Although the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union, what is your opinion on this year’s review of the Tobacco Tax Directive?

I believe it is wrong for the European Commission to impose tobacco-related regulations on EU member states as if all countries were the same. The EU’s goal is to harmonize taxes and reduce smuggling, but this directive fails to take national differences into account. The examples of the UK and Ireland show that very high tobacco excise duties encourage smugglers to bring cheap tobacco into these countries. Moreover, excise tax increases motivate British and Irish consumers to buy tobacco from countries like Spain where the price of tobacco is cheaper. However, harmonising taxes within the EU won’t stop illicit trade because even more cigarettes will be smuggled into the EU from non-EU countries, and it will encourage criminal gangs to set up more illegal cigarette factories within the EU.

Governments have always generated huge revenues from tobacco taxes; in the UK, for instance, about 80 percent of the price of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government. This puts policymakers in both the EU and the UK in a difficult position: if they introduce excessively strict price increases on tobacco products, it will drive even more consumers to the black market and they will have to find other ways to compensate for the loss of revenue.

What can the British government do against the black market and smuggling networks?

The government faces a tough challenge, as history shows that prohibitions have always benefited criminal organizations – just as happened during the American alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and early 1930s. A current example of this phenomenon can be seen in Australia, where extremely high taxes on tobacco products and severe restrictions on the sale of e-cigarettes have triggered gang wars, with shops being set on fire.

Based on these examples, we are warning the British government that if it loses control over the tobacco market, the same could happen here. The government’s latest initiative is the introduction of a generational ban, which we call a “creeping prohibition.” The law does not immediately ban the sale of tobacco products to all adults, but prohibits future generations of adults from buying tobacco by raising the age of sale by one year every year. However, this does not mean that these young adults will not smoke—on the contrary, it is highly likely that they will turn to the black market instead.

Illegal tobacco, moreover, can be much more dangerous due to the lack of regulation and quality control compared to products manufactured in legal factories. International smuggling networks have already existed for some time; illegal tobacco products typically came from Russia, although many routes have been disrupted by the war in Ukraine.

What are the biggest challenges for FOREST?

Apart from funding, indifference is the biggest challenge. The war against smoking has been going on for so long that many people – including our own supporters – have grown weary. It is easier to yield to the relentless pressure of the anti-smoking lobby and accept their stance rather than push back and question yet another measure aimed at reducing smoking rates.

We also fight against portraying smoking as a sinful or disgusting habit. Many people simply enjoy smoking and have no desire to stop. In 2016, FOREST commissioned a study conducted by the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow titled “The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Committed Smokers.” The study revealed that many smoke for pleasure and have no wish to quit. This simple fact is often ignored by politicians and the media, and it is our job to inform them about it.

At the same time, FOREST supports the use of harm-reduction products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches. Nevertheless, our core principle remains unchanged: as long as there are adults who choose to smoke, enjoy smoking, and do not wish to quit, we will not abandon them – because we believe that freedom of choice and personal responsibility are fundamental values in a free society.

What are FOREST’s greatest achievements in defending smokers’ rights?

Over the years, we have lost many battles, so our greatest success is that we still exist—unlike many other smokers’ rights organizations. Occasionally, we managed to delay certain laws, such as the introduction of plain, unbranded packaging. We also slowed down political efforts to ban indoor smoking: we persuaded the then–health minister not to prohibit smoking in all pubs and bars. According to his plans, smoking would have been banned only in establishments serving food, while bars focusing solely on drinks would still have allowed it. We considered this an acceptable compromise, although our ideal scenario would have been to let the market decide. Unfortunately he was replaced as health minister and his successor decided to introduce a comprehensive indoor smoking ban, so politics won.

It may seem like a small victory, but our most important achievement is that our voice is still heard in the British media and politics. In many ways, what we defend is more important than smoking itself: it is about freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

How socially accepted and supported is FOREST?

FOREST is not a membership organization but a lobbying group, so it is difficult to measure our exact level of support. However, many people share our views and opinions. Public opinion surveys show that the public is much more tolerant toward smoking and smokers than anti-smoking campaigns claim. For example, government presents the indoor smoking ban as a huge success supported by an overwhelming majority of Britons. Yet, long after the ban was introduced, polls commissioned by FOREST showed that most adults would support the creation of separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs and private clubs.