Fighting talk
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 17:00 
I was on TalkTV on Monday.
I was invited to discuss Labour’s plan to consult on banning or progressively raising the age of sale of tobacco to eradicate smoking.
It was one of those rare interviews where I was able to talk without being interrupted all the time, either by the presenter or another guest.
Towards the end however presenter Ian Collins suggested (not unreasonably since he had to play devil's advocate), that it "would be far better to live in a world that was smoke free”. Naturally I demurred, arguing that:
Of course there are some people who are addicted to smoking and wished they had never taken it up but there are also a great many people who enjoy smoking, get pleasure from smoking, or perhaps they take comfort from smoking, and if you are an adult and you choose to smoke a legal product that choice has to be respected ...
Then there are social smokers who are not addicted to tobacco. They simply enjoy it when they go out for an evening and they are outside a pub and they have got a drink in their hand. They like to have a cigarette and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as the person doing it knows that there is a potential health risk and of course they need to be considerate to people around them, and most smokers these days are.
So I think we have just got to move on a bit. We've got enough rules, regulations, laws, legislation to do with smoking. We don't need the government interfering any more. When you think of all the problems that the future governments are going to be expected to deal with, whether it’s the economy, the NHS, the idea that we should be tackling smoking is absolutely ridiculous because actually, on purely financial grounds, it’s said to cost the NHS £2.5 billion a year to deal with tobacco-related diseases but smokers contribute over £10 billion a year through tobacco taxation and VAT. So smokers more than pay their way in society. They are not a drain on the nation’s resources.
Funnily enough, when I mentioned social smokers I could see him nodding his head and it turns out that Collins is a social smoker himself because after the interview had finished ("Nice argument outlined there from Simon Clark"!) he told listeners:
I kind of socially smoke and really enjoy [it] and every now and then I will go into a bit of a phase ... I’ll socially smoke on a Saturday, then I will carry on smoking until Wednesday, but broadly speaking I will smoke when I have a couple of drinks and I enjoy smoking when I have a couple of drinks.
Update: Chris Snowdon has written an article for Spiked, The road to prohibition, in which he states:
The public consultation mooted by Wes Streeting makes it almost inevitable that the UK will emulate the Kiwis [and progressively ban the sale of cigarettes to future generations]. The public-health blob will inundate the consultation with carbon-copied responses in favour of prohibition, and if the government declines to introduce the policy or decides to wait for further evidence, nanny-state activists will portray this as a ‘u-turn’ and accuse Streeting of being in the pocket of the tobacco industry. That is exactly what happened in the plain-packaging campaign.
I've spoken and written about creeping prohibition many times so I share some of Chris's pessimism. Nevertheless even I think it's unnecessarily defeatist to be talking like this at this stage.
Prohibition of tobacco is not, in my view, inevitable and politicians must understand that if they choose that path they're in for a hell of a fight.
The question (as I touched on yesterday) is, who's up for it?
Reader Comments (5)
Simon, I wrote to The Labour Party yesterday, addressed to Keir Starmer, as a concerned member of the public (I am not a member of the party), about this very subject, given they are the largest opposition party.
I recognise that the points I am going to raise here are very political, and the opinions are of course, purely my own, at least some of which you may well have perfectly reasonable disagreement with.
I explained to The Labour Party that, whilst (in my opinion) the nation needs to be rid of this calamitous Tory government, at the next general election, nobody wants a nanny state, and that the public have lost far too many freedoms over the course of this century, which we want back.
I argued having policies like this one will mean that a significant number of people will not vote for The Labour Party, who otherwise might. I said that such policies of yet more social control would create a quite reasonable fear that they would have tendencies towards a totalitarian state, and that governments need to stop interfering in people's private lives.
I stated that social control has gone overboard in the last 20 years or so, and needs dragging back, kicking & screaming if necessary (which it would be). I went on to say that the Tories are currently playing into the opposition parties' hands, with their attempts on curbing yet more rights, such as the right to strike, the right to protest, and human rights in general.
I pointed out that current polling indicates that the next election is likely to be an opposition victory, but one which they can easily lose, if their policies put voters off. I made clear that the opposition parties need to make personal freedom a key plank of their manifesto promises, especially Labour, given their negative history in this regard. This would put clear water between them and the Tories.
I concluded that, in addition to this, and other more obviously necessary policies, like help for families & businesses with energy, another key plank should be the reform of our antiquated voting system, which currently allows the two major parties to be elected without an actual majority of the populace, and hold the country to ransom, which the Tories have done many times, and which Labour did under Blair. I also advocated entering into formal tactical voting agreements in 2024, to ensure a Tory defeat.
My main reason for expressing these latter points is that Proportional Representation would all but ensure coalition governments, as is often the case in Europe. While this may not seem immediately relevant to the subject at hand, coalitions tend to prevent extremist policies, which the policy we're discussing certainly is.
As a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, my personal desire is that we end up with a Labour/Liberal coalition government in 2024, in which case, Labour's socially controlling tendencies may be kept in check, as indeed the most severe Tory policies were, from 2010 to 2015, which became apparent in 2015.
However, the fact is that we may well end up with an unfettered Labour government, and that could potentially be almost as bad as the unfettered Tory government we have now. In case that happens, we all need to let them know that we want our freedoms back, and that we won't take any more interference in our lives; they need to know this now, before their manifesto is written, to potentially influence what is in it. They are by no means confident of victory, so they might actually listen for once.
Never be complacent. After all, how many people thought no government would ever ban smoking indoors due to the devastation to the hospitality industry that would be caused? Never believe tax will save us. Criminality, fines and penalties imposed on those who refuse to quit will help to replace it as well as, of course, rises in taxes elsewhere.
When it comes to ideology, and that ego inspired legacy that some nondescripts know extremist laws on smoking will give them, there is nothing these political charlatans would not do. NZ has done it and in this country there are some just chomping at the bit to be next. It will take just one intolerant like Streeting to get into power and the job is done. The anti smoker industry knows it too and they are waiting for just the right sort of intellectually challenged, prejudicial smoke hating egotist or authoritarian puppet to implement their policy.
Chris Snowden is right when he says what will then follow is a sham that will pretend to be consultation when the outcome is decided and settled.
It is not a question of IF but WHEN. If any previous extremist policy had not been bulldozed through by the manipulation of the smoke hating lobbyists who have infiltrated government, I might think prohibition will never happen but after the authoritarian, illiberal, and extremist smoking ban I think we have to accept that when it comes to smoking prohibition, absolutely anything is possible.
The fight against it needs to start now and with help from other groups who, hopefully, can be made to see that smoking is not a trivial issue but a vital cornerstone of a free and tolerant society. Vaping organisations specifically need to open their eyes. They might think smoking prohibition would be great because smokers can then be forced to their vaping products but Streeting has made clear he is gunning for vaping too. The "ecigs saves lives" rubbish is convincing no one. It is way past time that vaping orgs saw who their real allies are and make a stand with smokers and for smoking if they really want to save vaping before the authoritarians come for them too.
Marcus, I’m not sure I share your faith that the Lib Dems would keep Labour’s socially controlling instincts in check (and the Conservatives aren’t much better). Nevertheless thanks for taking the time and trouble to write to Keir Starmer. If only more people - readers of this blog and others with an interest in this issue - did the same we might be in a better place. Actions speak louder than words so thanks for acting!
I agree Simon. A thoughtful comment from Marcus. It would be great if he could let us know if he gets a reply from Starmer.
I cannot count the times I have written to various health ministers, my MP and even the Lib Dems but found that at best I get an automated response written by some civil servant, probably, that ignores my specific request or appeal but just parrots the usual "smoking and passive smoking causes .... deaths.. Government has a target to bring down the number of smokers ... etc, etc.."
I once tried to engage with a Lib Dem candidate for council on FB and mentioned that I really wanted to discuss my issue of inequality but it was now the issue that dare not speak its name for fear of abuse. The candidate was very understanding and assured me the LibbDems listened to all voices. When I then mentioned the issue of smoking, feeling excluded, marginalised, stigmatised and discriminated against, the candidate changed tone and said I had no right to go around murdering people with my smoke so what did I expect.
I also remember LibDem Stephen Williams, the main driver and supporter of plain packs so like you Simon, I doubt very much that smokers have any friends in the Lib Dems who experience tells don't really support a live and let live attitude, especially if the marginalised group is not popular or worthy of a few extra votes.
As for Labour, well, my former MP had a physchotic hatred of smoking and any smoker who dared to stand their ground and the Labour leader of our local council dismissed me as "a pathetic addict who has no right to force smoke on others".
I genuinely wish you good luck with your appeal Marcus and I hope the hostile atmosphere among Labour and LibDem politicians has changed but I won't hold my breath.
I do not think the Conservatives are any better by any means but at least I have a fair listening ear from my Tory MP who at least takes my concerns to various ministers even if those concerns have then been dismissed immediately due to being a smoker who disagrees with the political direction of this issue.
Simon, thanks for approving my comment, and for the kind remarks in return, especially given the controversial views I expressed. The main reason I hoped you would approve it, was because I hoped it would encourage anyone reading this blog to follow my example, and give them ideas for some key points. As you say, actions speak louder than words (even if those actions are using words). If I get a response, I'll share it here.
By the way, the reason I have faith that the Liberal Democrats would try to keep Labour's socially controlling instincts in check, is I am a member, and very aware of my party. While social control has infected all strands of political life, to one degree or another, not only are Liberal Democrats politically centrist, with a firm belief in social liberalism, alongside a general history of strong libertarian views, you wouldn't believe how many of us smoke! At party conferences, all of the hotel smoking areas are absolutely rammed!