A problem with writing a blog of this kind is that it can become a little tedious having to go over the same arguments again and again. There are only so many times you can explain why minimum alcohol pricing is a seriously counter-productive policy, or why cask ale premiumisation really isn’t going to fly.
Something of the same applies to the issue of progressively raising the minimum purchase age for tobacco, something I wrote about back in 2021 in relation to New Zealand, and again earlier this year referring to the British Labour Party. Now, not entirely surprisingly, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that this is going to be applied in the UK.
It is an appalling, grossly illiberal policy that reduces responsible adults to the status of naughty children. Christopher Snowdon has already set out the case against it very clearly.
It would, over time, turn the entire tobacco industry over to the black market, and deprive the government of the associated tax revenue. Smoking has already been banned in all indoor public spaces, so the opportunities for younger smokers to stand out and feel stigmatised are now very limited. It’s already difficult to go far in cities and large towns without encountering the smell of cannabis, and that’s illegal for all age groups. Tobacco will be just the same. As I understand it, there’s no intention to ban possession or consumption, merely the legal sale.
It’s already difficult enough for shopkeepers to enforce the minimum purchase age of 18 for alcohol and tobacco, and this will be multiplied if the tobacco age rises every year. People in their 30s and 40s are going to need identity cards to prove their age. And a 36-year-old isn’t going to have any qualms about buying tobacco for their 35-year-old friend.
Of course smoking carries significant health risks, but that applies to plenty of other things do for pleasure, most of which are tolerated or even celebrated. And there is a total failure to appreciate that many smokers actually enjoy the habit and have no desire to quit. The government are looking to prohibit a leisure activity that gives people pleasure and, providing it is done in private, harms nobody else.
Smokers now represent only about 10% of the adult population, and come disproportionately from the more marginalised in society. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a distinct whiff of “othering” in this policy, in finding minorities to persecute and ostracise. Most prejudices against minorities are now rightly frowned on, but this one goes from strength to strength.
Unsurprisingly, every lobby group wanting increased lifestyle restrictions is jumping on the bandwagon and saying that this sets a precedent for their particularly bansturbatory hobby-horse.
And if you think it will never be used as a precedent to justify greater alcohol regulation, then I have a bridge to sell you.The PM has announced a tobacco ban - but is skeptical about tackling the food industry. Why?
— Soil Association (@SoilAssociation) October 5, 2023
We need the same bold public health approach with respect to food - tighter regulations, and ensuring healthy unprocessed food is accessible to all
🔊 from 1h30https://t.co/sfM89fZpQD
This has not yet become law, and is unlikely to do so before the impending General Election. During that time, many articulate voices will be raised against it. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss has already stated she would vote against it. This, from Ian Dunt, is an example of an opposing view from the political Left. Don’t expect Labour to do anything to challenge it, though – they will do their usual nodding dog act when confronted with any authoritarian measure.
And, if it does come to pass, I will be able to sit back and just watch the inevitable and widely predicted policy disaster unfold. They haven’t banned Schadenfreude. Yet...
Smoking has absolutely no benefits, is highly addictive and causes health problems to others around you. It should have been banned a long time ago and no serious comparison can be made with alcohol- which is a personal choice and easy to keep under control.
ReplyDeleteEh?
DeleteHow does it cause health problems to others if done in private? You do realise that smoking has been banned in indoor public spaces for sixteen years? And if people enjoy it, that is a benefit in itself.
DeleteMy point was that all sales should have been banned long ago. The less people smoking, the less chance of them clogging my lungs with their (unavoidable) second hand smoke.
DeleteWhat a nasty person you are. I'd like to know what you like so i can ban that.
DeleteBy private, I assume you mean on your own and not in a shared household? Children are likely to adopt the the habits of their parents and peers. They are the next generation to potentially ruin their health.
DeleteOr in the company of consenting adults.
DeleteLots of things are bad for your health. Doesn't mean that responsible adults shouln't have the right to decide to do them.
DeleteAnd by that argument ICE motor vehicles should have been banned long ago. The less people driving, the less chance of them clogging my lungs with their (unavoidable) exhaust fumes
DeleteLife was so much better when the streets were covered in horseshit.
DeleteEven discounting the rights or wrongs of banning it, the practicality of doing so should have any moderately intelligent MP shaking their head.
ReplyDeleteHow is it going to work? is a question every MP should ask.
From IDing any young looking kid to IDing all adults against a rolling age threshold? Eh? It's crazy. People in shops can't do mental arithmetic at the best of times.
Even conservatives have to admit this dying government is out of steam. Out of ideas, out of competence. It's just the crazies now. They'd be better off calling it quits and seeing how long it takes people to forget.
Quite, Cookie. The implementation is likely to be a total shitshow.
DeleteMany sneer at the likes of Grangelina, considering her a bit vulgar and rough.
DeleteBut I would hope that the small number there that are not born to rule etonian toffs that have never worked in their lives, but have in fact at some point had an actual job. The one or two maybe from the trade union movement, might point out the practical challenges of this idiot idea and that it would not work. That is the point of a representative parliament of commoners, surely, that it contains a wide set of experience and backgrounds.
Works in New Zealand. doesn't it?
DeleteIt's not due to be implemented in New Zealand until 2026. And, while it may "work" in a narrow technical sense, it can also at the same time produce many undesirable side-effects and be inherently morally abhorrent.
DeleteThe intention appears to be to make the marketplace uneconomic for Big Tobacco, but they operate globally and don't care if the baccy they sell in one country ends up in the black market of another. Eventually this will drive all tobacco sales underground and inevitably increase the amount of even more dangerous fake branded tobacco which has far more toxicity than that permitted for sale here now.
ReplyDeleteRemember sweet tobacco?
DeleteRemember it? The Asian supermarket near me sells Arab baccy which is very sweet.
DeleteIt's vehicle emissions, not tobacco smoke, that's killing thousands of people.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the government needs to sort out.
But the government are trying to make everyone use emission-free battery vehicles! :P
DeleteAs with any ill conceived and badly thought through legislation, these nonsensical proposals will prove unenforceable, and will be ignored by all right thinking people.
ReplyDeleteI see the incoming government in New Zealand has decided to scrap the country's policy of creeping tobacco prohibition. This leaves Britain proudly standing alone like the proverbial Piffy on a rock bun. I wonder if our legislation will run into the sand when a General Election is called.
ReplyDelete