Politique Internationale — The UK has just passed a law imposing a lifetime ban on the purchase of tobacco for people born after 2008. Why does a measure of this scale seem so difficult to envisage in France today?
Matthieu Hocque — If our country were to follow the UK’s “Generation Ban” model, it would be a disaster. France has fallen too far behind. It suffers from two weaknesses: an extremely high prevalence rate (25.3 per cent, 10 percentage points above the OECD average) and the unfortunate distinction of being the country with the largest black market for cigarettes (41 per cent according to KPMG’s annual barometer published in June 2026). By way of comparison, the United Kingdom performs better on both these indicators. In 2025, the prevalence rate stood at 13.3 per cent – half that of France – and the scale of the black market remains significantly lower than in France. In reality, the UK’s success stems from a very specific momentum. Since the year 2000, the prevalence rate has been cut by more than half in the United Kingdom. The country is approaching 5 per cent, the symbolic threshold for a “cigarette-free country”. Thus, the Generation Ban is intended to act as a catalyst for an ongoing trend. However, this trend does not exist yet in France.
P. I. — Despite having some of the strictest regulatory and fiscal measures in the world, France still has nearly 12 million people who smoke every day. How do you explain this discrepancy between the resources deployed and the results achieved?
M. H. — The best way to understand why France is still failing to achieve this is to look abroad. Historically, however, France suffers from three problems: a failure to look at what works abroad; the pursuit of a one-dimensional policy to combat a multi-dimensional phenomenon; and a closed ecosystem centred on the government and anti-smoking associations, which fails to update its approach. All successful Western countries employ a “two-stage rocket” approach to reducing smoking.
The first stage, implemented between the 1980s and the early 2000s, was punitive. The aim was to prevent people from taking up smoking, particularly young people. This involved three measures: making cigarettes more expensive through taxation, prevention campaigns, and segregating smokers in public places. Everywhere, the message is the same: “You have the right to smoke, but your life will be shorter, more expensive and more complicated.” This approach has generally worked.
Then, many countries implemented the second stage of the strategy: the incentive component. This involves a risk-reduction strategy based on promoting less harmful alternatives. It helps smokers quit by combining a “flow” approach (curbing the number of new smokers) with a “stock” approach (supporting existing smokers). This is precisely where France has fallen behind.
It is for all these reasons that, whilst the prevalence rate has fallen by 16 per cent in France since 2000, the decline has been significantly more pronounced elsewhere: -53 per cent in the United Kingdom, -40 per cent in Germany, -38 per cent in Spain and -22 per cent in Italy. We are reaching the limits of our model, which is restricted to the first stage of the rocket.
P. I. — France has set itself the target of becoming a “tobacco-free generation” by 2032. Do you consider this target realistic, given that the volume of tobacco sold through tobacconists’ outlets fell by 8.2 per cent in 2025 compared with 2024, according to the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (OFDT)?
M. H. — The principle of a “tobacco-free generation” is a desirable goal, but we must still curb the black market. Reducing the official market, whilst the black market grows, cannot lead to a “tobaccofree generation”. However, today, the reduction in tobacco volumes is partly offset by the growth of the black market, sometimes right on tobacconists’ doorsteps! In France, it is possible to find packets of cigarettes for around €4 to €6 from street vendors, compared with €13 in the official tobacconist retail network.
This price difference and the availability of illegal products explain why more than 41 per cent of cigarettes consumed now come from this black market, compared with 37.6 per cent in 2024. The Confederation of Tobacconists estimates this market at between 30% and 40%, anti-tobacco associations such as the Alliance contre le Tabac at between 10% and 20%, and the government at 18%. Consequently, before aspiring to a “tobacco-free generation”, let us try to create the conditions for a “cigarette-free generation”. Many unscrupulous nicotine-based products, such as e-cigarettes, have won over very young audiences and are still in circulation despite being banned. Highly addictive, they have replaced cigarettes, explaining the decline in prevalence rates amongst young people. However, can we really talk about a “tobacco-free generation” under these circumstances? Especially as these products are potentially even more harmful to health.
P. I. — You refer to a French paradox: the tougher the anti-smoking measures become, the less successful they seem to be in reducing smoking in the long term. What exactly does this paradox entail?
M. H. — This paradox lies in pushing ever further an approach that does not work, not because of any inherent flaws in the approach itself, but because the approach does not go far enough. In France, excise duty on cigarettes accounts for 84 per cent of the price. Since
1990, the price has risen by 566.7 per cent, and 97.8 per cent of this increase is due to higher taxes.
Yet tobacco consumption has not plummeted. Why? The response from some stakeholders, who see taxes as the main tool in the fight against smoking, is to tax even more. This is the French paradox regarding tobacco, even though the economist Laffer had already explained that, sometimes, “too much tax kills tax” because there is an optimal level of taxation beyond which tax revenue begins to fall.
That said, I hasten to add that this paradox is neither confined to tobacco nor to France. On the one hand, a similar phenomenon exists with ultra-processed foods, sugar, pesticides and even cannabis, although the latter is illegal. On the other hand, the United States experienced the same logic regarding alcohol consumption during Prohibition.
Thus, whilst this paradox is not specifically French, it stems from a mantra that is, in fact, very French. During the recent budget debates, we heard time and again that if France had a public deficit problem, it was due to a lack of tax revenue, even though France leads the OECD in terms of compulsory levies…
P. I. — In your opinion, what are the main limitations of a “coercive” or “punitive” approach to public health?
M. H. — Western societies are committed to freedom and characterised by the rise of the individual. We may regret this, but denying it will never lead to appropriate solutions. A “coercive” approach to public health therefore has three limitations. The first is that the State does not control individual behaviour or societal trends. The example of the popularity of e-cigarettes amongst young people illustrates this well. The State may well impose a ban, but the “trendy” product continues to be widely consumed.
The second is that this approach makes smokers feel guilty. According to a survey by Santé Publique France, 59.3 per cent of daily smokers say they want to give up smoking. Guilt represents a significant barrier between the desire to do something and the ability to actually do it. Thus, a public policy based on making consumers feel guilty cannot succeed.
Finally, the last limitation is that, in our societies, the principles of incentive and encouragement will always be more effective than prohibition and punishment. Otherwise, it’s simple: France would be top of the class when it comes to smoking prevalence!
P. I. — This kind of paradox does not apply to tobacco alone. What lessons can be learnt from other public policies facing similar difficulties, whether it be alcohol, cannabis, sugar or ultraprocessed foods?
M. H. — It’s difficult to answer your question using French examples for the products mentioned. It’s important to note that in France, the “smoke-free generation” policy is, on the contrary, often held up as a model for other public health policies! Mainly because it’s the most widely known public health initiative among the French… But if we had to pick one example of a public health initiative that works, it would be the “Nutri-Score”. This visual guide, based on a five-colour scale (from dark green to dark orange), combined with letters ranging from A to E (depending on nutritional quality), is becoming increasingly familiar to French people. This measure is based on incentives: the French are encouraged to consume highquality products. Why not envisage a “noci-score” for tobacco?
P. I. — Beyond individual behaviour, what structural barriers are preventing France from making faster progress in reducing smoking?
M. H. — France has never developed a harm reduction strategy. That is why our policy fails to tackle the problem it claims to be solving effectively. Indeed, our country does not support viable alternative options to offer smokers.
However, the countries that have been most successful have done the opposite. As we have said, the momentum in the UK can also be explained by the fact that the National Health Service (NHS) promotes the slogan “vaping to quit smoking”. Another leading European model, Sweden, has become a “cigarette-free country” due to the availability of snus and pouches.
Outside Europe but still frequently cited as a model, New Zealand promotes vaping. Since 2020, it has even provided a specific legal framework for selling vaping products, through the creation of a network of specialist retailers who can sell a wide range of flavours following approval by the Director-General of Health. A reduction in tobacco consumption has been observed there, including amongst the Māori population, who were most affected, which even created momentum for a “Generation Ban” introduced in 2024 before the country reversed the measure.
Finally, in Japan – another country where cigarette consumption is very low – the widespread introduction of heated tobacco products (such as IQOS) from 2014 onwards reached 14.6 per cent of the adult population. This contributed to a 52.7 per cent reduction in cigarette sales between 2011 and 2023.
This does not mean we should give alternatives a free pass. To be successful, a harm reduction strategy must be based on one prerequisite: there must be no link between using these products and moving on to the most harmful substance. This is why the ban on cannabis must be maintained, as it acts as a gateway to harder drugs, and why the ban on e-cigarettes must be upheld, as their mechanism – which is highly addictive due to nicotine – creates a gateway to cigarettes. By contrast, where vaping is concerned, in its latest report from December 2025, ANSES establishes no direct link between vaping and first-time cigarette use.
P. I. — What does the future hold for the entire tobacco industry, from manufacturers to tobacconists, which generates economic activity and provides jobs?
M. H. — I often draw a parallel between petrol and diesel cars and cigarettes: the aim of the public authorities is to phase out these industries. However, on the one hand, this cannot simply be decreed, and on the other, failing to prepare a transition in collaboration with the industry amounts to tens of thousands of job redundancies.
Stakeholders in the tobacco sector will have to reinvent themselves. Manufacturers will be encouraged to offer products that align with the principle of risk reduction, within a timeframe that allows them sufficient time to reconfigure their production facilities. The role of France’s 23,000 tobacconists could shift towards selling tobacco alternatives and nicotine-related products, or even towards carrying out certain local public service tasks to offset losses in business. In any case, the most virtuous will survive whilst the least virtuous will perish, as is the nature of any competitive market.
P. I. — To what extent do economic, fiscal and budgetary considerations influence public policy decisions regarding tobacco control?
M. H. — When we look at the budgetary debates surrounding the Social Security Financing Bill (PLFSS), we see that duty on cigarettes is regarded as “easy” tax revenue. However, this logic is running out of steam.
Here is the budgetary paradox: the State is spending more to prevent tobacco consumption, whilst collecting less revenue. The health insurance expenditure and revenue figures for 2025 highlight the paradox of this downward trend. In 2023, tobacco taxes generated €13.615 billion, compared with €12.428 billion in 2025 and a projected €11.753 billion in 2026 – a projected fall of 5.4 per cent.
Worse still: the administration overestimates tax revenue every year. In 2024, the shortfall compared with budget forecasts was 508 million euros. Since 2021, nearly 2 billion euros have been overestimated, contributing to the social security deficit.
P. I. — Does the French administrative and organisational system also act as a barrier to the effectiveness of anti-smoking policies? If so, how?
M. H. — That is indeed a significant factor. Anti-smoking policy is caught up in an activist mindset and excessive bureaucracy. On the first point, the administration delegates a very large part of its policy to activist anti-tobacco organisations. However, these organisations focus solely on lobbying against the tobacco industry, which in no way constitutes expenditure that benefits smokers. According to figures from the latest budget, 60 per cent of all public expenditure on anti-smoking measures in 2025 is allocated to prevention, amounting to 138.7 million euros. However, only 45.5 per cent of this is “pure” prevention expenditure, i.e. public health initiatives rather than lobbying activities (such as “naming and shaming” MPs and anti-tobacco industry campaigns, etc.). On the second point, the policy also suffers from excessive bureaucracy, which is simply illustrated by over-administration – that is, an overlap of responsibilities between different directorates within the Ministry of Health and the Regional Health Agencies (ARS), which implement the programme at regional level.
P. I. — How do you view the role of the medical profession and harm reduction strategies in France’s anti-smoking policy?
M. H. — Our public policy on tobacco control is not entirely guided by science, even though France has a genuine ecosystem of renowned researchers, oncologists and tobacco specialists. For example, ANSES issues advice on less harmful alternatives, such as e-cigarettes. Yet these are still not incorporated into a French harm reduction strategy, even though this could encourage smokers who do not wish to, or are unable to, give up all forms of nicotine consumption to switch to less harmful products rather than continuing to smoke cigarettes.
P. I. — If you had to set out three priority recommendations to enable France to break this deadlock and make real progress towards a cigarette-free society, what would they be?
M. H. — Once the correct diagnosis has been made, the solutions become obvious. Firstly, to achieve the set objective, we must involve all stakeholders. It is not by waging war on manufacturers or tobacconists that we will succeed in waging war on cigarettes. A public-private steering committee would enable us to address all the implications of such an objective, from the perspectives of regulation, safety, and supporting tobacconists and manufacturers as they redefine their operations.
My second recommendation, as I mentioned earlier, is to create a “harm score” underpinned by a tax reform based on the principle that “the more harmful it is, the higher the tax”. ANSES would assign each nicotine-containing product a regularly updated hazard score between 1 and 10, with 10 being the maximum score – that of a conventional cigarette. We could tax each product in proportion to its level of harmfulness: a product with a scientifically established score of 4 would be taxed at 40 per cent of the excise duty on cigarettes, a product with a score of 6 would be taxed at 60 per cent, and so on.
Finally, as we have discussed, the black market is our Achilles’ heel. “Nico-trafficking” has come to be on a par with drug trafficking in terms of value. It is a rapidly growing component of organised crime, as it involves less risk on the ground and carries lighter criminal penalties, yet is just as lucrative. A sensible measure would be to classify tobacco trafficking as a form of organised crime, to therefore bring the penalties for tobacco trafficking into line with those that apply to drug trafficking, and double the customs budget to achieve this.
All these measures must pursue the same objective: to lift the country out of public powerlessness in order to genuinely reduce cigarette consumption in our country.
