The Battle Against the Tobacco Ban

Dispatches from East Grinstead

When the tobacco ban was announced on the 15^th of October last year I was incensed. Following the announcement I wrote two articles against it, but I still felt more should be done. In pursuit of defending freedom, I’ve printed a couple of thousand leaflets and a roller banner and on Saturday I decided I would launch a campaign against it. In total I managed to gather 70 signatures between about 12.20 and 17.00. On the whole I thought the day went well. Besides gaining signatures and setting out my stall though, I was interested in discovering the general mood of the public on this totemic issue. In this dispatch I report to you my immediate impression from that day and quote the various people I spoke with.

Without doubt there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate. When I approached one woman she told me to ‘Go away’[1], then, when she had read my banner, she turned round whilst walking away and said ‘Stop the tobacco ban, you’re having a laugh’ in a dismissive tone. In contrast another woman said, after I had asked whether she believed in the freedom to choose, ‘Absolutely, we’re controlled enough already’, with a corresponding degree of confidence. Without doubt the major response to my question, ‘Would you like to sign the petition against the forthcoming ban on tobacco’ was ‘no, thank you’, ‘not interested’ or a hand gesture to that effect though.     

The Paternalists

When it comes to those who favour the ban the central reason given for it was smoking is bad. A medical professional simply said ‘People are stupid’ and when I asked an older lady whether she would like to sign the petition she said ‘I’m a doctor’ and walked off as if that was reason enough. A number of people I spoke to also relayed stories of how their friends or relatives had died of smoking. An older gentleman with a short white beard said to me ‘I think it’s immoral for you to advocate people dying earlier and getting ill’. He clearly thought I was advocating people smoke. One person I spoke to after asking whether they thought people should be free to make mistakes even outright said ‘No’. Definitely among some people there is a strong paternalist sentiment; such individuals were visibly irritated by my presence. These people said ‘That’s [the tobacco ban] a good thing’, ‘I’m all for banning it’, ‘I think it should be totally banned’ and smoking should be banned along with vaping too. One of these paternalists when I pressed them on whether junk food should be rationed even agreed with doing that too.

Of the paternalists I spoke to for a longer time, many did admit, or, implicitly admitted, their uncomfortableness with the restrictions I put to them as an implication of their paternalism. For example, the medical professional I mentioned earlier conceded I made ‘a good point’ about rationing junk food as an unacceptable implication of his paternalism (initially he said rationing wouldn’t be possible, but I pointed out rationing in World War Two and he conceded it would be). Another middle-aged gentleman said something along the lines of I see your point of view when I pressed freedom against his beliefs. A position I found especially frustrating was put forward by an ex-smoker of seven months, who, when I pressed him about whether or not we should be free to make mistakes simply said ‘I think it [tobacco] should be cut off, [we] should be free’ but then gestured to or said not in the area of smoking.

Where I gained some traction with the paternalists, some of them began to fall back on harms to third parties. But I would say this fallback was brought up less often than I thought it would be. A middle-aged man with a large stomach, after I pressed him on people being free to buy anything bad for themselves, said I would favour legalising guns and large knifes next (as a counterpoint). Not wanting to get into defending guns, I pointed out the alleged disanalogy is “guns harm others” while fatty foods do not. He then moved onto talking about second-hand smoke. Another person brought up driving fast down the street as a supposed refutation of the idea people should be free to do anything they please, and, hence, why the tobacco ban as a restriction on freedom is fine too. Funnily enough, I think these sorts of concerns came up more than the cost to the state.

When it came to the cost to the state though, a few people did not like being told smokers don’t cost the government anything on a net analysis. When I asked a gruff man whether he wanted to sign he said ‘No, money cost’ to which I followed him (argumentatively up and literally down the walk) and said how smokers die so early they’re a net saving to which I received the curt response: ‘Don’t try to change my mind – ban it!’. On a later occasion, just as I had finished saying don’t you think people should be free to choose to a young person, I was quietly heckled by a man who walked past and said ‘Yeah, if they pay for it’. I wanted to follow him up and correct him, but, alas, after I had collected the young man’s signature, he was gone. The dominant view remains smokers cost the state money.

A side note here is the two people I spoke to who put forward the idea the World Economic Forum is trying to take over the world and control everyone actually favoured the tobacco ban, such is their commitment to freedom. How someone who quotes ‘You will own nothing and be happy’ at people and not be against the tobacco ban frustrates me, because, it shows their opposition to authoritarianism is really skin deep and not really rooted in an intrinsic love of freedom. An older woman who opposes the WEF, who, I had spoken to last year, declined to sign my petition as well. Usually, I’d leave it there, but this woman had a ‘Keep Britain Free’ label on the back of her jacket, so, I thought I’d try and persuade her. Although she opposed ‘the paedophiles and Communists’ at the WEF she would not accept they were the same people as the paternalists, (even when I said paternalism was at the root of the fifteen-minute cities she explicitly opposed), and, when I jibbed her she wanted to keep Britain free, but not to make mistakes such as taking up smoking, she remained resolute in her support for the ban. She ended up taking a leaflet though.

Moving on from the paternalists, I must report there was much indifference even among those who replied with more than a ‘no, thank you’. For example, someone said ‘No, don’t smoke’ and another said ‘I don’t smoke so I’ve got no opinion on it’. Another man, Tony, who I had a long conversation with recounted a story about a nicotine-stained ceiling, and, at some point, I think he realised the tobacco ban was not applying to just children, but, instead, anyone born after 2009, which would mean adults in the future. We also discussed the huge cost associated with smoking. Another person said ‘I don’t know, I believe in Jesus’. I must say people are willing to go onto all sorts of tangents when you talk to them in public, this is probably selection bias, i.e., lonely people who never get to talk to anyone will gladly speak to someone, anyone, who is willing to listen to them. This is why I ended up hearing about the situation in Israel, someone being banned from Wetherspoons and foreigners entering the country.

The Liberals

I am pleased to report though there remains a strong contingent of liberals within Britain. A few quotes should illustrate this: ‘Why ban anything’, ‘I am against smoking, but it should be a free choice’, ‘They’ve got no right to tell us what we can and can’t do’, ‘They should allow everything’ and ‘People should have the right to choose’ and ‘I think people should be free to smoke crack’. After explaining how although I thought smoking was bad, but people should be free to do bad things to themselves, to a young shop assistant, I managed to convince her to the cause too (although given she was a smoker ‘on the edge’ this may not have been that hard). Orwell’s name was spontaneously mentioned as was the ‘nanny state’ and ‘Big Brother is watching you’ as well – reassuring facts.

Of all the conversations I had that day two of my favourites where with middle aged men who adopted the liberal position. The first was a gentleman with a flat cap who affirmed the right to choose and spontaneously shook my hand at the end of our conversation. That meant a lot to me. The second was with a man called Paul who smuggles cigarettes into the country under the guise of personal consumption. Again, he affirmed the right to choose, and, in reference to his own kids specifically, said this: ‘If you want to smoke go ahead and smoke provided you’ve got the right information’. Another person I spoke to was quite an old man, with his wife, who had wire framed glasses and said the following haunting thing: ‘I had a number of friends who smoked and now they’re all dead’, but upon his wife’s pushing, even he admitted people should still be free to smoke if they so please.  

In addition to these conversations, I enjoyed seeing parents sign the petition with their young children present, who, I must confess, thought would actually be hostile. Yet, when I pointed out to a signee that they were defending their children’s right to smoke he happily agreed and walked off. Two notes to close. First, lots of people believe vaping is worse than smoking, indeed, someone who believed smoking should not be banned, spontaneously said she wanted to ban vapes though. A few people would not accept my citation of Public Health England’s claim vaping is 95% safer than smoking either. Lastly, at some point in the day I was asked ‘Who do you work for? Do you work for BAT [British American Tobacco]’. Although I wish I could have said ‘yes’, I reported the truth, i.e., all of the campaign material, parking and labour is financed exclusively by myself. Overall, I think the day went well and I was pleased with the level of support against the ban.

The fight for freedom continues…

A luta continua…

---

[1] On a side note, campaign days are great practice for overcoming any fears of rejection: After a while its like water of a duck’s back.