke and then wanting to try it.

That 27 year old never started smoking, so he doesn't miss it. What does he care if his friend smokes?

Well I wondered if the 27 year old might. Differential rights among adults don't always sit well with people, no matter how good it sounded in a committee. I do take the point "there would be riots," with a total drop the curtain banning. Maybe part of my doubt derives from the American experience of banning a very popular drug: ethanol. It did not go well. Nothing quite like telling people they can't have something to enhance the experience of sneaking off to have it. And grow criminal organizations to serve all the sneakers.

 

[TheVat]

Starting many years ago with increasing taxes on cigarettes, so that today packets of cancer sticks costs between $40 and $50 a pack.

If your dollars are anything like ours, that's a fairly impressive pricing up. That seems better than a ban, and the price effectively keeps it beyond the pocketbook of most teens. And for adults addicted, it would provide some serious economic incentive to quit, on top of the health reasons.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well I wondered if the 27 year old might.

Yes, but those are two very different reasons:

1. I'm curious to have a smoke because my friends are smoking, even though I've never smoked myself.
2. I need to have a smoke because I've been smoking every day for nine years.

One is not having something you've never had anyway.
The other is being forced to give up something that's been a staple of your life (and a highly addictive one at that).

Differential rights among adults don't always sit well with people, no matter how good it sounded in a committee. I do take the point "there would be riots," with a total drop the curtain banning. Maybe part of my doubt derives from the American experience of banning a very popular drug: ethanol.

Right. But it was unilateral.

Even folks who had been drinking had to stop. That's where the unrest comes from.

 

[DaveC426913]

That seems better than a ban, and the price effectively keeps it beyond the pocketbook of most teens.

I think what that does is fuel the black market.

If teens are allowed to smoke but are only held back by the prices, then there will always be actors who will fill that demand. And without an age law, you can't stop a teen from smoking black market products.

 

[TheVat]

Even folks who had been drinking had to stop. That's where the unrest comes from.

Yes, I guess I'm probing the difference between sting of total ban (nick fits, riots, clinics swamped with patients crying for nicotine patches, and organized crime possibly) and the sting of differential adult rights to vice. (casual crime, disrespect for law as evenly applied, etc) I will ponder for a bit.

And there may be a collateral question of: do such nanny laws work better in UK/EU/Asia/Oz than the US (cowboy culture, libertarian roots, etc)?

 

[Roosters for ever]

1. I'm curious to have a smoke because my friends are smoking, even though I've never smoked myself.

I was never curious. And I certainly was far from being a "miss/Mr goody two shoes" but always thought "How fucking stupid swallowing smoke!" Never smoked anything, ever, of any persuasion. Our old boys reunions, over the last couple of decades have gone from 12 down to 4....the smokers were first to kick the bucket.
Me? relaxing, a can or two of VB, and a packet of peanuts, while listening to some good 50's/60's music!

 

[DaveC426913]

Our old boys reunions, over the last couple of decades have gone from 12 down to 4....the smokers were first to kick the bucket.

You're making me question whether my cigar-a-day habit bodes well for my longevity.

 

[Seattle]

If your dollars are anything like ours, that's a fairly impressive pricing up. That seems better than a ban, and the price effectively keeps it beyond the pocketbook of most teens. And for adults addicted, it would provide some serious economic incentive to quit, on top of the health reasons.

Just to put it in perspective. That's for a "carton" or 10 packs or 200 cigarettes.

 

[James R]

There is an on-going campaign in Australia, illustrating the known, proven dangers of tobacco and vaping. Starting many years ago with increasing taxes on cigarettes, so that today packets of cancer sticks costs between $40 and $50 a pack.

I don't know how the price of vapes compares, or the extent to which vapes have just replaced cigarettes, especially among new smokers.

Also every packet by law must exhibit the following warning on their product. View attachment 7492

I think the warnings are a good idea, though mainly to deter new smokers. Established smokers just ignore them as best they can, I think.

I think what that does is fuel the black market.

If teens are allowed to smoke but are only held back by the prices, then there will always be actors who will fill that demand. And without an age law, you can't stop a teen from smoking black market products.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened in Australia. The criminal underworld has made illegal cigarettes a core part of its business. Again, I'd have to go looking, but I suspect that a significant percentage of all cigarettes consumed in Australia these days are products sourced and sold illegally, so that they are not subject to the large government taxes on tobacco products.

At the same time, we've also seen a significant rise in all kinds of crime related to the illegal tobacco industry. The media refers to "tobacco wars" between rival criminal organisations who are vying for control of the illegal market. Firebombings of tobacco stores are now commonplace - presumably either because the owner refused to pay "protection money" to the crime gangs or (probably more often, I think) because the illegal tobacco merchant has been sourcing the tobacco from a rival gang. It's possible, also, that legal operators have arson committed against their shops to put them out of business, leaving the illegal suppliers as the main sellers in a particular area.

The upshot of all this is that it seems to me that nicotine addiction is not a problem that can be solved simply by increasing the price of tobacco products. Trying to solve it that way just creates a host of new problems.

The key is education, which is why I think compulsory warnings on packs are a good idea. I also approve of the current government advertising campaign that is using video ads on TV and social media to point out the effects of vaping to young people who have been duped into seeing it as "cool" by essentially the same marketing methods used to lure in cigarette smokers in ages past. The short and long-term negative health effects are emphasised.

There's no cure for stupid, of course. Tobacco products can't be effectively banned, and some young people are always going to be persuaded to take up the habit. There isn't one cure-all solution to the problem and there probably never will be. I think it is overly optimistic for a government/regulator to put all their eggs in one basket and assume that just one primary strategy is going to solve the problem, without having undesirable side-effects. That is certainly what we're currently seeing in Australia. Enforcement - ensuring that tobacco outlets only supply legal products - has also been lacking, as far as I am aware, so that's another obvious area ripe for improvement.

I personally think that legal tobacco products + lots of health education + a moderately high tax on the products is a better combined strategy than a legal tobacco at a high price + not very much education. Unfortunately, the Australian government seems to have opted for the latter strategy. They might now be rethinking things in light of the gang violence and criminal damage. I don't really know, without taking a deeper dive into this.

 

[Pinball1970]

Pretty much everyone under 40 vapes now in the UK, the older guys smoke. What are the long term effects of vaping? We don't know. We used to do tobacco trips abroad to get cheap unregulated fags, probably still do.
Must be a huge burden on the NHS.

 

[Sarkus]

Just to put it in perspective. That's for a "carton" or 10 packs or 200 cigarettes.

It's currently c.£15-20 per pack of 20 cigarettes. The vast bulk of that is tax, as the government have been trying to wean people off them, and it has had a big impact.

 

[Sarkus]

Pretty much everyone under 40 vapes now in the UK, the older guys smoke. What are the long term effects of vaping? We don't know. We used to do tobacco trips abroad to get cheap unregulated fags, probably still do.
Must be a huge burden on the NHS.

The UK government are banning single use capes, and are looking at restricting advertising, where you can vape (e.g. not in a car with a child onboard), and even possibly flavours, all so as to dissuade the younger generation from starting. Then there'll be tax hikes to start to limit it. All very much the way they went with cigarettes. So a complete ban on vaping isn't out of the question at some point in the future.

 

[Roosters for ever]

Just to put it in perspective. That's for a "carton" or 10 packs or 200 cigarettes.

As of early 2026, a carton of 200 cigarettes (10 packs of 20) in Australia typically costs between $380 and $640+, depending on the brand. Due to high excise taxes, budget brands generally start around $380–$420 per carton, while premium brands like Marlboro can exceed $630.

Prices can vary slightly by retailer, but Australia has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world, with taxes comprising roughly 70-80% of the shelf price.

 

[Roosters for ever]

I don't know how the price of vapes compares, or the extent to which vapes have just replaced cigarettes, especially among new smokers.

(google) Vapes in Australia now primarily operate through a prescription-only pharmacy model, with legal, refillable devices costing significantly more than previous black-market alternatives, often ranging from $20-$25 for devices, with total costs potentially reaching up to $150. Illegal disposable vapes, still found, often cost between $30 and $60.

Key Pricing Details:

• Legal Prescription Vapes (Pharmacy): Reusable devices can cost $20-$25, with specialized pods costing roughly $7.50 each. Total costs for setups can reach $150.
• Illegal/Black Market Vapes: Illicit disposable vapes, often found in tobacconists, range from $15 to $50, though prices have increased to $40-$60 in many areas.
• Hardware:
  Entry-level pens are $30-$60, mid-range $60-$100, and premium kits over $100-$150.
• 
  
• • Regulation: As of late 2024, nicotine vaping products are strictly prescription-only and intended for smoking cessation.
  • Illicit Market: Despite bans, illegal sales persist, but authorities have intensified seizures, with penalties for illegal sales reaching up to $1.54 million.
    
    
    SMH.com.au +4
  Disclaimer: Vaping laws and availability are subject to strict regulations in Australia. The information above includes details on both legal and illicit markets.
• XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I personally think that legal tobacco products + lots of health education + a moderately high tax on the products is a better combined strategy than a legal tobacco at a high price + not very much education. Unfortunately, the Australian government seems to have opted for the latter strategy. They might now be rethinking things in light of the gang violence and criminal damage. I don't really know, without taking a deeper dive into this.

Like yourself, I havn't really dug too deep with both these filthy habits. In fact as I have said, I have never had a cigarette to my mouth, ever! and was never tempted by peer pressure back in the late fifities/ early sixties. But again as in many other critical social areas, our Albo led Labor government is at least attempting a strategy.
I would also say the current gang violence in Melbourne and Sydney we are now seeing, is a result of penis waving with competing young gangs, that are involved in many criminal aspects other then illegal tobacco and vapes.

 

[Seattle]

It's currently c.£15-20 per pack of 20 cigarettes. The vast bulk of that is tax, as the government have been trying to wean people off them, and it has had a big impact.

Most of it is tax here as well. I rarely see people smoking anymore. I don't have a sense of how many younger people vape.