Why is anyone supporting the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill?

I provided some comments on the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill and its signature measure, the Tobacco-Free Generation (TFG), at an Institute of Economic Affairs event. The meeting, Smoke and Mirrors, was held at the IEA on 3rd July 2025. I joined a panel with Sir Robert Buckland and Dr Chris Snowden, with Reem Ibrahim in the Chair.

Here is the basis of my talk.

Background

At the time of writing, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is not yet finalised and has reached the House of Lords – its progress can be followed here and current text viewed here.

The Tobacco Free Generation (also known – incorrectly – as the Smokefree Generation) will make it an offence to sell any tobacco product (not just smoking products), herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers to anyone born on or after 1st January 2009 or to buy on such products on their behalf. Given the current age limit of 18, it will have an effect from January 2027. It is a measure that only applies to adults aged 18 and over. My preferred alternative would be to raise the relevant age limits from 18 to 21.

In this post, I give the substance behind my remarks at the IEA.

Summary: the anti-smoking policy will do nothing, the anti-vaping policy will cause harm

There are several grounds for criticizing the TFG: an infringement of adult autonomy, age discrimination, government overreach, excessive scope (why include smoke-free tobacco products?), driver of illicit trade, and nurturing a secondary market that will supply young people. These arguments are not my focus. My concern is that the Tobacco Free Generation is a useless public health measure paired with anti-vaping measures that will cause harm to the population most at risk – adults who smoke and were born well before 2009. The net effect of all this legislation and policy will be to do more harm than good.

I cannot understand why anyone with a serious interest in public health would support this legislation. It’s as though everyone who should know better hasn’t looked closely at the health implications and is just cheering on laws that appear muscular or are celebrated in the tobacco control field.

The misfire. In summary, the TFG addresses a problem that will be solved by low-risk alternatives (e.g. vapes, nicotine pouches) well before the people it applies to start to become ill from smoking. Smoking-related disease starts to develop from about age 40 onwards. So, for this measure to have an effect, we would need to assume that thousands of people born after 2009 will still be smoking in 2050 and beyond. That is a ludicrous assumption, given the changes already happening to nicotine use. This measure will have negligible public health impact, which I will expand on below. I call this a misfire.

The backfire. The population at most immediate and severe risks of significant disease and premature death are the 6 million adults who currently smoke – often from poor communities or suffering various forms of disadvantage (poverty, mental health problems, homelessness, substance use, worklessness, despair, etc). For them, the rise of vaping has been a godsend, allowing people to switch to a low-risk alternative to cigarettes and creating financial savings, reducing secondhand exposure, and looking after their kids by looking after themselves. Yet the government has gone to war on vapes with a ban on disposables, a vape tax, ban on vape advertising (anti-smoking advertising) and it has also taken powers to do more things that will obstruct the pathway from smoking to vaping – restrictions on flavours, packaging, retail displays etc. I call this a backfire.

The problem is that the Tobacco Free Generation idea creates the appearance of doing something about smoking while doing nothing useful for the important smoking population, the adults who already smoke. At the same time, it is degrading the options to help the real at-risk population of middle-aged adults through its anti-vaping measures, which are predicated on a simplistic misunderstanding of youth risk behaviours.

Tobacco-Free Generation is a Nothing-Burger with minimal effect

The government’s Impact Assessment for the Bill tells us to expect no quantifiable benefits until 2044.

211. Due to the long-term nature of smoking and smoking-related mortality, no health benefits would be expected until 2044. However, between 2044 and 2056 (30 years post-implementation), the cumulative number of deaths avoided in England rises sharply to 2,602 in the model.

So, nothing until 2044, and then a cumulative 2,602 deaths avoided over the 13 years from 2044 to 2056 inclusive. Is that a little or a lot? It is an average of 200 deaths per year over the period when the measure starts to have an effect.  Obviously, 200 deaths is not nothing.  But it is only 0.3% of the current death toll of 64,000 per year in England.

This measure will have NO MATERIAL EFFECT on the NHS in anyone’s reasonable time horizon (30 years in this case).

Even these pitiful estimates rely on absurd assumptions

In estimating these benefits, the government uses a base case (i.e., without the TFG measure) and a policy case (with the TFG measure), and compares the evolution of smoking, disease, and death under the two scenarios. It then attributes the differences in outcomes to the TFG measure. This is a reasonable approach if the base case and policy case are founded on reasonable assumptions. But they are based on absurd assumptions. I have extracted some charts from the impact assessment and added my annotations in red.

Figure 5: smoking initiation at age 18 

The government assumes, in the base case, that smoking will continue at approximately the same rate until 2100. Yet we should expect smoking to be displaced over time in the youth population (provided the government does not stop somehow them from taking up vapes and pouches instead).  

It then assumes that the TFG measure will be about 100% effective and smoking initiation will rapidly fall and soon reach zero. Yet we know these age measures are not 100% effective. We currently have an age-18 limit but according to the Smoking Toolkit survey,  smoking prevalence among 16-17 year olds was 13.8% in 2024. Age limits, at best, present an inconvenience (a frictional transaction cost) to youth smoking.

Figure 7: smoking prevalence among 14-30 year olds 

Once there is initiation, the government assumes that smoking will continue among young people as they age through to 30 and beyond. This assumption is important because it creates the stock of smokers later in the century who are old enough to start getting sick and dying as a result. But much more likely would be a period of experimentation with cigarettes (if any) followed by migrations to safer products.

Under TFG, the supply stops completely (even though nothing in the measure affects the demand), no illicit trade develops, and no vertical markets with older people selling to younger people.

Figure 8: smoking prevalence 18+ 

 

These differences in youth initiation and youth prevalence feed gradually into the whole population as they age, creating a difference in smoking prevalence between the base case (which stabilises at 5% adult smoking until 2100) and the policy case in which smoking totally disappears. This gap between the curves then generates the benefits in terms of health outcomes, after significant lags.

Figure 9: Annual monetised health gain QALYs  

 

The TFG case is an extreme case of “jam tomorrow” where tomorrow is 30 years from now, and it only generates these benefits if:

• Smoking uptake would continue unchanged in the base case without the measure
• The TFG measure is about 100% effective in stopping adults over 18 buying smoking products
• That people who do take up smoking in the base case do not subsequently switch to safer products and avoid disease risk
• That the measure is sustained through multiple parliaments – there is a higher political risk that it will be repealed than a T-21 measure

 Adults who already smoke are by far the most important population for public health purposes

According to the Office for National Statistics, Adult smoking habits in the UK, 2023 

Around 6.0 million people aged 18 years and over (11.9%) smoked cigarettes in the UK in 2023.

These six million citizens were all born in 2005 or earlier and are unaffected by the Tobacco Free Generation policy. These people are now aging towards ever higher risks for severe smoking-related diseases.

The good news is that the most dramatic declines in smoking have been among younger smokers, in this case, age 18-24. 

And this younger group with the sharpest drop in smoking is (roughly) the age group with the greatest uptake of vaping. As I suggested earlier, vaping and other alternatives are likely well-advanced in solving the smoking problem in the younger age groups. 

In its modelling of TFG, the government simply assumes that this process of declining smoking in younger people will stop and that the process of vaping displacing smoking is not real or will not continue. Why? Instead, they assume that the only effective process is an age-restricted supply – for which there is little evidence of impact.  

But there is less progress with older groups of existing smokers – these are the problem population because they have had more accumulated smoking history and are closer to the age at which the serious diseases start to emerge – cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory conditions.  This is the priority group for public health purposes in terms of high and immediate risk, and also in terms of burden on the healthcare system, welfare system, social care system and other services.

Adults dominate the smoking and vaping population

How many young people smoke and vape compared to adults? According to ASH(UK), “Current (2024) vaping among 11–17-year-olds, which includes vaping less than once a month, is 7.2%”  

Based on a GB population of 5.4 million in that age group, that would be about 400,000 vapers under 18, including many with very low levels of use.  

The proportion of 11-17 year-olds who smoke or vape or do both is 9.5% is shown in Figure 7 of the ASH survey; that would equate to 517,000 young people.

Far more adults are involved. In a rough estimate, combining different surveys to provide an approximation, there are approximately 6.0 million smokers (ONS), 5.1 million vapers (ONS), and 37% of vapers who also smoke (ASH), totalling about 9.2 million smokers and vapers combined.

So there are about 12 times as many adult smokers as there are smokers and vapers aged 11-17.

There are about 18 times as many adult smokers and vapers as there are smokers and vapers aged 11-17.

The six million adult smokers should be the public health policy focus.

Paradoxically, a higher rate of youth vaping might be desirable among 11-17-year-olds if this displaces smoking. Every young person who vapes instead of smoking (even if they didn’t smoke first) is progress for public health. The government has embraced a moral panic narrative that ignores this important effect.

The market and the public health problem is wholly dominated by adults born well before 2009. This also needs to be considered when designing policies – even if young people are the target, it is adults who will be hit in the greatest numbers, by far.

The main issue with defining vaping policy in response to a moral panic about youth vaping is that for many of the young people in question, their vaping will be a positive alternative to the counterfactual – smoking. For these young people, vaping is a substantial gain. Obviously, there are even larger concerns that youth-inspired anti-vaping measures will have negative effects on the much larger adult population using vapes or remaining at risk from smoking. Until ministers and officials, notably the CMO, have adequately internalized a framework for thinking about the trade-off between smoking and vaping, they will continue to make simplistic errors of reasoning in this field.

I have written more about the simplistic approach to understanding youth vaping in an evidence briefing.

The anti-vaping measures that will harm adult smokers

While doing nothing useful about adult smoking, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and other government policy initiatives will degrade the pathway from smoking to vaping.  This is not the place for a detailed critique of the anti-vaping measures, but in short, the anti-vaping measures are pro-smoking measures:

• The ban on single-use, disposable vapes. This is not part of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and came into effect in June 2025. These products are popular for good reasons – cheap, convenient, easy to use, good nicotine delivery, and no upfront costs. One estimate put the number of adults using these products prior to the ban at 2.6 million. What will happen to these users? Even the government’s impact assessment for this legislation suggested that 29% would “Revert back to smoking or alternative non-vaping product” (Table 12). In practice, ministers and officials have no idea what will happen – it is possible that black market vapes, product innovations or switching to other vapes will catch most of these users.  However, given the respective risks, not many have to return to smoking or terminate their journey from smoking to vaping for this measure to do more harm than good.
• Vaping Products Duty.  The government plans to significantly increase the cost of vaping by introducing a Vaping Product Duty at £2.20 per 10ml of liquid. A typical 10ml bottle costs £3-5, so this represents a substantial tax. Vapes and cigarettes are economic substitutes, and empirical studies suggest that when vaping costs rise through taxation, then cigarette smoking increases. Much will depend on the black market response.
• Vaping advertising ban. Part 6 of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will ban the advertising, promotion, and sponsorship of vaping. Tobacco advertising has been banned since 2003. However, vape advertising is effectively privately funded anti-smoking advertising.  The effect will be to lower the profile of vaping as an alternative to smoking unless there is a countervailing public advertising campaign. Advertising bans protect stable incumbents and disadvantage innovative entrants.
• Flavours. Part 5 (currently s.91) of the Bill gives ministers powers to “impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations in relation to the production, importation or supply of [flavoured] products in the course of business.”. Such restrictions could potentially ruin the experience of vaping for users. They would likely trigger a black market response and risky workarounds, as more users mixed their own.
• Packaging. Part 5 (currently Section 89) of the Bill gives ministers the power to mandate packaging requirements. This could include plain packaging or other measures to make vapes appear unattractive – or worse, implicitly communicate that vapes are as risky as cigarettes if they have similar packaging restrictions and warnings.
• Display controls. Part 1 (currently Section 13) gives ministers the power to impose prohibitions, requirements, or limitations on retailers in relation to the display of tobacco and nicotine products. Again, the danger is the implicit defence of the incumbent product and an implied risk communication about vaping.
• Vape-free places. Part 7 of the Bill grants ministers the power to extend smoke-free areas designated by law (including outdoors) to include vaping and heated tobacco use. This requires further regulations. The government had previously (and rightly) stated that vaping policy should be a matter for the owner or manager of a property on the basis that the risks to bystanders were minimal and, therefore, that the owner’s property rights should have priority.
• Snus. Not vaping, but pointless and counterproductive: Part 1 s.55-57 bans snus. Despite the success of snus in reducing smoking in Nordic countries, the governemnt has determined that this product – offering the strongest proof-of-concept for tobacco harm reduction – should remain banned (as it has been since 1993), despite a mountain of evidence that would argue for lifting the ban, and the option to lift the ban using Brexit freedoms.

All this law has a further negative effect: the government must problematise vaping in order to justify these measures. Therefore, the discourse from supporters in government, medical societies, activist groups, and academics must be negative, or their positions would make no sense.

Additionally, there are instances where it is necessary to take powers to introduce measures through regulation (secondary legislation that receives limited scrutiny). But in this case, the measures are significant policies in their own right, and ministers have allowed themselves too much discretion and not enough scrutiny to make regulations that have a significant impact.

A word on political posturing

In response to a question at the event…

Labour Party. We learn that the Labour Party “was formed to give ordinary people a voice and improve lives” and that it wants “a fairer Britain, where everyone lives well for longer”. Why has Labour lost sight of the needs of poor and disadvantaged communities where adult smoking prevalence is high, where the TFG will make little difference, and the anti-vaping bans, restrictions, and taxes will do real harm? Labour has tracked towards the amplified (and well-funded) concerns of metropolitan public health activists and is ignoring a pressing need in its historic base that is slipping from its grasp. A credible Labour government would focus on reducing adult smoking by any means possible as deeply and rapidly as possible – that would mean fulsome support for tobacco harm reduction. Also, a recognition that many young people who vape would otherwise be smoking, and they are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Conservative Party. We discover that the Conservative Party “has always stood for personal liberty, democracy and the rule of law”. Why have the Tories lost interest in personal liberty, adult autonomy, and an anti-nannying agenda? This policy package is excessive state overkill and will erode respect for the rule of law. It comes with the added absurdity that it won’t achieve anything useful and will cause more harm than good. An electable Tory Opposition would oppose this legislation on multiple grounds and commit to reversing the TFG in 2030, replacing it with T-21, an age limit of 21 for smoking products only, and 18 for everything else.

Liberal Democrats. We are informed that the Lib-Dems stress liberty as a value and “believe in the right of individuals to make their own decisions about how they live their lives, as long as they do not cause harm to others.” Okay, so where do bans on one group of adults buying products that another group of adults can buy freely fit with a passionate call for liberty? If you believe in liberty, why are you backing this? What about the anti-vaping measure that will cause harm to others on the specious pretext of protecting youth? This is a case where the government needs to mostly get out of the way and let adults improve their own health, on the own initiative and at their own expense. A classic liberal win.

Reform UK informs us that, “We are ruled by an out-of-touch political class who have turned their backs on our country”. Yes, that sounds about right in this case (see above). Parliament seems to be marching to the tune of anti-vaping activists, American billionaire foundations, and jumped-up authoritarians. But as always with Reform, the question is, are you actually going to turn up and do anything? Or is it all just bluster?

What to do?

It’s probably too late to stop this fully loaded juggernaut of absurdity, but I would recommend at least the following:

• Get rid of the Tobacco Free Generation and change the age for legal sale to 21, and for smoking products only
• Insert implementation reviews and reports to parliament to catch unintended consequences
• Insert sunset clauses that cause measures to lapse without an affirmative vote in Parliament
• Remove clauses where ministers take sweeping powers to write new policy in regulations
• If ministers insist on maintaining sweeping powers, require explicit text on the face of the Bill
• Insist on more complete Impact Assessments based on realistic assumptions and possible unintended consequences
• Replace the ban on vape advertising with limits on content and placement
• Limit any measures on flavours to control over descriptors, trademarks, imagery (not formulation)
• Legalise snus
• Keep a retailer licensing scheme
• Above all… get a grip and focus on adult smoking and achieving smokefree targets above all else