Some smoke, some fire

This Green and Pleasant Land considers how far the state should go in preventing citizens from self-harming

Agreeing with Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson may be regarded as a first sign of insanity yet I think he’s onto something with his opposition to the government’s proposed smoking ban.

The idea is to snuff out tobacco sales in stages so that eventually tobacco will become an illicit product.

There is a precedent for this sort thing but it is less than reassuring. America banned sales of alcohol from 1920 to 1933 but it hardly led to the disappearance of alcohol. On the contrary it spawned a vast illicit trade ensuring that the booze continued flowing mainly to the benefit of organised crime.

The motive for a tobacco ban is no doubt noble as it addresses a clear health hazard. However tobacco is far from being alone in this respect. Nonetheless it is the target of the anti-smoking brigade who demonstrate a rather alarming degree of zealotry not manifest in tackling other health threats such as the food we eat. The World Health Organization predicts that by the early 2030s an astonishing 37 per cent of British adults will become obese. Obesity has links to a variety of fatal diseases such as cancers, heart disease and diabetes.

Brits eat too much sugar, junk food and a host of other bad stuff. The impact of this bad diet on the nation’s health and the burden it imposes on the National Health Service is far greater than the consequences of smoking, which, by the way, is in sharp decline.

Logically therefore concern over health should initially be targeted at what we eat and drink.

The government did in fact take some baby steps to reduce consumption of sugary soft drinks and snacks. However the kickback was furious and the baby steps were stopped in their tracks.

People, like the notably overweight Mr Johnson, want to make government health regulation part of their anti-woke campaigning where they get to use the term ‘Nanny State’. It is a depressing and lazy way of addressing very real questions concerning the state’s role in regulating citizen’s behaviour.

Unlike the Anti-Woke Warriors, grownups will ponder the complexity of balancing outlawing harmful behaviour against the extent to which citizens should be allowed to damage their own health where no harm is being done to others.

It is not objectionable for the state to take a leading role warning of health hazards and advocating more healthy lifestyles.

There is also a strong case to be made for state regulation of harmful consumption practises among children, hence prohibitions on the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors.

So far, so simple, albeit not free of controversy. The tricky bit is knowing that certain types of behaviour are dangerous, indeed life threatening, and deciding the extent to which adults should be prevented from indulging.

In other words, should adults be prevented from harming themselves? There is no easy answer here although laws, for example, to prevent suicide, establish a parameter fence around the level of self harm that is permitted.

When it comes to smoking, only the most Neanderthal of smokers are unaware or dismiss the risks. Many smokers are addicted and find it hard to give up. If tobacco was to be banned they would certainly find a way of obtaining black market supplies.

Another category of smokers are not exactly addicted but really enjoy tobacco. I can speak with some authority here because I am one of them. I smoke cigars and have cut down on the number I smoke but remain highly reluctant to give up entirely. Occasional smokers, like me, are consciously choosing to enter the dubious lottery of dodging the cancer bullet even though the odds are not favourable.

If the view were to be taken that the state should intervene at this point and try to eliminate this kind of reckless gamble government should also be banning a great many foodstuffs, should certainly be banning dangerous sports such as boxing, probably should be forcing cyclists off the roads and as for that crazy pastime of whizzing down icy slopes on two sticks, surely that’s also worthy of a ban.

So, here’s the rub. The fact is that it is both impractical and objectionable for the state to stop citizens harming themselves in all sorts of ways. Choosing to rank some potential self-harms above others is a minefield almost certainly best avoided by sane governments.

Yet the cry of ‘something must be done’ never ceases. If people want to live dangerously surely they have the right to do so. I am mitigating risks by sticking to half coronas rather than the big bastards cigars. I know it’s a bad and mad but agreeing with the ineffable Mr Johnson falls into the same category. In my defence I can only say it will not be a regular occurrence.

·         This blog was written ahead of the House of Commons vote on the second reading of the smoking ban bill