Smoking bans, slippery slopes and Sylvester Stallone

The 1993 Sylvester Stallone movie Demolition man almost defies description. But I’ll give it a try. In a riff on HG Wells’ The time machine, Stallone plays a cop who is framed for murder and frozen in a cryogenic prison for 40 years. He emerges into a very different future society in 2032 and almost immediately asks for a cigarette. He is told, ‘Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad. Hence illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat… bad language, chocolate…’

Let’s hop back to 2024 for just a moment. The government has taken some early and bold steps towards creating a smoke-free generation in England. It is a significant ‘moment’ in health policy and politics and would put the country at the vanguard of efforts to reduce the harms of smoking.

But watching and listening to the recent debates, one of the arguments against the proposals, which was made time and time again, tries to walk away from this ‘moment’ and step into other areas of life. The argument some MPs are invoking is that restricting smoking is a ‘slippery slope’ towards taking away other freedoms. It may be smoking now, they suggest, but alcohol and meat and bad language might be next.

I think there are two things to bear in mind when you hear this argument. The first is that we may well be on a slippery slope – but we won’t necessarily look up with envy when we find ourselves lower down that slope. And that’s for the simple reason that science and society are dynamic; as a society, we are constantly discovering more about the world and about ourselves.

There are things we used to readily accept that are now heavily restricted. The more famous examples include reports of cocaine being used in soft drinks 100 years ago; heroin being used as a cough suppressant, and arsenic being used as a pigment in dyes (as the Royal College of Surgeons note: ‘Fashions can be dangerous’). Over the course of a mid-20^th century medical career, people might have seen transorbital lobotomies introduced and encouraged before we learned more about the treatment of epilepsy and mental illness.

And then there are things that were controversial when they were introduced that have now become largely normalised. From the introduction of seatbelts in cars, to fluoride in community water supplies, to the original legislation to ban smoking in public places.

So, as this debate gets more febrile, one thing we could do is resist the urge to always think prospectively about what might be banned or restricted next, and instead look retrospectively at the restrictions that were once hotly debated.

So, as this debate gets more febrile, one thing we could do is resist the urge to always think prospectively about what might be banned or restricted next, and instead look retrospectively at the restrictions that were once hotly debated. All these decades on, with all that we know now, would we really want to dis-invent the seatbelt? Would you really want to put the cocaine back in the soft drink can?

The second thing to think about during debates on the smoking legislation is just how far we can slip down that slope in practice. How many of the arguments against smoking can apply to other areas of life? Smoking tobacco is a relatively unique activity that is commonplace in the UK; accessed by young and old; addictive; and where the health disadvantages are serious even at low or moderate levels of use. Bad language can hurt, but if it was as deadly as smoking it would have been included in the current legislation.

I never got the knack of smoking, though I gave it a good try when I was younger. And going for a steak or down to the pub with friends are two of the great joys in my life. So, I can viscerally feel the pull of the ‘what will be banned next’ sentiment in these debates. I look at the future society in Demolition man and understand why Stallone’s character says: ‘Put me back in the fridge.’

But ultimately, I think Quinet, the 19^th-century intellectual and historian, was right – time is the fairest and toughest judge. The current debate would be better informed if we look to the past and what we have gained, rather than being pulled towards the future and thoughts of what we might lose. In the long run, some things don’t hold up well at all and some things do. In 20 years, the smoking ban and Demolition man may be strange bedfellows in that latter category.