Civil liberties – up in smoke?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 9:50 Today sees the publication of a report entitled Civil Liberties: Up In Smoke. The introduction is self-explanatory:
This paper has been prepared by a team led by Simon Davies of Privacy International at the request of Forest, the UK smokers’ rights organisation. Forest has also contributed to the external research cost of the work, for which we are grateful.
The research does not address the health aspects of tobacco smoking, nor does it take sides on what has become a controversial aspect of public policy management. Instead the paper focuses on the privacy and civil liberties implications arising from the regulation of tobacco use globally.
The publication of the report is timely. Although tobacco regulation in the modern era is relatively recent, enough time has elapsed to determine some key trends and implications. One of those trends is the surveillance and control of tobacco smokers, with all the consequent risks to privacy and rights. The almost unrestricted use of drug testing kits for nicotine, routine tracking smokers by way of public camera networks, infiltration of social network profiles, banning images of smoking in films and establishing whistleblower and reporting hotlines are signs that a foundation has been established to institutionalise smokers as low grade criminals.
Whatever specific position is taken on tobacco regulation (or indeed any other issue), an evidence-based approach is crucial when assessing the effect of public policy. Privacy and rights advocates frequently apply neutral analysis when dealing with laws relating to national security, counter-terrorism, police powers and reforms to the criminal justice system. This doesn’t mean that those analysing the measures are opposed to the aims of such reforms. On the contrary, it is often the case that an evidence-based audit of such powers can improve both the effectiveness and public trust in those objectives. The same applies in the realm of tobacco regulation.
The health risks associated with smoking are accepted by the authors of this report and by the sponsoring organisation. We also acknowledge that governments and other authorities have a role to play educating people, children especially, about those risks. However several centuries of substance regulation show that careless regulation can create severe consequences in terms of the impact on individuals. In establishing regulation, governments must strive to avoid an unintended own-goal that invites negative and damaging consequences. We have sought in this paper to identify such consequences and we invite government to reflect on them.
In some senses this paper is an early-warning report. While the fear and persecution that characterised previous substance prohibition is not yet generally evident in the realm of tobacco control there are danger signs that without care the next decade could witness injustices on a substantial scale. As we establish in this report, there is already adequate evidence that in some environments smokers are regarded as social pariahs who deserve no rights. If smokers start to perceive themselves this way then the path will be cleared for a repeat of the worst errors made in previous attempts to prohibit the use of substances. As with previous prohibitions, regulation moves quickly from a public health mechanism to an assault on the individual.
We have printed 2,000 copies of the report and will be distributing it to politicians, journalists and broadcasters. Copies will be available at our Voices of Freedom event in London tonight.
You can download it here – Civil Liberties: Up In Smoke
Reader Comments (11)
"pubic camera networks" Wow! that's what I call intrusive surveillance :-D
Suggest you run a spell check Simon!
Well spotted! Corrected - and corrected on the printed/electronic versions too, I believe.
Pg 20, second para: the odd term "personal devastation" - did Simon D really mean personal deviancy?
The agenda to simply ban on the basis of personal prejudice is now clear. They may use fake medical evidence or anything else, but free choice is dying at the feet of the masters.
Indeed - check out Dave Atherton's excellent spot in CNN last night. The interviewer waved away Dave's challenge to the "evidence" with the view that people don't like it, the smell etc.. and if they don't like it why should they have to smell it. RIP freedom of choice. I'll see you fellow non-quit smokers in jail in a few years when tobacco and its consumers are criminalised.
Where did he wave away Dave's challenge to the 'evidence'? I thought it was fairly neutral and quite good with Arnott coming across as the sanctimonious harridan she is. It was Dave mainly bringing up the studies. The only one Arnott brought up was the Japanese one. Arnott came across as a con. At least the interviewer admitted it was contentious and not the signed deal Arnott was trying to propagate.A few more like that, please.
Congratulations, Pat Nurse, on the splendid effort in the Lincoln Post. Support came towards the end of comments but you didn't seem to need it.
"Where did he wave away Dave's challenge to the 'evidence'? I thought it was fairly neutral and quite good with Arnott coming across as the sanctimonious harridan she is. It was Dave mainly bringing up the studies. The only one Arnott brought up was the Japanese one. Arnott came across as a con. At least the interviewer admitted it was contentious and not the signed deal Arnott was trying to propagate.A few more like that, please. ..."
Has anyone got a link to that? I'd like to have a gander. Sheila Duffy got a bit of a spanking recently on Radio Scotland too. :-O
Also:
Is anyone else having probs downloading the 'Civil Liberties: Up In Smoke' pdf? I'm only getting a download rate of 5kb/sec and it fails. :-(
Try http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/. Its his website
When Debs and Dave were arguing about the health aspect the interviewer put his hand up and said : "Health aside people don't like walking in the park and having to be met by a fug of smoke these days" or words to that effect.
But yes - Dave was excellent and wasn't frazzled when Debs did her usual trick of attacking the opposition. With simon she stops mid debate to remind everyone he is paid by the Tobacco industry and she tried it with Dave by saying he was no expert. Neither is she - only on PR and marketing AKA lying spin.
Our side came out better but the bigots still cling to their view that we are wrong and they are right and they have Govt and law on their side so what.
Thanks for that vote of confidence Frank - I thought I'd lost that debate in the end because I lost my temper especially with the one who said so arrogantly : "All smokers want to quit and if they say they don't then they are lying." Strewth!
I think the report is excellent. That Mr Hitchens has some strange views, doesn't he? Pity he so dominated proceedings last night - I found him very irritating.
As were the gaggle of 20-somethings behind me who saw no problem in chattering amongst themselves throughout the talks and discussion - clearly they thought what they had to say was much more important than the speakers everyone else had travelled to see.
What IS IT about the younger generation that some of them seem to have failed to grasp the basic notion that when one person at the front is speaking, singing, playing an instrument, acting etc you are supposed to keep your mouth shut? Is it just me?
Thanks for the link Frank.
I'm still having problems downloading the Civil Liberties Up In Smoke pdf. I'm now getting less than a 1 kilobyte rate.
Is there anywhere else that I can get a copy from that has better bandwidth?