Why are so many ‘libertarians’ anti-tobacco?
Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:36 Thanks to Students for Liberty Cardiff for inviting me to talk about ‘Tobacco and the nanny state’ via Zoom last night.
We overcame a few technical hitches and after I had spoken for around 25 minutes I took questions on a number of issues including the growth of interventionism, the ban on menthol cigarettes, and the legalisation of cannabis.
We over-ran our allotted time by a good 30 minutes but I enjoyed it because I like speaking to students, especially those who are open-minded and willing to engage in whatever the subject is.
(They don't have to agree with me! Sometimes it's more fun if they don't.)
Some of my favourite speaking engagements have involved student societies at Durham, Bristol, University College London (UCL) and University College Dublin (UCD).
I've also spoken at the Oxford Union – twice – but the less said about that the better. I was on the losing side each time, even when partnered with people such as Antony Worrall Thompson and the IEA's Mark Littlewood.
Last night, sadly, we couldn’t continue the conversation in the pub, as we would normally do. Nevertheless, if virtual meetings are what it takes to spread the message, I’m in.
Meanwhile SFL Cardiff president Dominik Kruk has emailed to say:
“Every participant that I spoke to really enjoyed your talk and you changed quite a few anti tobacco people into pro tobacco.”
That's good to hear, although it does beg the question, "Why are so many 'libertarians' anti-tobacco?". As I said last night:
I would argue that anyone who calls themselves a libertarian and believes in individual liberty and personal freedom has a duty to defend smokers, and smoking, because in my view a libertarian is someone who supports the rights of others to do things you may not like or even approve of. If you’re a genuine libertarian you can’t cherry-pick the issues you support.
Unfortunately, many so-called libertarians have turned their backs on the issue [of smoking] and it’s quite rare now to hear people stand up for smokers. It’s almost as if people have said, “Well, I don’t smoke so anti-smoking campaigns and legislation don’t affect me” or “It’s impossible to win this battle, let it go”.
The problem with that attitude is that it invites advocates of the nanny state to also move on – to issues such as alcohol and food, for example. Some call this the slippery slope and we’ve been warning people about this for the best part of 20 years.
A group such as Students for Liberty ought to understand this but I'm still waiting for an invitation to address one of their big annual conferences in Europe or America.
Next year might be a good time because I fully expect governments and campaigners to work feverishly, post Covid, to try and dictate our lifestyles even further – all in the name of 'public health'.
Below: Caught on screen by my colleague John Mallon during last night's meeting. I had no idea he was taking a photo - honest!
Reader Comments (4)
There are a lot of fake libertarians about but none of them take seriously the threat to smokers
I am actually scared about post covid and the draconian methods they will use to force people to quit. They will not let smokers choose because it does not fit their political aim of a smoke free world.
My guess is ultimately, they will have to criminalise us because ultimately that is the only way they can get some of us to quit - and then only by making smoking illegal and imprisoning smokers in smoke free prisons where no doubt we will be given some form of "cure" for smoking.
I honestly believe they would do it. They have no moral guide. I despair that some think - but you will be able to vape, what's wrong with that?
I remember them saying what's tje problem you can still smoke after the smoking ban but it looks like they were lying them too and had a bigger agenda in mind of which the blanket smoking ban was merely phase one of the eradication of smokers.
I agree and am flummoxed by the contradiction. Decades ago, I became aware of the Libertarian universe because, in the US, D's were the active Nannys against tobacco freedoms and R's weren't doing squat against them or in some cases abetting them. This then led to a broader understanding of Libertarianism.
My best guess is years of brainwashing on the topic and many young individuals not readily aware that just two decades ago, it wasn't difficult to find a comfortable spot to smoke and the public in general hadn't yet succumbed to the pressure to view and treat smokers with all the disdain that minorities suffered decades before.
Cheers and thanks for trying to set them straight
I think the nanny state will grow especially should Biden/Harris get to the White House.
To me the core problem seems to be that libertarianism is increasingly reduced to "I should be able to do as I want" rather than "Live and Let Live". So the notion that you should support anyone else to protect their free choice (especially someone who may not share your interests or pleasures) gets lost. That voluntary system of mutual support (rather than an imposed government solution) is the very essence of libertarianism.
On the other hand, as someone involved in what used to be termed civil liberties campaigns I am perplexed that so many colleagues say "The government should do something about X", when it was governments who insist on doing something that caused the loss of a civil liberty in the first place!