The cost of prohibition

You may have seen the poll, commissioned by MailOnline, that found that 52% of respondents would ban the sale of cigarettes immediately.

The poll also found that 71% would support a New Zealand style policy, gradually raising the age of sale of tobacco.

Given that the overwhelming majority of respondents will have been non-smokers I’m not sure why their views are particularly relevant.

It’s like asking a vegan if we should ban meat or a teetotaller if we should ban alcohol.

Anyway I was invited to discuss the poll with Andre Walker and his sidekick, the appropriately named Ash, on TalkTV on Friday at 11.30pm.

I was told that because of the hour it would be an audio only interview but they would use Zoom for better sound quality. When I logged on however I was asked to click the camera button so I could be seen as well as heard.

Thinking it was to be audio only I hadn’t bothered to shave (for 48 hours) but it could have been worse. At that time of night I could have been sitting there in my dressing gown.

As it happens the sound (at my end) kept cutting out so I sometimes had to guess, from their body language on screen, when it was my turn to speak without being certain what the question was.

My argument against a ban on cigarette sales is that it won’t stop people smoking and nor should it because too many people enjoy smoking and why should we deny future generations that choice?

Instead a ban will drive the sale of cigarettes underground and into hands of criminals, with the loss of billions of pounds in revenue, not to mention the increased costs of tackling illicit trade.

More important, perhaps, is the bigger picture. Do we want to live on a society that infantilises adults by removing their ability to make informed choices about their lifestyle, whether it be eating, drinking or smoking?

If you’re unfamiliar with Andre Walker he’s an extraordinarily ebullient character who’s worked for multiple media platforms including Breitbart, the New York Observer and Comment Central before finding a home at TalkTV where his Tigger-like qualities appear to have found a natural home.

He began the discussion on Friday night by describing me as a “good friend” (we’ve met once or twice at Forest events) and finished it by suggesting we meet for a drink.

As you might expect we were singing from the same hymn sheet until, at the end, he unexpectedly inserted a brief public health warning - something to the effect that no-one should take up smoking. WTF!

As it happens I would be pleased if this was a prelude to having a national debate about banning the sale of cigarettes because it’s important the British public is confronted with the true cost of prohibiting what is still a popular consumer product.

When we organised a fringe meeting at last year’s Conservative party conference and invited a panel of speakers to address the question ‘Should smoking be banned for good?’ our intention was to confront this issue head on.

It’s not just cigarettes, it’s what comes next (meat, alcohol, other nicotine products) because you can be sure the public health industry won’t stop at tobacco.

To be honest, I’m a bit surprised that 52% would support an immediate ban on the sale of cigarettes but that’s the world we live in. Tolerance for other people’s habits seems to be on the wane and that’s a real problem.

Government of course has to decide policy based not only on public opinion but also on what’s practical and fair, and banning cigarette sales is neither practical nor fair to the millions who enjoy or take comfort from smoking tobacco.

See: Brits back ban on smoking: 52% want an 'immediate' end to cigarette sales – and over 70% say UK should follow New Zealand's example and phase them out (MailOnline)

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

It would have been more accurate to say 52% of MailOnline readers would support a ban on sales. The Mail and MailOnline hardly represent the whole country.

Compared to the whole population that 52% of Mail readers is actually very much a tiny minority but then that is what propaganda does. It dishonestly exaggerates an issue to enable the outcome to be manipulated in favour of the extremists pushing it.

I just wonder if any of our politicians in Government, or soon to be in Government, recognise it for what it is? My guess is that like Streeting, it depends upon their own personal preference and to hell with anyone who does not agree with their personal world view.

[Simon]

To be fair, Pat, I don’t think the poll was restricted to MailOnline readers. It was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies who I had never heard of before but looking at their website they were founded in 2020 and have conducted polls for several newspapers. Respondents to the poll appear to be a sample of 1500 people in Great Britain.

[Pat Nurse]

Thanks Simon but even so, the 1,500 chosen hardly represent the 68 million in the country. Look how wrong polls have been in the past when predicting elections. If we decided to base assumptions on the public comments on social media as the voice of Britain, instead of commissioned polls, for example, the result would be the opposite judging by the outrage I have seen in the vast majority of such comments reacting to this Draconian policy threat.

However it is dressed up to look "authentic" and "representative" it still looks like a massive con to me and is clearly starting to follow the template used by the anti smoking industry when setting out on the road to other bans. Soon even without consultation and thanks to such useless polls given far too much credence, the anti smoker industry won't even have to go through the scam of so called "public" consultation before screeching the government has done a u turn on imposing the criminalisation of future smokers.