Scientists say so-called 'light' cigarettes with ventilated filters may have made smokers more vulnerable to what is now the most common form of lung cancer.

Research has found a ‘clear relationship’ between rising rates of adenocarcinoma and greater demand for ‘light’ cigarettes.

On the back of that report a local newspaper asked Forest to contribute 220 words for a feature that asked, 'Is it time to ban cigarettes completely?'

This is what I submitted:

There are many things that are potentially bad for us – alcohol, sugary drinks, fast food, cigarettes. The government’s role is not to prohibit popular products but to educate consumers about the health risks and allow adults to make informed choices.

Governments also have to be pragmatic. Smokers contribute £12 billion a year in tobacco duties and tax, revenue that far exceeds the alleged cost of treating smoking-related diseases.

That aside, banning cigarettes won’t stop people smoking. Instead it would drive the product underground and into the hands of criminal gangs, which is what happened following the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s.

Today smokers are a minority group but there are still nine million smokers in the UK, many of whom enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit despite the well-publicised health risks.

According to recent research 95 per cent of confirmed smokers say they smoke because they enjoy it. Whatever the ‘official’ view of smoking, cigarettes are undoubtedly a source of comfort and pleasure to millions of people.

That won’t change until something better comes along that meets consumer demand. E-cigarettes are a step in that direction and should be supported, but you can’t force smokers to quit or switch to a safer alternative by banning combustible cigarettes. Change has to be based on evolution not revolution.

I'll link to the feature if and when it appears online.