The smoke, alas, has cleared. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill has finally passed Parliament.
This is clearly not the finest hour for liberalism. Yet this mustn’t mean liberals give up on opposing the nanny state, because the Act remains an outrage — an outrage because it ultimately opposes the freedom to make mistakes, denies lifestyle pluralism, and, amongst some people, rests on the false ground that smoking causes a net negative externality.
Hopefully, Farage and the libertarians in Reform UK will repeal this wretched Act, however, this should not stop liberals from reaffirming and strengthening their case in the meantime. A case to which we now turn.
Join Britain’s most civilised publication.
Challenge the consensus. Access rigorous analysis.
Just as individuals should be free to make mistakes by not preparing for a job interview, failing to get to work on time, or not doing enough exercise, analogously, individuals should be free to smoke too. Leading our lives, as opposed to merely living them, requires we have a protected sphere of our own. Should the paternalist principle that freedom should be restricted for our own good be accepted there are nothing but administrative barriers in the way of us facing totalitarianism. Under such a state, exercise could be compulsory, romantic partners chosen for us, socialising planned, and, indeed, our minds controlled to stop us from dwelling too much on sad things, all so we never choose poorly again. I am yet to hear any paternalist whatsoever explain why minor poor choices can be restricted but major poor choices cannot.
Do we want this total state control as our future, or, even as the political ideal? No. The wise are not the masters of the unwise: Each man is master of himself alone. This is essential to the very soul of liberalism, from John Locke through J.S. Mill to Robert Nozick and it should not be overturned in law by politicians who haven’t even tried to rebut its moral force — or, worse, have tried to dress up their authoritarianism in the language of freedom itself as the previous health minister, Victoria Atkins, did.
Even if we deny this liberalism, though, the tobacco ban is still very dubious for its denial of lifestyle pluralism, i.e. the idea there exists multiple different versions of the good life. It is commonly assumed by paternalists that because smokers lose at least ten years of life from the habit it must be bad for them. Losing life in exchange for pleasure is not necessarily bad for you, however, as anyone who has crossed the road to get a better pastry, risking getting hit by a car, would have to concede. If tobacco users very much enjoy smoking, then, just like crossing the road for the pastry, it might actually be the best thing for them to do. This is especially plausible when we consider that people who stop smoking before 35 miss out on over 90 per cent of its health risks. The smoking ban is actually bad for them.
Maybe smoking is bad for you, but if that is so then arguments should have been presented as to why that is the case, as opposed to it simply being assumed, especially given that 11 per cent of the British population still smokes. It will, of course, be pointed out that most smokers want to quit and I do believe them. It is not incoherent to think people can do things which are bad for them – psychological egoism is false. Why, however, should the minority who enjoy smoking be ridden roughshod over to help out those who can’t bring themselves to quit on their own steam? Would we accept the overweight majority banning dessert menus in restaurants, denying the slim sweet treats, simply because they couldn’t control themselves?
We must reaffirm that individuals must be free to make mistakes or choose a different conception of the good life
Having run a grassroots campaign against the tobacco ban, I can say that at this point, most people will start to talk about the strain on the NHS of smoking and how this warrants banning it. It has always been a fiction that smokers cost the state a net amount; as thinking about the fact many die before reaching state pension age shows. Christopher Snowdon estimates that on a net analysis, smokers save the state about £15bn every year. That’s £15bn in tax rises or spending cuts that the state will need to find in the long term should it push ahead with its smoking ban. Even more dubious is fear about second hand smoke. The World Health Organisation has found no statistically significant association between second hand smoke and health risk.
Liberals must not put down the sword in the fight against paternalism simply because we have lost this totemic battle. Indeed, we must reaffirm that individuals must be free to make mistakes or choose a different conception of the good life if they so please. Otherwise, the nanny statists will continually keep on pushing us about and telling us what to do. It is not hard to imagine the next sinister steps politicians will try and take: banning smoking in pub gardens, further taxing alcohol, and enforcing compulsory food reformulations. No. Individual freedom must stand. The paternalist principle behind this wretched tobacco ban must be opposed.
Enjoying The Critic online? It's even better in print
Try five issues of Britain’s most civilised magazine for £25
Subscribe
