Abstract

The ‘tobacco-free generation’ policy, which bans cigarette sales based on birth year, presents a bold public health initiative but raises significant ethical and practical concerns. As behaviours like drug use become legal and criminal penalties are reduced, singling out smoking for generational restriction appears inconsistent within an increasingly permissive society. Kniess1 critiques this approach for creating inequities by selectively limiting freedoms, conflicting with principles of fairness and adult autonomy. A more balanced public health strategy could involve uniform restrictions on harmful substances or prioritising informed personal choice, supported by harm reduction and education to encourage healthier alternatives. The generational smoking ban targets specific birth cohorts, prohibiting tobacco sales to those born after a certain year. Unlike universal bans, it creates two distinct adult classes—those permitted to smoke and those who are not—resulting in an apparently arbitrary division. Critics, including Schmidt,2 point to the ethical inconsistency of restricting liberties for some while leaving others untouched. This policy design has been defended as a pragmatic compromise, aiming to protect future generations without infringing on the established habits of current smokers (Grill and Voigt).3 Kniess1 evaluates this selective restriction through relational egalitarianism which emphasises the importance of equal social relationships. The cut-off, …