25.07.2024
A very Labour ban
Eddie Ford welcomes any moves towards promoting public health, but a total ban on smoking - as with the so-called ‘war on drugs’ - is senseless and likely to be counterproductive
In his doomed venture to stay in No10, Rishi Sunak spat out many policies and promises to cohere core voters - most notably the absurd King Canute-like pledge to ‘stop the boats’. But there was always one that seemed contrariwise to this effort: namely banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2009.
Naturally, scores of Tories denounced it as an egregious example of the nanny state and a “slippery slope” that could lead to bans on fast food or alcohol. In a free vote back in April, 57 Conservative MPs voted against the proposed bill and over 100 abstained. One of the most prominent rebels was Kemi Badenoch, a current frontrunner to become the new Tory leader. During the Commons debate, she criticised the bill on the grounds that “people born a day apart will have permanently different rights” - factually correct. But Sunak thought it would be a clever piece of triangulation to potentially capture Labour voters - a plan that does not look particularly smart now - and, of course, Sir Keir Starmer threw his weight behind the ban - the bill passing by 383 to 67.
Logic
Of course, the logic behind it has been with us for a while. It was the Tony Blair government that banned tobacco advertising, and then smoking in public buildings and workplaces - using the same sort of arguments we hear now. Then a subsequent Tory government enforced uniformity of packaging on tobacco products, and banned their sale in small quantities - first packs of 10 cigarettes and then enforcing a minimum of 25 grams on packs of rolling tobacco.
But it was never going to stop there and the Starmer government swiftly adopted Sunak’s policy last week as part of the king’s speech: the Tobacco and Vapes Bill would see the minimum age that a person can legally buy cigarettes increase by a year every 12 months - meaning that those now aged 14 years and below will never be able to legally purchase cigarettes. Something that Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, described as “game-changing”. Similarly, professor Chris Whitty, chief scientific advisor at the department of health and social care, said the move to create a smoke-free country would be “a major step forward in public health”.
The bill also paves the way for changes to the sale and branding of vapes to reduce their appeal to young people. Trading standards officials will get more powers to fine retailers who sell vapes and tobacco to under-18s - raising the immediate problem of workability, as is always the case, when it comes to bans and prohibitions. Enforcement, after all, is down to those behind the counter of every corner shop in the country. Fast-forward to 2039 - they will have the thankless task of trying to work out whether a customer is 29 or 30 - would you even bother? What about smuggling in tobacco from abroad?
In other words, the law of diminishing returns kicks in regarding these restrictions. Either they do not actually reduce legal consumption or they shift consumption to the black market - making it far more dangerous, as everything is now completely unregulated and you could be taking anything. This is something we have seen in its full idiocy with drug prohibitions - organised criminals moving in and fighting among themselves to take over a lucrative market created in the first place by the government (and not hesitating to adulterate the drugs if that means they get a mark-up on their competitors). This unhappy situation could be recreated with the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, leading to even less quality in tobacco - not increased public health as claimed by Whitty.
Cynicism
Having said that, no-one in their right mind would deny that the tobacco industry is totally venal and has a history of relentless cynicism - doing everything it can, including employing tame scientists, to stifle and ridicule the bountiful evidence about the harm done by smoking. A perfect example was given by James J Morgan during his second stint as CEO of the Philip Morris company. He infamously claimed in 1997 that cigarettes are no more addictive than gummy bears. Such mendacity is highly reminiscent of the fossil fuel industry, which has also come out with endless crap.
For all his promises, Rishi Sunak ditched the anti-smoking bill during the ‘wash-up’ process, when outgoing governments choose which policies to fast-track and which to drop. Those of a suspicious nature would hardly find it an accident that this happened after intensive lobbying by the world’s largest tobacco firms and intervention from MPs and think tanks with close ties to tobacco firms - something that has been extensively documented by organisations like Action on Smoking and Health.
Various documents and freedom-of-information requests reveal how four of the world’s largest tobacco firms threatened ministers with a legal backlash. Imperial and British American Tobacco (BAT) wrote in February to the then health secretary, Victoria Atkins, protesting that the consultation process preceding legislation was “unlawful”, because industry views “had not been considered”. Such claims often went along with public statements about wanting to “phase out” cigarettes. For instance, Philip Morris International chief executive, Jacek Olczak, indicated in 2021 interviews that the company could stop selling cigarettes in the UK within 10 years - how’s that going, Jacek? BAT, which has previously advocated a “smokeless future”, proposed raising the age of sale to 21 instead - a favourite delaying tactic.
As night follows day, tobacco firms courted rightwing and libertarian Tory MPs. Three months after Sunak announced his policy on smoking, the then Clacton MP, Giles Watling - defeated by Nigel Farage in the general election - attended a “business lunch” with officials from Japan Tobacco International. Strangely enough, Watling then proposed an amendment that would have replaced Sunak’s proposals with a new minimum age of 21. Two Conservative MPs, including Kemi Badenoch’s closest political aide, also attended a lunch and drinks reception hosted by the ‘Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco’ - a rather malignant libertarian organisation. Its current director, Simon Clark, once stating that “if people wish to eat themselves to death by eating too much fatty food, that has to be their choice”.
Folly
Now, there is an undeniable rationale for such a ban, as no-one can argue any more that smoking is harmless or actually has health benefits. As for vaping, while it might be better on some points, there is just no scientific evidence to call it ‘safe’. Surely then it would it be perverse for socialists to object? Anti-Capitalist Resistance, for one, lists Sir Keir’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill as a piece of legislation it can support alongside ending the Rwanda “racist project”, the “gradual renationalisation” of the railways, imposing VAT on private school fees, and so on.1 The Communist Party of Britain’s Morning Star also appears to be enthusiastic about the bill, though - par for the course - it presents no supporting evidence itself, preferring to speak through the mouths of Labour politicians, union officials, health experts, etc.
King James
Far from being a modern phenomenon, anti-smoking sentiment actually has a long tradition. For example, King James I had a strong dislike of tobacco, writing one of the earliest known anti-smoking polemics in his 1604 A counterblaste to tobacco. Rather unfairly, he blamed indigenous native Americans for bringing tobacco to Europe and decried tobacco’s odour as “hateful to the nose”. In an attempt to snuff out the burgeoning industry, James imposed swingeing excise taxes and tariffs. But it all came to naught and in the end the king thought that if you can’t beat ’em, then you might as well join ’em, and created a royal monopoly.
But all the evidence shows that prohibition is unlikely to work. The most spectacular case is the alcohol ban in the United States - a folly of epic proportions that led to anti-social drunkenness, the blinding of many with noxious concoctions and, of course, transformed the Mafia from a petty protection racket into a formidable national organisation that still blights America today. Yet, under capitalism, legality itself is self-reproducing, having a tendency to create powerful vested interests wrapped around the substances that have created so much wealth for the companies concerned. Some of that money is used to throw at lobbyists, grease wheels and pay off critics. For everything spent on treating lung cancer and heart disease, the tobacco industry can equally cite - becoming its own insidious truth - the huge sums earned by the exchequer in large sales taxes. Furthermore, how else do you explain the fact that two drugs - tobacco and alcohol - are legal, even though they are clearly more dangerous than many popular recreational drugs that are banned? Something not based on science or rationality.
Contrary to what popular opinion might think or the bourgeoisie tells us, the starting point of communists is the freedom to do as one wants with one’s own body and life. Therefore drugs should be legal. Communists are unequivocal about that. Not that we dismiss the health risks and associated health costs - that would be idiotic. But what we rely on is education and persuasion, not prohibition.