Democratic rights are overrated
Posted on Saturday 8th May 2010
No, don’t worry, I haven’t just signed up with the Communists, nor the local chapter of the Far Right Nimbys. But, a recent advertisement on TV got me thinking.
I’ll set the scene. Right in the middle of prime-time a government public service announcement, complete with graphic imagery and laden with hyperbole, patronises us with a message about how evil cigarette smoke is, with the inherent inference that all smokers are ignorant victims of their addiction.
Now, many would applaud their tough stance against what is, indirectly, a major consumer of healthcare resources. But I think the motive behind these advertisements is far from altruistic. Instead they are self-serving and don’t actually make a real difference.
Unless you’d been living under a rock for the past few decades, the deluge of publicity about the associated risks can’t have passed unnoticed. Therefore, I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of smokers know enough already. That people still continue to purchase tobacco implies that scare tactics don’t work. So, it escapes me why governments feel they are worth persisting with such tactics.
If they really wanted to make true impact, they’d ban the stuff altogether. No, this isn’t a panacea and I don’t claim it is. However, the ready availability combined with social acceptance is hardly a solution either. Of course, some people would still take up smoking, just as some people currently get involved with illicit drugs, but if they were prohibited the take up rate would be slashed.
And this is the crux. I’m not condoning a witch-hunt against current smokers and don’t advocate punishing addiction. Mechanisms for cessation already exists and are well known, yet are not foolproof. Therefore catching people before they start is the principal viable alternative.
The hypocrisy by governments doesn’t end at the lip service publicity campaigns. What really riles me is that one department rebukes smoking, yet another rakes in enormous tax revenues. Despite rumours to the contrary, tobacco duty more than covers the resultant health care costs, especially now the federal arm recently approved a record levy increase. The cynic might infer that they condone the income, if not the generation mechanism.
Extrapolating from simple medical principles, if tobacco were newly discovered, there is no way it would ever be granted sales approval. Therefore, prohibition isn’t that draconian a step. Anything else is just a token gesture.
-but what about prohibition in the US in the 1920s? It made the situation worse.
I’m glad I gave up smoking -eight years ago now! – and I’m glad that it has been banned in pubs, restaurants etc.. in the UK, and despite the ostrich-like tendencies of some (moan about it, stick your head in the sand, and the problem will go away. Umm, don’t think so), this has been successful. Added to which, vending machines have been phased out and the legal age for buying tobacco in the UK has been pushed up to 18.
I fear that drugs are a Pandora’s Box situation -once they are there, they cannot be shut away. Instead, far better to accept that they are there, and to regulate than prohibit. Drug education in schools has failed to tackle the problem, when it’s sought to say ‘Just Say No.’ Alcohol is a killer -yet is given social acceptability, and the hypocrisy surrounding alcohol is pretty hard to stomach.
I quit smoking a long time ago, gave up drinking over three years ago -but I wouldn’t force these choices on anyone else. The best we can hope of human beings (funny buggers that they are) is that they make informed choices.
And don’t even get me started on the libertarian cum-mafioso-cum-old boy netwroks of the tobacco lobby. Euch…