Charles Amos studied Political Theory at the University of Oxford and writes The Musing Individualist Substack.
I have read few defences of banning tobacco as riddled with error as Lord Bethell’s latest article for ConservativeHome.
I will commend him though for his consistent application of paternalism in calling for an immediate ban on tobacco sales. The paternalism he puts forward is implausible, the conception of freedom he implicitly holds is questionable at best, and, he’s simply wrong to claim tobacco has a net external cost to society. This is disregarding the collectivism which lurks at the heart of his article; veneered over by the references to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Human respect dictates his nannying be opposed.
Paternalism is the basic idea the freedom of the individual should be restricted for their own good.
This is an implausible idea since it also requires the state to require exercise and ration alcohol and junk food. Indeed, were it not for administrative barriers, the state should ban people from ever making mistakes. I imagine Lord Bethell would reject that conclusion, after all, he states, ‘I cherish liberty’, yet, I am yet to hear any paternalist explain why a large harm such as smoking can be banned but a smaller harm such as eating too many packets of crisps can’t.
Lord Bethell will point to the fact that banning smoking is not ‘interference but liberation’ because ‘smoking is highly addictive’.
Addiction as a physical law preventing the operation of an individual’s will does not undermine their freedom at all though. To be committed to such a position would counterintuitively commit Lord Bethell to saying a strong wind making me unable to stand up straight undermines my freedom, or, the law of gravity which stops my individual will from getting me to jump to the moon undermines my freedom too. Disregarding the proper understanding of freedom, however, 62 per cent of people who have ever smoked have given up, showing, without doubt, quitting can be done.
Next Lord Bethell asks us to think about the freedom and wellbeing of children.
As established in the last paragraph, addiction per se does not undermine freedom, nor realistically does it ‘sabotage their health’. Sure, children are likely to be slightly worse off, but then children are not entitled to the best environment possible to be brought up in – the state shouldn’t be requiring parents serve as many vegetables as possible and read them bed time stories after all. Nor does parents’ smoking particularly increase the risk children will take up smoking themselves anyway, children of smokers only become regular smokers at a rate of 4.9 per cent compared to a rate of 1.2 per cent for children of nonsmokers.
Now it’s pretty rich of a former health minister to argue against tobacco on the basis it is ‘a cause of enduring poverty’, because, about 80 per cent of the cost of buying cigarettes is taxation ministers like him have levied.
We can now move onto the real glaring errors with Lord Bethell’s article. He states that the British taxpayer is ‘subsidising the colossal external costs of the tobacco industry’. He cites no figures. Data from the Institute of Economic Affairs however shows the tobacco industry actually contributes £14.7bn to the Treasury on a net analysis, i.e., after taking into account tobacco duty and the fact smokers die early saving the state on very expensive social care and pensions, subtracting the healthcare and fire costs.
No doubt Lord Bethell will dispute the IEA figure, preferring instead the ASH figure of £17.3bn cost to society each year. The great problem with this estimate is it counts lost production, unemployment and early death to the tune of £14bn as costs to society, but the reality is these are costs to the individual. Certainly, no economist worth his salt would count them as external costs, indeed, retiring early and not having kids would counterintuitively count as external costs on the basis lost economic output somehow belongs to the people. When the £3.3bn of costs to the NHS and dealing with smoking related fires are put against the £8.8bn of tobacco duty revenue it is clear there is no net cost to society of smoking.
Lurking at the heart of Lord Bethell’s thought seems to be a collectivism.
According to him we should be ‘maximising public health’ to ensure ‘a fit and thriving population [which] is essential for national resilience’ since stopping smoking is ‘not just a health issue, it’s a patriotic mission to strengthen Britain’.
No.
A natural principle of human respect dictates each individual should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
Individuals are not mere means to be used to achieve a supposedly higher ideal, whether that be better protecting the nation, saving the NHS money, or, setting an international example. The basic question when thinking about the morality of the violence of the state apparatus is this: Would it be acceptable for a private individual to use said violence? Since hardly anyone would think it is acceptable for private persons, indeed, even family members, to forcefully restrict the freedom of people to smoke, nor is it acceptable for the state to do it. This is what is meant by the natural principle of human respect, the nature of morality, not a consensus among citizens, is what makes tobacco prohibition wrong.
Lord Bethell’s paternalism would implausibly stop every individual from ever making a mistake again were that administratively possible. More error abounds: Whether it be his phony notion of freedom, silly accusation smoking causes poverty as opposed to the tobacco duty, or, the baloney idea smoking creates net negative externalities, Lord Bethell’s arguments clearly don’t pass muster.
The fact he writes ‘I cherish liberty’ only confirms how confused this man really is.
