The state should butt out of our bad habits
The smoking ban is the pinnacle of authoritarian puritanism.
10 APRIL, 2015
BY CHRISTOPHER SNOWDON
There is something uniquely spiteful about the smoking ban that makes it an outstanding candidate for repeal. This draconian piece of legislation managed to combine bureaucratic overreach, class warfare, junk science and the tyranny of the majority to create an act of cultural vandalism that has closed thousands of pubs, clubs and bingo halls. For the �public health’ lobby, it is the jewel in the crown because it enshrines their vendetta against smokers in law and stamps the new puritanism into the very heart of daily life.
It was a triumph for incessant shrieking and co-ordinated propaganda. Private property was somehow redefined as public property. Publicans who were happy to allow smoking were somehow redefined as victims. The paper-thin justification for the ban – that it would вЂ?protect’ bar staff – was an obvious fiction from the start. The real aim was to get smokers to quit by making their lives miserable. Why else would it be illegal for a smoker to run a pub for smokers? Why else would a workman be banned from smoking in his own van? Why else would the anti-smoking lobby want the ban extended to parks, streets and cars (including cars with no passengers)?
I was a smoker myself when the ban came in so my opposition could be attributed to self-interest and sour grapes. But I am not a smoker anymore and my hostility to this vindictive piece of nanny statism remains as strong as it was on 1 July 2007. It is the wound that won’t heal, a constant reminder of the power of the majority over the minority. In that respect, it is a useful piece of legislation. For millions of people it is a daily reminder that the government is not their friend.
Christopher Snowdon is director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs and author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist and The Art of Suppression. Visit his blog here. http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk
Government Out of Control
April 7, 2015
Chris Snowdon has been looking back at the origins of the Tobacco Display ban:
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-dark-market-revisited.html
It is hard to believe that the ban was passed in 2009 and has only now come into effect in small shops. Will it make any difference to youth take up of smoking?
Well, we must look at what has happened. In my local co-op, the tobacco display is covered by two sliding doors in a fetching colour of darkish green. The word “TOBACCO” is etched onto one door in large, black capital letters. On the other door is the message: “If you need help, ask a member of staff”. Will those doors deter a ‘child or young person under 18’ from asking for cigs? If they do not, then what is the point of them, since the whole point of the display ban, as has been said again and again, is to deter young people.
But the question that I asked, ‘Will those doors deter a ‘child or young person under 18′ from asking for cigs?’, is a daft question. Such youths already have the sense NOT to try to buy cigs in shops – unless they already are aware the the shopkeeper in question will sell cigs to them. I have absolutely no doubt that some 18 and 19 year-olds will already be onto the ‘nice little earner’ which the ability to buy cigs represents. Even buying cigs at the current price of about ВЈ7 for 20 can turn a profit of some 50% if sold at 50p each.
I cannot see even the slightest off-putting effect to smokers. Frankly, I see the opposite. I see defiance writ large. It is simple psychology.
Think about it.
You are an adult and you are a smoker. When you go to buy your cigs and you look at the array of ‘glitzy’ packets, you might well feel a little guilt that you are spending money on ‘baubles’. You might feel that other people are watching you buying disgusting, filthy, stinking cigs. Now you don’t have to feel those pangs. You can’t see the packets. You ask for your 20 Rothman’s, or whatever, the assistant slides open the door, takes out the packet, hands it to you and you pay. It is almost a secret transaction. You don’t even need to bother about the price. In fact, the secrecy adds to the allure.
Chris Snowdon draws attention to his analysis of the murky dealings between ASH and other parties allied to the Health Dept to get the ban passed by Parliament, especially the estimated costs of covering up the displays in the manner required by the regulations. But no one, at the time. was supposed to know precisely what the regulations would be. Even so, ASH ET AL used a trick to get the cost extremely low. They took estimates provided a Canadian company which had been instrumental in erecting such covers in Canada and twisted them. For example, the bigger the display, the cheaper the cost per square foot of coverage. The trick was to take the cheapest price (for the largest display) and then multiply that price by 1500 shops, and claim ‘a discount’ because there were 1500 shops. In other words, 1500 small displays represented X very large displays and could be ‘covered’ at the lowest price. That is obviously utter nonsense since every individual shop would be different and need different treatment.
The trickery was discovered via FoI requests and the requested info revealed wholesale collusion between ASH and staff in the Heath Dept. But even after the false estimates of costs had been discovered, Lord Darsi was STILL quoting the incorrect figures. Who was to blame for the false figures being relayed to the Lords? The buck did not stop. It went round and round.
But also the expectations of the effect on youth smoking came from poor information. The Zealots tried to claim that youth smoking dropped by 10% in Canada after the display ban was brought in there. CRAP! First, the figures were wrong. In the period in question, the fall was 7%, and the Zealots had to acknowledge the mistake. But what was worse is that, at the time, not all Canadian provinces had enacted a display ban. The fall in youth smoking was much the same in those provinces which did not have a ban as those which did.
You can read Chris Snowdon’s analysis of what happened here:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs/thedarkmarket.pdf
It is well-worth reading.
====
There is a lot more to it than that, but it serves as an illustration of ‘Government out of control’. What is more distressing has been the willingness of politicians to change sides at the drop of a hat. Alan Johnson was Labour Health Sec at the time. Obviously, he was all for the ban. The opposition cover was Andrew Lansley. This is what he said about the display ban:
“It will come as no surprise to us if the Department of Health has funded organisations that provide the responses to consultations that the Government is looking for. The public are understandably cynical about the way Labour consults the public—it’s time we had a
Government that treats the public and their views with the respect they deserve.”
Andrew Lansley became Health Sec and changed sides completely. Virtually overnight, he became a Holy Zealot of Tobacco Control.
=====
There is something seriously wrong. Could you imagine Churchill changing his mind when he became Prime Minister in the early stages of WW2 and waving a piece of paper, saying that he had come to an agreement with ‘Mr Hitler’ that they could have have France and the rest of Europe, and everything would be OK? We have had a string of ‘conservative’ junior health ministers, Milton, Soubry and Ellison who have, in turn, fallen over themselves to comply with Anti-Tobacco demands. There can only be one explanation – they are scared. Put yourselves in their position. They know nothing at all. The latest Health Sec is Jeremy Hunt. He is well off and quite clever, but he knows nothing about Health. Allison is a clever young woman, but she knows nothing about health at all. None of the elected people know anything about what they are supposed to be governing. After the coming general election, you might as well put all the names of the majority party (if there is one) in a hat and draw lots for who will be PM, Health Sec, Foreign Sec, etc. In fact, it is becoming more and more clear that it there is no need for political parties. Just elect people sight-unseen and have a draw for positions. No…. Wait….. The draw would have to be for who is PM, that is all. Because he then chooses who the ministers will be. If the number of MPs is 650, he can appoint 326 as ministers of one form or another, and thus ensure their loyalty. That is sort of how it works in North Korea. It is called ‘Gift Politics’. The difference between North Korea and the UK is that the ‘big three parties’ are happy to exchange their roles from time to time.
====
I was reading a blog earlier today which is partly responsible for the above flippant thoughts. It was about ‘democracy’ in the USA. Someone was at pains to point out that the USA is not a ‘democracy’ – it is a ‘republic’.
That is interesting because of the implications of the words. In very basic, simple terms, you could equate ‘democracy’ with ‘tyranny of the majority’; you could equate ‘republic’ with ‘freedom of the individual within general constraints agreed by all’. Do you see the difference?
The American Constitution is ‘republican’ in the sense that it guarantees the right of a person to seek ‘happiness’ as best he can; it also guarantees that a person can defend himself with weapons; it limits the authority of ‘The Royal Court’. Essentially, the US constitution is a Treaty of the separate States which constitute the USA, which recognises the individual States as though they were individual countries, just as Europe is, but the States come together in matters such as defence of the whole, and in matters of trade between states and the outside world, and a host of other matters which affect all the states commonly.
Is it any wonder that the two main political parties in the USA are called ‘Republicans’ and ‘Democrats’? Neither of those two words make much sense as opposites. They can only be opposites if the describe different ideals. It could be that ‘Republican’ equates to ‘free-for-all’ and ‘Democrat’ equates to ‘control’.
====
Where is the median line?
I can only talk about the smoking ban because that is what really interests me. It would have been perfectly simple for the Government to mandate that bar staff should be protected against SHS by passing a law which said that publicans MUST provide bar staff with masks which they could wear if the felt threatened; also, they must provide masks for any punter who felt threatened, and the masks must be free. In fact, it would make sense for such a regulation to be created for aircraft. All passengers should be offered a mask because of the congestion. They do not have to wear them, but they should have the choice.
Thus, there was never a need for a bar smoking ban. There was a need for staff to be offered masks, if they wish to wear them.
====
Is it not very simple? Surely the clever buggers must have thought about that? Surely these quack professors and doctors are not so stupid that they have not thought about it? Surgical masks for all that want them is the easy answer, isn’t it? It preserves autonomy and ‘republicanism’ while denying the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Everyone is happy, YES?
Read https://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/government-out-of-control/ can only be opposites if the describe different ideals. It could be that ‘Republican’ equates to ‘free-for-all’ and ‘Democrat’ equates to ‘control’.
====
Where is the median line?
I can only talk about the smoking ban because that is what really interests me. It would have been perfectly simple for the Government to mandate that bar staff should be protected against SHS by passing a law which said that publicans MUST provide bar staff with masks which they could wear if the felt threatened; also, they must provide masks for any punter who felt threatened, and the masks must be free. In fact, it would make sense for such a regulation to be created for aircraft. All passengers should be offered a mask because of the congestion. They do not have to wear them, but they should have the choice.
Thus, there was never a need for a bar smoking ban. There was a need for staff to be offered masks, if they wish to wear them.
====
Is it not very simple? Surely the clever buggers must have thought about that? Surely these quack professors and doctors are not so stupid that they have not thought about it? Surgical masks for all that want them is the easy answer, isn’t it? It preserves autonomy and ‘republicanism’ while denying the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Everyone is happy, YES?
Pack it in
No more branded cigarettes
Mar 12th 2015 | Britain
FIRST they came for the TV commercials. Then they came for the posters. And then, on March 11th, the House of Commons voted to strip cigarette packets of anything that might appeal to consumers. From 2016 packs will only carry the make of cigarette and the brand name, along with the usual health warnings and ghastly photos of suppurating tumours and grangrenous toes.
Britain is the third country in the world to pass such legislation: Ireland did so earlier this month and Australia did so in 2012. Cigarette-makers and their advocates are fuming. Why, they ask, should suppliers of a legal product be so persecuted? Moreover, they say, the reform will lead to a rise in illicit cigarette smuggling.
The liberal objection is sound, but the criminological one is not. There are broadly three kinds of smuggled cigarette: the contraband kind, on which duty has been paid elsewhere but not in Britain; straight forgeries of branded smokes; and “illicit whites”-cigarettes manufactured legally elsewhere with the specific aim of smuggling them into Britain tax-free. The makers of the second kind require no assistance. “It is already so cheap and easy for criminals to forge cigarette packs that plain packing could and would not make it any easier,” says Charlie Edwards of RUSI, a think-tank.
As for the illicit whites, which make up the bulk of the illegal market, it is unclear whether people who have got used to a particular brand will switch to such dodgy products. A study published in the British Medical Journal last year suggested that Australia’s law has not led to a rise in the number of smokers buying cheap imported cigarettes or illicit tobacco.
Robert West, a professor of health psychology at University College London, says unbranded cigarettes seem to be less appealing to new smokers, especially young ones. They are attracted by brands’ particular promises-established addicts just want the nicotine. Professor West has calculated that even if the government’s decision had no impact on existing smokers and deterred only one in 20 new ones, around 2,000 lives would be saved annually. The dangers of smoking are such that any small change will have a significant impact, he argues. About 40% of adult smokers say they took up the habit before the age of 16.
But it might be hard to discern the effect of plain packaging, because smoking is already in such steep decline. In 1974 almost half of British adults puffed away regularly. Fewer than one-fifth now do, although the decline has slowed a little in recent years. Attitudes are changing along with habits. Children are increasingly censorious when it comes to lighting up. In 2012 just 31% thought it was acceptable even to try smoking, down from 54% in 1999.
Read More About Plain Packaging.
