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!
