Proposed legislation aims to phase out smoking, but we must prevent it being blocked, diluted, or delayed through industry interference
The UK prime minister’s call for a smoke-free generation, which follows similar measures in New Zealand,1 would have been unimaginable for previous Conservative leaders. Rishi Sunak’s two immediate predecessors, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, have already argued against the plan.23 Their comments are likely to be a precursor of a major campaign, led by the tobacco industry and the thinktanks it funds, to undermine this proposal. Such groups may well be feeling increasingly confident after the new coalition government scrapped New Zealand’s smoke-free plans—a move causing widespread dismay among health experts and dubbed “catastrophic” for Māori communities.4
To prevent the UK legislation—which will progressively increase the age at which tobacco products can be bought—from being watered down or similarly abandoned, it is essential that politicians, the media, and the health community anticipate the arguments and tactics that will be used against the plans. These are easy to identify given evidence showing the tobacco industry has repeatedly used the same tactics and arguments to block, amend, or delay previous legislation.5 Drawing on this extensive literature,56 we highlight three main arguments that will be used and explain why they are spurious.
The first arguments posed by the tobacco industry will …