• Ethics

In my article, I argued that the differential treatment entailed by a generational tobacco ban does constitute a wrongful form of unequal treatment.1 I based this argument primarily on various interpretations of relational egalitarianism and the ideal of a society of equals. Alternatively, the argument could also be framed around the value of consistency in policy-making and the law: the principle of treating like cases alike. Put in these terms, my argument is that differential treatment under the generational ban is not inconsistent once we consider the rationale and context of the policy.

In their commentaries, Boretti, Saunders, and Hart and Lignou raise insightful objections, pointing out potential inconsistencies that my article did not fully address. I am grateful for these interventions and acknowledge their importance in a comprehensive evaluation of tobacco-free generation proposals. In this brief response, I sketch my replies.

Boretti questions the consistency of a generational tobacco ban in light of the growing liberalisation of other previously criminalised drugs, suggesting that ‘a more balanced public health strategy could involve uniform restrictions on harmful substances’.2 While it is true that drug policies are trending towards liberalisation, consistency in regulation should be assessed based on the …