Faux liberals to the left, faux liberals to the right

I was invited recently to comment on a University College London (UCL) study that found that increasing the cost of tobacco products in England is proving to be an important ‘motive’ in cutting out smoking for good.

Quelle surprise.

My response features in the print edition of the latest issue of Tobacco Journal International:

Simon Clark, director of the UK smokers’ rights group Forest, agreed that the increased cost of tobacco was one of main reasons for smokers quitting, but said it was only part of the story.

“Raising the tax on tobacco to exorbitant levels may force some smokers to quit, but it also breeds resentment because smokers feel they are being unjustly punished for their habit. It also discriminates against those on low wages, or elderly smokers living on a small pension.

"Increasing the cost of tobacco also fuels illicit trade by driving an increasing number of smokers to the black market where the principal beneficiaries are criminal gangs who will sell illicit tobacco to anyone, including children.”

He added: “While cost is a factor in reducing smoking rates, governments should not be coercing people to quit by increasing the price of tobacco to punitive levels.

“A better, and fairer, approach is to continue to educate people about the health risks of smoking, and encourage existing smokers to switch to reduced risk products such as e-cigarettes.”

Funnily enough, this last point could have come straight from the mouth of the director of the centre right think tank I mentioned in a previous post.

The difference between us is that, while I support vaping as an alternative to smoking, and agree that government should, within reason, encourage smokers to switch to vaping, I don’t think it should be “the priority for public health” to reduce smoking rates from the current 12 per cent to zero, as he suggested the other day.

I draw the line too at smokers being urged repeatedly to switch to vaping until they succumb to pressure to conform.

If, having been informed about the potential health benefits of switching to vaping, adults still choose to smoke, that’s their choice and everyone - whether it be government, public health campaigners, vaping advocates, or free marketeers - must respect it.

While I recognise that vaping offers a ‘safer’ alternative to smoking, I also recognise that many people enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit - and nor should they, if they don’t want to.

That, to me, is the difference between genuine liberals and the faux liberals who won't be happy until every last smoker has switched to vaping or quit.

I suspect that many are supporters of libertarian paternalism, if that term is still in vogue.

Aside from being an oxymoron, the issue with libertarian paternalism is the underlying threat that, if people don't change their behaviour voluntarily through 'nudging', the state will step in and legislate anyway, so it simply delays the inevitable.

That may not be what supporters of libertarian paternalism want, but it's the undoubted consequence of what some of us see as appeasement.

Increasing the tax on tobacco is arguably a form of libertarian paternalism because one of its aims is to nudge smokers to quit, without actually banning the product.

In practise however it fuels illicit trade and discriminates against the less well-off, so it's actually a regressive policy – the very opposite of the progressive policies advocates of libertarian paternalism probably have in mind.

Before libertarian paternalism there was a different name for it - social engineering. Many on the centre right were opposed to social engineering but, rebadged as libertarian paternalism, many embraced it.

Anyway, we don't seem to hear so much about libertarian paternalism, or nudging, these days. Instead, politicians – urged on by public health campaigners – have decided to save time and commit to prohibition (creeping or otherwise), because that's the endgame.

Meanwhile faux liberals on left and right wring their hands and assure us that banning smoking is not something they support, whilst doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

I could, I suppose, name and shame some of them but the list gets longer every day and I've got better things to do. Another time, perhaps.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

It is because they are hypocrites. They don't actually believe in freedom, they believe in fashion and trend and they do so hate those common underclasses who make the place look untidy with their old clothes, cheap junk food preferences, and ghastly cigarettes.

This is not about health. This is a class war waged by those who think they are somehow socially superior and if they could just push the weak, vulnerable and poorer classes into doing what they want then the world would be better for them.

Nothing smacks of pure hypocrisy and we are not falling for it.

I say f...ck them. They can do as they like. I'll just go underground as will others excluded from the fashionable lifestyle elite.

I just hope in decades to come when we begin to get casualties from vaping, and let's not pretend there have been none to date, that someone somewhere gets sued for coercing happy and healthy smokers to switch.

I find it so hard to believe that they dismiss every negative study about vaping being harmful as junk and yet happily accept and lap up any study that says smoking kills full stop. There has to be more to it than that or why are their lifelong smokers who live to very old age?

They are not enlightened people. They are fools at best, useful idiots at worst. It seems like there are a lot of them around these days in all aspects of politics.