I hear cries of "we must do more..."

At the time of the introduction of the ban on smoking in public spaces, anti-tobacco zealots frequently championed the claim that the new law would lead to a dramatic reduction the amount of people smoking. 

Such claims were made with such evangelical zeal that one could have been forgiven for thinking they were backed up with a detailed scientific study - or at least some basis of fact.  Not so.  Indeed, now such research has been carried out it has proved their claims to be totally bogus.

According to statistics released in the National Statistics Office's annual general lifestyle survey 21% of the public describe themselves as smokers today - the same proportion as in 2007. 

The Financial Times carries a quote today from Amanda Sandford, the research manager at Ash, the anti-smoking campaign charity was understandably upset that this sliver of nanny-statism had failed to have the desired effect of controlling people's personal habits.

“It’s a bit disappointing to see that the overall rates of smoking appear to be stagnating. We know how extremely hard it is for people to quit” 

Ms Sandford's response was sadly predictable:

"She called for Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, to help reduce the impact of branding by allowing cigarettes to be sold only in plain packets carrying a health warning and to ban their open display in shops to deter children from smoking"

Big Brother Watch have outlined the folly of this position before; most recently with a post from Mahendra Jadeja, a successful independent retailer and a former president of the National Federation of Retailers and Newsagents.  You can view Mahendra's post here.

The mantra of the anti-free choice, anti-smoking lobby is increasingly predicable: "if at first regulation doesn't succeed, regulate and regulate again".

Comments

[Charles]

We have got demonstrations and riots in Greece, Eygpt, Tunisia and many other countries because of the way they have been treated. If the UK carries on trying to control our behaviour we will get demonstrations and riots here.

[Xopher]

The survey also shows a steady decline of alcohol consumption that hardly supports the demands for increased legislation on booze sales.

[Niki]

Charles how right you are and many of us are ready to demonstrate. Educated people who can see only to well where this nanny state is heading and the last thing they want is for us to think for ourselves.

[Niki]

http://wikileaksleaks.blogspot.com/2011/01/egyptcables_29.html

Collection of /Egypt/Cables if anyone is interested from yesterday.

[Richard Craven]

@Charles

That's a bit of an exagerration. People in Tunisia and Egypt have been putting up with routine torture for 40 years. We're just rather pissed off - albeit rightly - with jobsworths. I can't really forsee a massive uprising on this basis. And it would be a tragedy if there was one.

[Richard Craven]

@Charles

Actually, that was a bit unfair of me. Looking at your post again, you don't predict a massive uprising. My apols.

[Richard Craven]

Although on third thoughts I still don't think it's entirely right to draw a comparison between our experience of authority in the UK, and the altogether brutalizing experience of Egyptians and Tunisians

[Niki]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351863/Stunned-mother-complained-faulty-street-lights-told-council-carry-TORCH.html

Maybe as the council spend their time watching us ... BBW could watch them and make sure the street lights are restored as promised.

[Richard Craven]

'The mantra of the anti-free choice, anti-smoking lobby is increasingly predicable: "if at first regulation doesn't succeed, regulate and regulate again".'

Regulation has succeeded, to the extent that it is now possible for non-smokers to visit pubs without choking.

[Richard Craven]

I think that sometimes, in our zeal to defend freedom, we privilege so-called positive freedom i.e. freedom to X, at the expense of negative freedom i.e. freedom from X.

Typically, when we complain about the state or other organizations interfering with our freedoms, they are interfering with positive freedoms. For example, the state interferes with the right to smoke, granting that there is one.

In contrast, it is usually individuals who, deliberately or not, interfere with our passive freedoms. For example, smokers interfere with the right to be free from smoke, again granting that there is such a right.

For this reason some people, motivated by the otherwise admirable wish to limit state intrusion into the private sphere, associate freedom-in-general with positive freedom, and discount the significance of negative freedom.

Moreover, sometimes as in the case of the right to smoke and the right to be free from smoke, positive and negative freedoms prove to be incompatible. Who is then to say whether the state should uphold positive or negative freedom? It may turn out that smokers' rights ought to be priveleged over non-smokers' rights. However, that this is so is not as obvious or as straightforward as the article and postings imply