Rishi Sunak’s Smoking Ban is ‘Straight Out of Jacinda Ardern’s Health Authoritarian Playbook’

Why is a Conservative Prime Minister following the lead of health authoritarian Jacinda Ardern in introducing a progressive smoking ban that will see everyone born after 2009 banned from buying cigarettes, asks Annabel Denham in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt.

Had Number 10 given any deep thought to a progressive cigarette and tobacco ban – which will see the age at which people can buy these products rise by one year every year so that, eventually, no one can purchase them – they would perhaps have realised how ill-conceived, illiberal, infantilising and illogical it is.

That the idea has its origins in New Zealand – the country that locked itself down for nearly the longest time and refused to let its citizens come home, and requires Māori theory of creation to be taught in science lessons – should have raised a red flag. Sunak, who recently re-instilled hope that he could be the true heir to Margaret Thatcher and cauterise the wound seared by 2022’s mini-Budget, has now aligned himself with Jacinda Ardern. He may be putting this to a free vote, but history will remember who put this legislation on the cards.

Much as Akshata Murty may have endeared and persuaded delegates in Manchester of her husband’s commitment to Conservative values, there isn’t a shred of Conservatism in this policy. No personal autonomy; the idea that people will make trade-offs – and sometimes choose the unhealthy option, such is the wonder of the human condition. Though more often than not nowadays, when it comes to tobacco, they don’t: the proportion of smokers has fallen significantly in recent decades: from half of adults in the early 1970s to just 14% now. 

There was seemingly no consideration of the unintended consequences – the black market that this policy will buttress and the corresponding reduction in tax revenues. And, as usual, the nannying measure is being cloaked in the language of public health and justified on the grounds that it will help protect our socialist, creaking healthcare system. 

Here are the facts, for MPs who may soon have to decide whether to wave through this awful policy. Smokers don’t cost the NHS money, they save it. A 2017 study from the Institute of Economic Affairs estimated a net saving of £14.7 billion per annum at the rates of consumption at the time, with the costs smokers incurred significantly outweighed by the sum of tobacco duty paid and the old-age expenditures avoided due to premature mortality.

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

54 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Smith
Ron Smith
2 years ago

with the costs smokers incurred significantly outweighed by the sum of tobacco duty paid and the old-age expenditures avoided due to premature mortality”

I’m with Right Said Fred….It all started with the seatbelt law.

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  Ron Smith

I also meant to put, that goes for fat people too!

True Spirit of America Party
True Spirit of America Party
2 years ago
Reply to  Ron Smith

So true

A Y M
2 years ago
Reply to  Ron Smith

That point is also factually inaccurate. The reality is that taxes on cigarettes vastly outweigh injury and illness costs caused by the “filthy” habit. It is illnesses caused by obesity and poor eating and drinking habits that are by far the biggest weight on our “Healthcare” system.

This guy is so far from conservative it’s painful to watch. Wtf is he wearing on his wrist in the picture. What a monkey.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

Fatties and boozers die early, so short term costs may be higher, but overall their cost is less.

And the assumption cannot be made that such people would not be consuming healthcare anyway, but for their lard-arse and/or boozing.

ekathulium
ekathulium
2 years ago
Reply to  A Y M

Yes, the oft quoted imposition by smokers of costs upon the health service belies the fact that smokers pay for the costs seven times over. In other words, they subsidize the rest of us.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago
Reply to  Ron Smith

Injuries had been falling for years prior to seatbelt laws. Initially seat belt laws reduced front seat casualties, but increased back seat casualties

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  JXB

And most people would still wear them, I don’t when going down town, but if going out of town in the main road I stick it on. Clickety click, almost every trip…Twin Town!

Steven Robinson
Steven Robinson
2 years ago

Another example of David McGrogan’s Law 3.0. Laws are being passed to make wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong behaviour impossible.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago

All to benefit tte State, not for the benefit of the individual, and at the expense of the individual.

Mogwai
2 years ago

Alright, this is dead funny. But it might just be me..

https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/1709609906251186311

Freddy Boy
2 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

👍👏

NeilofWatford
2 years ago

Cut him in half and like a stick of Blackpool rock you’ll find ‘Globalist’ written through his middle.
Today’s theatrics are calculated spin to woo the gullible.
He and Hunt usurped Truss to pursue the WEF agenda.
Judge them by their deeds, not their words. A tree is known by its fruit.

GroundhogDayAgain
2 years ago

I’m not a smoker but this is utterly pathetic.

This year you have to prove you’re 18, fair enough.

But in 15 years you’ll have to prove you’re 33, in 45 years you’ll have to prove you’re 63 and in 60 years you’ll have to be 78.

I’ll be long gone by then, but imagine newsagents being subjected to sting operations where a 77 y/o tries to buy ciggies. 70 year olds will be lurking outside shops waiting for an octogenarian to come past.

RW
RW
2 years ago

The idea is that people born after 2005 will never come of age wrt buying tobacco products because the age required for that will always raise in line with their age. In other words, the idea is to abolish the concept of coming of age starting with the generation of 2006. They’ll never be allowed the same level of freedom to make their own decisions older generation used to enjoy. A side effect of that is that carrying an ID will become mandatory for smokers of all ages in 10 – 15 years at latest because ID checks will become necessary whenever someone wants to buy a packet of fags, regardless of age and legal status. And that’s obviously just the start. There are a lot of other things public healthocrats would also like to outlaw, consuming alcoholic beverages and eating ‘unhealty’ food would immediately come to mind here.

Rishi is showing his true colours as Everything not explicitly allowed by law is prohibited and experts decide what can and cannot be allowed! guy here.

True Spirit of America Party
True Spirit of America Party
2 years ago

I know, right? So ridiculous!

ebygum
2 years ago

Who the hell cares? When I was a kid everybody’s mam and dad smoked..and I mean everybody’s…..so what?
We are now a lot more health aware, but so what..? Why the fu** is it the Governments job to tell me what I may and may not do…how I may and may not spend my time…health, and money?
Where the fu** is this leading..besides total control.

I have never smoked…..I never will. Then again I like a pint..so do the anti-drink brigade get to tell me what to do? Hell no!! This is slippery slope stuff…

This is ‘no one is safe until we are all safe’ scary dystopian crap.

Get the economy on track..get education doing what it is supposed to do..ditto the health service..ditto a million and one things..and stop interfering in the minutiae of my life….

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

I have never smoked…..I never will. Then again I like a pint..so do the anti-drink brigade get to tell me what to do? Hell no!! This is slippery slope stuff…

Not yet. But you are already subject to regularly increased sin taxes because of this and if the smoking experiment goes well, the notion is certainly going to be extended. There are a real lot of things experts (usually of their own calling) really think you shouldn’t be doing.

7941MHKB
7941MHKB
2 years ago
Reply to  RW

Hard to understand why sport, climbing walls etc are exempt from all this Saintly risk avoidance.

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  7941MHKB

That’s absolutely simple to understand. The people behind this always operate on the same principle:

1) Everything we want to do is healthy and fine and should – at best – be made mandatory for all.

2) Everything we don’t want to do is unhealthy and extremely evil and must be prohibited.

General statements made in support of either 1) or 2) are always just window dressing.

LaptopMaestro
LaptopMaestro
2 years ago
Reply to  RW

Booze is easy to make though

JohnK
2 years ago

“A 2017 study from the ….” about smoking actually results in a net saving. They might have been reading the script of the old BBC show ‘Yes, Minister’, in which Sir Humphrey (the Permanent Sec) advised the politician to do just that, making the point that it reduced life expectancy, reduced the cost of state pensions, NHS running costs, and raised revenue up front via duty and tax on top! Of course, that was presented as a comedy show, but you never know how close to the truth things are, sometimes.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

They have no chance. I have tracked this market quite carefully ans so have they and cheap knock off cigratettes are becoming ubiquitous. About a third the cost of standard Britsh prices. This is a constantly growing market. A lot of this tobacco is processed locally and is of very poor quality with very toxic added ingredients. They know all of this stuff. They don’t care. It is just cheap stratagem. An attempt to grasp a few voters from a particular niche. You should treat these people with the contempt that they deserve. It does diminish their power if you walk away. Yes you can argue that someone always gets into power and you can rightly say that ignoring politics does not mean that it will ignore you but at this point there is great power in just considering these creatures irrelevant.

WithASmallC
WithASmallC
2 years ago

It’s funny how the progressive liberals want to decriminalise drugs to stop the black market yet they want to do the opposite with cigarettes.

Also, why doesn’t the Age Discrimination Act apply?

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  WithASmallC

That’s quite unfunny: They want to decriminalise the drugs they’re taking themselves. And criminalise all others.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
2 years ago
Reply to  WithASmallC

This gets to the heart of the question. Some things are potentially harmful to individuals who take/use them and may have societal costs such as addiction leading to people being unable to work, or needing more health care.
However if we accept that people should be free to make some poor choices, e.g. smoking or drinking as much as they want to, it’s double standards/hypocrisy to say people shouldn’t be to make other poor choices e.g. taking currently illegal drugs.
I can’t see any logically coherent position other than saying people should be able to use any harmful substance they want to or saying anything that may be harmful should be banned/restricted.
It’s only an historical quirk that heroin, cannabis etc. are currently illegal but tobacco and alcohol are legal. If history had of resulted in the opposite situation I bet socially conservative people would oppose tobacco and alcohol being legalised while at the same time opposing ‘nanny state’ attempts to limit cannabis use.

varmint
2 years ago
Reply to  Matt Dalby

Climate activists often use the idea that the smoking industry denied the harms smoking does. And they use this as an analogy that climate change is also harmful and fossil fuel companies deny it. ——This is a very bad analogy. It is as clear as day that smoking is harmful. We have all seen lungs cut open blackened by smoke.———But banning things is a different question.

Judy Watson
Judy Watson
2 years ago
Reply to  WithASmallC

This is something that I don’t understand. Why make cannabis legal but stop tobacco? As far as I am aware tobacco isused along with cannabis to make a joint/spliff or whatever the current terminology is.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

There is more to the ideology of a cigarette than people realise. It is beyond the scope of comments here to go into it. You could write volumes on a simple subject like the distinction between a cigarette and a cigar. And then you could go into health concerns, moral philosophy, the tyranny of the majority etc. Just be aware that your enemies aren’t good faith actors on any level. Sunak and his wife just invested 500 million in Moderna. Even by the standards of the death jab Moderna has turned out to be particularly horrific on every level. And you allow this man to be at your helm or even to credit his utterances with credibility? To put it simply you need to understand the low level that these people are coming from.

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  Jabby Mcstiff

There are more interesting implications here: Namely, smoking in public is not generally illegal. However, once the minimum age has risen sufficiently to be in the so-called middle ages, everyone seen with a cigarette in public has potentially committed an offence, namely, bought it illegally and thus, without paying taxes on it. Enter endless police harrassment of smokers who’ll constantly need to proof that they’re of age and didn’t buy tobacco illegally. I’m certain the people behind this law are already looking gleefully forward to that.

Baldrick
Baldrick
2 years ago

From a goverment that told us- no more than 1 hour of exercise a day. And look at what that did to people. The problem is that if they don’t let us make our own health choices, then what if that decision is made for you BUT it is not good for your health, I can’t think of any examples over the past 3 year off the top of my head. 🙂

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

You look at how much worse vaping is for narrowing arteries. Interestingly early COVID was called ‘vaping illness’ and developed in clusters arounf Fort Detrick, for some strange reason. It is much better to not smoke than smoke because nicotine essentailly causes a disruption in the circulatory system. But it is very good for intellectual work and in times when endurance is required. Caffeine as well. Modern life does require stimulants and anodynes. Understanding consists largely in the understanding of exponential growth in the forces that are arrayed against us. I mean really exponential so that things are much more restricted in six months time. Personally I believe it will fail because for one thing policemen are struggling to pay their bills. In times of war a kind of sick humour develops that isn’t at all politically correct it is just the only way to cope.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
2 years ago
Reply to  Jabby Mcstiff

Given everything we saw during covid, and are still seeing with climate change, with ‘the science’ being settled very early on and even highly qualified doctors etc. being censored and called disgusting names for having a different opinion, which was often backed up with reliable data, it wouldn’t surprise me if the same thing happened with smoking. It may well of become ‘settled science’ that smoking leads to poor health outcomes, possibly based on poor quality research, with holding contradictory results etc. In pre internet times it would of been a lot harder for researchers with results/opinions that went against the consensus to get their voices heard meaning that the consensus has never been properly challenged. Given that the majority of people younger than me, which is well over half the population, have been told from an early age that smoking is bad for you and never heard a different point of view it isn’t surprising that everyone simply accepts this as being beyond doubt and doesn’t think to question it.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

If you leave them in power they will try to ban tobacco. This is on a spiritual level. On the American continent tobacco forms the base of concoctions and represents a conduit into the realm of the spirit, an entry point for other medicines,. Can’t be having that. Tobacco when used and understood properly is a great boon. I imagine a day where we have made peace with the plant and hold it up high as an aid to humanity.

Chris P
Chris P
2 years ago
Reply to  Jabby Mcstiff

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=485Em2JF34M

Let’s hope our elected representatives reject Sunak’s proposal.

RW
RW
2 years ago
Reply to  Jabby Mcstiff

They are banning tobacco. This ban will only affect people who were 17 or younger in 2023 and they hope to slip this through under the radar in this way. But it’s nevertheless a ban.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

They even acknoledged that it provided some protecton against the malady. My view of the malady and its remedies can see this quite clearly. If they are bossing us around what exactly are they threatneing us with? They have already robbed us of quality of life in advance. You need to say, hold on a minute, who the hell are you?

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

They are only powerful because we are weak by comparision. If you want to defeat them then you have to defeat their passion with your pasion. I am not saying that its easy but it is like that. For the first moment ever we well and truly have the public on our side and we shouldn’t miss such an opportunity. It is like a rotten old tree or a house of cards, do we have the confidence to give it the push?

Jabba the Hut
Jabba the Hut
2 years ago

If they were so concerned about health they would ban Greggs, McDonald’s, KFC etc, etc. But guess which multinational shitty fast food outlets were aloud to stay open during lockdowns.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

You can’t change it by examining the perfidy of the corporate structure. There is something called sublime madness and that is the only real way out of slavery. The sublime madness sees a way out of no way a way of acting in the midst of the most painful grief. In our time the sublime madness is a requisite. Rational responses will just be laughed at. I keep the faith alive in that I am always with the people. The sublime madness was the spirit that kept the negro slaves going and found a way out of no way. We need to acknowledge the seriousness of our situation and give ourselves up to the same force.

Jabby Mcstiff
Jabby Mcstiff
2 years ago

Don’t get pulled apart by things like this. In the very near future you might be asked to act. On the other hand don’t assume that anything you grew up with will be around much longer longer, We make the future now it isn’t some series of decrees. We can brng back the good things.

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
2 years ago

Good video by Ivor Cummins with a free PDF link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeP71CKRZNs

huxleypiggles
2 years ago

Why is WEF underling Fishy doing this?

Because he can, because he wants to rub our noses in the shit, because he is a Next Tuesday supreme.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
2 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Also he thinks it’ll gain him some votes by appearing to be cuddly and caring.

disgruntled246
disgruntled246
2 years ago

Thin end of the wedge.
Next booze then basically anything joyful in life.

CircusSpot
CircusSpot
2 years ago
Reply to  disgruntled246

They are also hitting at gambling.

RTSC
RTSC
2 years ago

This is about humiliating ADULTS. They want people who are clearly adults having to produce proof of their age in order to buy tobacco.

Nudge, nudge, nudge …. kick.

I predict the Public Health Fascists will come for those adults who dare drink alcohol next. Sunak is teetotal.

huxleypiggles
2 years ago
Reply to  RTSC

Fishy is not British which is why he doesn’t drink.

varmint
2 years ago

I agree people should not smoke. I might even tell them if they ask me that they should not smoke. Smoking is bad for you. Alcohol is as well , oh and sugar, and white bread, and lack of exercise, and too much exercise, fast food, processed food, loud music with headphones, etc etc etc etc…….I wonder if Sammy Davis Sunak will ban sugar and headphones next.

godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
2 years ago

I see no difference between making cigarettes illegal and making, or keeping, any harmful illegal drugs illegal.

If you believe that all drugs – no matter how harmful – should be made legal, then although I totally disagree, at least you are being logically consistent.

LaptopMaestro
LaptopMaestro
2 years ago

Neither of them has a “playbook” – they do as they are commanded.

JXB
JXB
2 years ago

Prevention to ‘save’ the NHS.

We must change to serve Leviathan, not it change to serve us.

The raison d’être for the NHS was predicated on prevention of disease: universal access to ‘free’ healthcare would mean a healthier population which would increasingly, therefore, require less medical intervention which in turn would keep the cost of the NHS around the level of inflation.

However if Smith is saved from disease A, he lives on to require treatment from disease B. Plus medical advances mean that the long-lived Smith can now have treatment for disease C which previously didn’t exist.

And… most of our disease are diseases of elder years, therefore the longer lived the population, the more medical interventions, the greater the cost. (And the greater the cost to pension schemes, particular the State Ponzi scam.)

But like Net Zero, CoVid, illegal immigration, proxy war with Russia, the unseen and cost and consequence of policies are not considered, resulting in everybody’s favourite, future ‘unforeseen’ calamities.

Alan
2 years ago

Is it because slaves worked on tobacco plantations?

ekathulium
ekathulium
2 years ago

Before Sunak follows Jacinda Ardern down this road, he should read these two short essays by the late Bernard Levin:
“No Smoke” The Times (December 22nd 1983)
and
“. . . Without Fire” The Times (January 20th 1984)
or both available in his collection of essays:
“The Way We Live Now”, Sceptre Books 1986, pp. 69-76.