The British government wants to create a smoke-free generation by banning cigarette sales to anyone born after 2008.

On paper, it is a bold and logical step – if people can never legally buy cigarettes, fewer people will smoke.

But human behaviour is rarely that simple, especially when it comes to young people.

There’s a well-established idea in behavioural science known as scarcity theory – when something becomes harder to access, it often becomes more desirable.

Research at Bond University, and many others across the world, has consistently shown it’s part of the reason limited-edition products sell out and why exclusivity drives demand.

When applied to smoking, a lifetime ban for a specific generation risks turning cigarettes into a kind of “forbidden product”, something that carries symbolic value precisely because it is off-limits.

For adolescents and young adults, that symbolic value matters.

These are years shaped by identity formation, social belonging and, at times, resistance to authority.

A policy designed to eliminate smoking could unintentionally reposition it as a marker of rebellion or independence.

The British plan also assumes that removing branding and restricting advertising will significantly reduce uptake.

That idea comes from a long history of regulating tobacco marketing, which has undoubtedly had real impact, but it’s only part of the story.

Social norms theory tells us that behaviour is heavily influenced by what people see around them.

Young people are far more likely to start smoking because their friends, siblings or parents do than because of a logo or a marketing campaign.

If smoking remains embedded in social environments, removing access will not remove its influence.

There is also a deeper layer to consider.

Research in behavioural genetics shows that vulnerability to nicotine addiction is not the same for everyone.

Some people are more predisposed than others, and that risk is shaped further by stress, socioeconomic conditions and mental health.

In other words, smoking is not simply a matter of access or choice, it’s tied to a complex mix of biological and social factors, and this is where the policy risks falling short.

Rather than eliminating demand, restricting legal access has the potential to shift behaviour in unintended ways – towards illicit markets or alternative products that may not be any better.

More importantly, it does little to address the underlying reasons why people start and continue smoking in the first place.

A more effective approach would draw on the theory of planned behaviour, which highlights that behaviour is shaped by attitudes, social norms and perceived control.

If the goal is to reduce smoking over the long term, policies need to work across all three.

That means investing in education that resonates with young people, including messaging around fitness, appearance and long-term wellbeing.

It means supporting families to model non-smoking behaviour and using peer influence in a positive way, to ensure not smoking becomes the dominant social norm.

None of this is to suggest that regulation has no role – legal restrictions are an important part of reducing harm and limiting access. But they are unlikely to succeed on their own.

If the aim is to genuinely create a smoke-free generation, the challenge is not just to ban cigarettes, it’s to change the meaning of smoking itself.

Dr Rajat Roy is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Bond University