“How far should governments go to protect people without their consent?”: from nanny State to big brother

Politique Internationale — You published an op-ed (1) in the press criticizing the proposal for a “generational ban” (2) aimed at preventing people born after a certain date from accessing tobacco. Before reacting in this way, did you have a particular interest in tobacco-related issues in general?

Sébastien Boussois — I am not a smoker, and that perhaps gives me more perspective to reflect on the subject. It is not so much the subject of tobacco itself that interests me here as what it reveals, almost in spite of itself, about a more profound shift in our approach to public policy. Tobacco is merely a pretext, one issue among many. What deserves scrutiny is the political method at work, and the implicit philosophy underpinning this type of proposal. Through it, an entire conception of liberal democracy comes to the surface.

 We are indeed witnessing a gradual shift in the role of the state. Historically the guarantor of freedoms, it is increasingly tending to become an actor in the regulation of individual behaviour, sometimes beyond what the consent of the citizens themselves implies. Consequently, a central question arises: how far can we go to protect them without their consent? At what point does protection tip over into a form of guardianship? And above all, is this shift being openly acknowledged, or is it taking place quietly, under the guise of good public health intentions?

This shift is not insignificant. It denotes an increasingly asymmetrical relationship between the state and individuals, in which personal responsibility tends to be replaced by a logic of generalized precaution.

P. I. — Can you explain why some people have come to propose this kind of generational ban? Is it merely a public health imperative? A reflection of the current proliferation of regulations? An illustration of the typical behaviour of public authorities?  

S. B. — The public health argument is obviously central. No one can deny the harmful effects of tobacco, nor the need to act to limit consumption. But this argument, however legitimate it may be, is not enough to justify such a radical measure. Denying an entire generation access to a legal product constitutes a rupture that goes far beyond the realm of public health.

 To understand this development, we must place it within a broader context. We live in societies marked by unprecedented regulatory inflation. Faced with every problem, there is a strong temptation to create a new rule and a new ban, as if the norm could replace the complexity of reality. Tobacco then becomes the ideal testing ground for this logic in the name of an obsession with the precautionary principle, which has become a dogma.

 There is also a form of prohibitionist reflex that is gradually taking hold. As soon as a behaviour is deemed socially undesirable, the political response tends to be outright prohibition. This approach offers an immediate advantage for decision-makers: it is clear, quick, and symbolically powerful. It allows them to demonstrate a willingness to act, to make an impression, to leave a mark.  But this logic is also a symptom of a weakening of the longterm perspective in politics. Building effective public policies requires nuance, patience, and evaluation. Yet these timeframes are increasingly incompatible with media and electoral demands. Consequently, radicalism becomes a convenient—if not effective— response. And therein lies the problem: the radical nature of the intention guarantees neither feasibility nor effectiveness.

P. I. — What strikes you most about this proposal? The placement of an entire generation under guardianship? A drift that could lead to others?

S. B. — What strikes one immediately is the profound break with a basic principle of our legal system: equality before the law. By establishing a prohibition based on the year of birth, we introduce a distinction between adult citizens that is based on neither their behaviour nor their responsibility, but on an arbitrary criterion.

 In practical terms, this means that two adults, both legally responsible, could be treated differently for the same act, simply because they were born a few months apart. One could purchase a legal product while the other could not. This situation effectively creates two categories of citizens, which constitutes a breach that is difficult to justify in a state governed by the rule of law.

 But beyond this legal question, it is the symbolic significance of the measure that raises concerns. It enshrines the idea that a generation must be protected from itself, regardless of its capacity for discernment. It confirms a form of structural mistrust towards individuals.

 And, above all, it opens a breach. For if we accept this principle for tobacco, why not extend it to other areas? Alcohol, food, digital behaviours? The logic is potentially limitless. This is why it constitutes a dangerous conceptual drift.    

P. I. — In your op-ed, you speak of a subject that is becoming a “political laboratory.” Can you elaborate?           

S. B. — Tobacco, or more broadly nicotine, has become a genuine political laboratory. A space in which new forms of public intervention are tested, often without explicitly stating so. Through these experiments, fundamental principles are being questioned: individual freedom, the proportionality of public action, and adult responsibility.

 This laboratory is all the more interesting to policymakers because it enjoys a relatively broad moral consensus. Fighting smoking appears to be a legitimate, almost indisputable cause. This makes it possible to introduce measures that, in other areas, would provoke much stronger resistance.

 But that is precisely what makes the situation troubling. For by gradually accustoming citizens to increasing restrictions in an area deemed acceptable, we are paving the way for possible extensions into other sectors. Tobacco thus becomes a gateway to a broader redefinition of the scope of government action.

P. I. — Ultimately, the most surprising thing has to be that it took so long for this generational ban to emerge?        

S. B. — Indeed, this proposal is part of a dynamic that is already well established. For years, public policy on tobacco has been based on a classic three-pronged approach: tax increases, a proliferation of targeted bans, and communication campaigns. Yet these levers now seem to have reached a point of saturation. Price hikes have reached high levels without eliminating consumption. Bans have expanded to cover numerous products, from disposable e-cigarettes to alternative nicotine products. As for awareness campaigns, they mobilize significant resources for results that are often questionable.

 Faced with this relative ineffectiveness, the temptation is strong to take things a step further. A generational ban thus appears as a radical innovation, a way to revitalize a public policy that is losing momentum.

 But what is striking is that, amid this accumulation of measures, prevention remains largely underfunded. Not symbolic or guilt-inducing prevention, but grassroots prevention—targeted and tailored to the relevant audiences. Prevention that truly supports individuals rather than merely imposing restrictions on them.

P. I. — If we bring a bit of philosophy into this, isn’t this principle of banning an entire generation the best way to encourage that generation to defy the ban? Won’t this measure be counterproductive?

S. B. — I have close family members who were forbidden to smoke when they were teenagers, who had been told about the harmful effects of tobacco. Since then, they’ve smoked nonstop. The history of public policy is quite clear on this point: prohibition tends to  produce the opposite effect of what is intended. Prohibition does not make the desire or the behaviour disappear. It displaces it and transforms it, often into forms that are more opaque and harder to control.

 In this case, the risk is twofold. On the one hand, there is the risk of seeing parallel markets develop, fuelled by the demand of a generation denied access to a product that is legal for others. On the other hand, there is the risk of encouraging a mindset of transgression, which is particularly strong among the youngest. Banning without providing support, without offering credible alternatives, without fostering responsibility, often amounts to creating the conditions for failure. Moreover, by sending the message that a generation must be protected from itself, we deny its ability to be discerning. This infantilization is deeply counterproductive. It fuels mistrust of institutions and undermines the bond of trust essential to democratic functioning.

P. I. — Isn’t this logic of constant monitoring you’re describing a bit of an extreme measure?

S. B. — Such a measure cannot work without a strengthened monitoring system. Consumers’ ages would have to be systematically verified, regardless of their appearance. This implies the normalization of identity checks in everyday activities.

 A society in which the purchase of a legal product involves constant verification is a society sliding towards a form of generalized surveillance. This shift is all the more problematic because it is taking hold gradually, without in-depth debate on its implications.  When control becomes the norm, it profoundly alters the relationship between the state and its citizens. It introduces a logic of suspicion, in which everyone must prove they have the right to act. This development, even when motivated by laudable intentions, is reminiscent of certain historical excesses where surveillance became established as a mode of governance.

 This is not about giving in to excessive comparisons, but about reminding ourselves that civil liberties rarely suddenly crumble. They erode, often in the name of protection.

P. I. — Everyone is struggling with these tobacco issues—from bans, substitute products, to taxation… Do you have a specific idea or avenues to explore?

S. B. — Rather than piling up increasingly complex and questionable bans, it would undoubtedly be more effective to return to simple principles. First, enforce existing rules. The effectiveness of public policy is not measured by the number of laws passed, but by their actual enforcement. Next, invest heavily in prevention and support. Millions of adults are affected by smoking. Providing them with concrete help to reduce or quit their consumption is a key lever, far more so than symbolic measures. Finally, we must move away from a patronizing view of citizens. Effective policy is based on information, accountability, and proportionality. It requires trusting individuals while giving them the means to make informed choices. Protecting public health is a necessity. But undermining the basic principles of the rule of law in the name of such protection would be a strategic mistake. For a democracy that protects citizens by denying them their responsibility will, sooner or later, end up undermining itself.