Seven sorts of reasons to support the Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024’s (apparently) strange approach to age limits

by Professor John Coggon, University of Bristol Law School

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill’s introduction to, and now passage through, Parliament has reignited debates on fundamentals of political authority and public health ethics; debates about the meaning and reach of fundamental freedoms, the scope and limits of the state’s protective functions, and ultimately the boundaries of legitimate government intervention. Amongst its provisions, particular interest has been sparked by the bill’s creation of an offence of selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers to persons born on or after 1st January, 2009, and the buying of such products for such persons. Questions have been raised about the coherence and justifiability of these measures. Limitations defined by reference to a fixed birth date rather than a specified age (say a ban regarding persons under 18) are not unprecedented. But they are extraordinary. However, both the extraordinariness here, and its moral significance, have been overstated. In this blog, I give background critical context, and then explain seven sorts of reasons why the bill’s approach is less remarkable than may be thought—and with that, rather harder to challenge. (more…)

Nanny states and grown-up debates on alcohol policy

By Prof John Coggon, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School)

Photo: Flickr

Debates on alcohol policy are necessarily complex and controversial, and a complete consensus on how we should regulate this area will not be achieved. Like other lawful but regulated products, alcohol presents benefits and harms that may be understood from ranging perspectives. These include views based in cultural, economic, ethical, historical, legal, medical, population-based, religious, and social understandings. Of necessity, outlooks on alcohol policy and the role of regulation therefore vary both within and across such differing sources of critique. The values—positive and negative—of alcohol at individual, familial, community, commercial, and population levels thus call for careful, reasoned, and respectful public debates.

Even within the context of public health analysis, we cannot just look to scientific studies to inform and determine policy: we are required to consider forms of ‘evidence’ from different disciplines and sectors. This is well explained in a recent publication by the Health Foundation, with papers applied to child obesity but with lessons that are generalisable across health policy. However, for many working in public health, or members of wider communities who have interests in what makes good health policy, challenges emerge in relation to the conduct of public debates: often care, reason, and respect are replaced by simplistic slurs and assertions. And in this context, accusations of nanny statism are a key and persistent example. (more…)