Joanna Marchong is investigations campaign manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
Labour’s leaked smoking ban plans will pose a threat to us all, but directly, of course, to smokers. But we should not be naive to think the goalposts will stop shifting.
Last Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer came out in support of a proposed ban on smoking in outdoor spaces. Beer gardens, outside areas of nightclubs and stadiums, and public parks were all on the list. Proponents tout this as a logical extension of the 2007 indoor smoking ban, which saw smokers banished to bikesheds and doorways if they wanted to light up.
In 2007, the argument for an indoor smoking ban rested more or less on something equating to J S Mill’s harm principle (like many government public health interventions) — the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Thus, the moral motivation was that secondhand smoke in enclosed spaces posed a significant health risk to non-smokers, thereby justifying the restriction.
The indoor ban, though controversial, was understandable and addressed an understandable health risk—secondhand smoke in confined spaces where non-smokers had little choice but to inhale it. With smokers forced outside, an acceptance that those wanting a puff would be free to do so in the open air took hold and has largely held since. Until last week.
While many warned that restrictions on smokers would not end in 2007, and a torrent of anti-smoking legislation has continued to pour forth from governments – such as restrictions on pack sizes, shop displays, and plain packaging, to name but a few – the uneasy truce has well and truly come to an end.
The busybodies (hypochondriacs) of the public health lobby have wound themselves up to the point that they can’t even stand the sight of a single cigarette in the open. The moral motivation of 2007 has morphed from preventing direct harm to others to reducing the visibility of smoking in the hopes of discouraging it. By estranging smokers further, the hope is that smoking will become even less of a social norm than it already is.
Though some may see this as a logical next step, Mill’s harm principle should be a starting point rather than considered in isolation. Exercising power over another involves a severe encroachment on freedoms, and we must have evidence that the harm in question justifies this reduction in personal liberty.
The new ban wishes to hide smokers from public view, see no evil, hear no evil. But will limiting smoking visibility lessen the number of people who smoke or take up the habit? Underlying the proposal is the view that media and peer role-modelling norms influence smoking behaviour and that this extends to seeing strangers smoke in a public place. Adolescents may look up to celebrities and idealise their bad habits.
Still, it is surely less likely that they are persuaded to start smoking after seeing a stranger drawing on a cigarette on a park bench? Young adults in the UK have grown up in a society that has consistently shunned smoking. You need only look at the graphic warnings on cigarette packs and the falling smoking rates.
In the end, this is an argument about principles. The Government should not dictate personal behaviour to the extent that it forces individuals to hide their legal activities from public view. This does not mean that smoking should be encouraged—far from it. But what is more important to note is that governments are forgetting the boundaries of civil society; people should be free to make decisions for themselves, even bad decisions.
The outdoor smoking ban is just the latest policy against smokers. Rishi Sunak’s generational smoking ban, which looks certain to be carried forward by Labour, was an even more draconian approach. These proposals represent an unprecedented level of government control over personal behaviour and are entirely at odds with the Conservative Party’s traditional emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility.
The Conservative Party has historically championed the cause of personal liberty, standing against government overreach. However, the willingness of some within the party to entertain ideas like the generational smoking ban and, by extension, the outdoor smoking ban is deeply troubling. It suggests a shift away from core values and raises questions about what other freedoms might be next on the chopping block.
If the Government can justify banning smoking for future generations and in beer gardens, what’s to stop them from applying the same logic to other legal but unhealthy behaviours? Will summer BBQs be banned because people will inhale too much harmful smoke? Will sugar be outright banned in a few years? Will salt?
The anti-smoking lobby has run out of good arguments. It’s not about protecting non-smokers. It’s not about the costs to the Treasury (banning smoking would actually harm the fiscal position). It’s now just about the state bullying adults into submission. If Conservatives roll over on this policy and allow it to be enacted, they are setting a dangerous precedent that, like the indoor ban, will just be the thin end of the wedge.
Joanna Marchong is investigations campaign manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
Labour’s leaked smoking ban plans will pose a threat to us all, but directly, of course, to smokers. But we should not be naive to think the goalposts will stop shifting.
Last Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer came out in support of a proposed ban on smoking in outdoor spaces. Beer gardens, outside areas of nightclubs and stadiums, and public parks were all on the list. Proponents tout this as a logical extension of the 2007 indoor smoking ban, which saw smokers banished to bikesheds and doorways if they wanted to light up.
In 2007, the argument for an indoor smoking ban rested more or less on something equating to J S Mill’s harm principle (like many government public health interventions) — the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Thus, the moral motivation was that secondhand smoke in enclosed spaces posed a significant health risk to non-smokers, thereby justifying the restriction.
The indoor ban, though controversial, was understandable and addressed an understandable health risk—secondhand smoke in confined spaces where non-smokers had little choice but to inhale it. With smokers forced outside, an acceptance that those wanting a puff would be free to do so in the open air took hold and has largely held since. Until last week.
While many warned that restrictions on smokers would not end in 2007, and a torrent of anti-smoking legislation has continued to pour forth from governments – such as restrictions on pack sizes, shop displays, and plain packaging, to name but a few – the uneasy truce has well and truly come to an end.
The busybodies (hypochondriacs) of the public health lobby have wound themselves up to the point that they can’t even stand the sight of a single cigarette in the open. The moral motivation of 2007 has morphed from preventing direct harm to others to reducing the visibility of smoking in the hopes of discouraging it. By estranging smokers further, the hope is that smoking will become even less of a social norm than it already is.
Though some may see this as a logical next step, Mill’s harm principle should be a starting point rather than considered in isolation. Exercising power over another involves a severe encroachment on freedoms, and we must have evidence that the harm in question justifies this reduction in personal liberty.
The new ban wishes to hide smokers from public view, see no evil, hear no evil. But will limiting smoking visibility lessen the number of people who smoke or take up the habit? Underlying the proposal is the view that media and peer role-modelling norms influence smoking behaviour and that this extends to seeing strangers smoke in a public place. Adolescents may look up to celebrities and idealise their bad habits.
Still, it is surely less likely that they are persuaded to start smoking after seeing a stranger drawing on a cigarette on a park bench? Young adults in the UK have grown up in a society that has consistently shunned smoking. You need only look at the graphic warnings on cigarette packs and the falling smoking rates.
In the end, this is an argument about principles. The Government should not dictate personal behaviour to the extent that it forces individuals to hide their legal activities from public view. This does not mean that smoking should be encouraged—far from it. But what is more important to note is that governments are forgetting the boundaries of civil society; people should be free to make decisions for themselves, even bad decisions.
The outdoor smoking ban is just the latest policy against smokers. Rishi Sunak’s generational smoking ban, which looks certain to be carried forward by Labour, was an even more draconian approach. These proposals represent an unprecedented level of government control over personal behaviour and are entirely at odds with the Conservative Party’s traditional emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility.
The Conservative Party has historically championed the cause of personal liberty, standing against government overreach. However, the willingness of some within the party to entertain ideas like the generational smoking ban and, by extension, the outdoor smoking ban is deeply troubling. It suggests a shift away from core values and raises questions about what other freedoms might be next on the chopping block.
If the Government can justify banning smoking for future generations and in beer gardens, what’s to stop them from applying the same logic to other legal but unhealthy behaviours? Will summer BBQs be banned because people will inhale too much harmful smoke? Will sugar be outright banned in a few years? Will salt?
The anti-smoking lobby has run out of good arguments. It’s not about protecting non-smokers. It’s not about the costs to the Treasury (banning smoking would actually harm the fiscal position). It’s now just about the state bullying adults into submission. If Conservatives roll over on this policy and allow it to be enacted, they are setting a dangerous precedent that, like the indoor ban, will just be the thin end of the wedge.