Last night, police arrested a 44-year old man for possession of a bag of tobacco and rolling paper. The perpetrator was fined and sentenced to a month's community service.

This could be England's future.¹ This week the House of CommonsThe democratically elected house of the UK Parliament. It consists of 650 Members of Parliament.  voted to ban smoking. If it passes into law, the ban will make it illegal for anyone born in 2009 or later to buy tobacco products. It follows a plan to ban disposable vapes.

Youth smoking has a long history. Up to 90% of smokers worldwide begin as teenagers. For young people, smoking is often seen as a way to show independence.

But soon, if you are 15 or younger, you will never be allowed to smoke. It is hoped that eventually, no-one will smoke at all. It is a dramatic shift.²

The law is supported by the leaders of both major parties.³ But it has sparked debate about the sort of country people want. Former prime minister Boris Johnson moaned: "The party of Winston ChurchillThe British prime minister during World War Two, and later from 1951 to 1955. wants to ban cigars? It's just mad."

Almost everyone knows that smoking is harmful. Campaign group Action on Smoking and Health claims that smoking-related illness costs the NHSThe National Health Service, the publicly funded healthcare system in the UK. The NHS was founded in 1948. £17bn a year. Cigarettes also poison the atmosphere.⁴

But for critics of the law, this is less important than the threat to our freedom to smoke. They accuse Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of creating a "nanny state": a government that interferes too much in personal choice.

They worry that the ban could be a slippery slope. After smoking, what next? Could a government ban alcohol, driving, religious worship or wearing certain types of clothing? The ban takes away people's freedom to make decisions.

Yet many think firm state intervention is a good idea in some cases. We know smoking is bad for our bodies, those around us and the environment. But smokers find it hard to stop regardless. The government can stop future generations facing this bindIn a difficult, threatening, or embarrassing position. Also a verb to tie or secure..

Should we welcome a "nanny state"?

Yes: We all have biases. We tend to favour the status quoA Latin phrase referring to the current or present situation. over change and the present over the future. A good government is able to work against these biases and act for our greater good. 

No: Governments should not force their own personal morality on others. They can campaign and inform. They can use taxes to make cigarettes more expensive. But an outright ban is too authoritarianEnforcing strict obedience to authority..

Or... The new law is actually following public opinion, not leading it. Two thirds of people support a smoking ban. In this case at least, the state is not nannying the people but giving it what it wants.