Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 7)

Smoking and pubs

Ukraine is one of the few issues which Labour and the Tories agree on. Another is smoking. Labour supported the Sunak government's extreme policy to phase out the pastime entirely, and will continue with it now they're in power. The concept is to ban people from buying tobacco products if they were born after a certain date (provisionally 2009 - the ban planned for 2027). You would have a situation where some people could continue to purchase these items until the day they die, whereas others could never do so.

Can you imagine doing the same with alcohol? A new 18 year old would see his 19 year old friend buying a drink, yet never be able to buy a drink himself. Of course, in the real world, that 18 year old would simply find some way to drink anyway.

And that's a key point - as well as being a gross attack on personal choice and freedom, the policy would not stop smoking. The proposed law doesn’t cover the act of smoking itself - although new legislation could follow to do this. It would also be very difficult to enforce. It would put a lot of the onus on shop assistants, who already have to verify age for various other products, and are at the front line of any flashpoint. This would add to the pressure on them. Assuming retail can cope with the new regime, do we really think police officers are going to have the time to bother intervening if they see an unauthorised person buying cigarettes? They can't even deal with serious crimes at present.

I believe smoking is a bad habit, and one which should be discouraged by making arguments against it, but it is a personal choice. After all, I choose to eat fatty and sugary foods (much fewer now), drink booze and consume too much caffeine. I don't want the state telling me I can't do these things. They can advise me not to, through education and incentives, but anything else is overstepping the mark. The libertarian in me thinks the government should just keep the lights on, protect property rights, and defend the realm. Of course it's more complicated than that, but the notion is still a useful benchmark.

The main argument of the prohibitionists is that problems caused by smoking are costing the country a lot of money, so it *is* the state's business to intervene. They claim it kills 80,000 people a year and costs £17 billion annually (2022 figure). Those estimates take into account every possible metric, however tenuous. The cost analysis includes damage to the economy from workers being off sick or dying early (£13.2 billion). Only £2.4 billion of the seventeen is cost to the NHS. This amounts to 1.4% of the £177 billion forecast to be spent on the NHS (2024/25). £1.2 billion is for state-provided social care.

However, taxation of tobacco products brings in a large amount of revenue, estimated at £8.8 billion in 2023/24. That more than covers the cost to the NHS and social services. The tobacco industry also generates jobs and growth, and it is thought to be worth £22.6 billion. Also the social contract is that we pay our (high) taxes and national insurance so we can use the health service. There are no ifs and buts. If you fall over doing something frivolous and break your leg, the state can't refuse to treat you on the basis you shouldn't have been messing around. If you get an STD the government doesn't scrutinise your sexual history and ban you from nookie. Similarly if you choose to pollute your lungs by smoking, you are entitled to be treated for it. If we didn't have state healthcare, we would pay for it ourselves - but we do have state healthcare, and that must be provided (for British citizens) with no strings attached.

Also the government should be prepared to take a hit on spending in order to maintain our liberties. We could ban lots of things to make our society safer and cheaper, but it would come at an intolerable cost to our freedoms and privacy. Smoking costs the government a chunk of *our* money? Too bad. Again, the government spend a great deal on things which are inessential, and they will continue to do so whatever happens. Why should they not write off cash so that our individual rights and established traditions are preserved?

Labour wanted to go further than the Tories and pub gardens, outside hospitals, universities and other places. On November 5th the plan for pubs was cancelled, after a negative reaction from the industry and the public. However, smoking near schools, playgrounds and hospitals is still in the crosshairs. This, again, is overstepping the mark.

In 2007 Labour brought in the smoking ban inside all work places and public spaces, including hostelries. I supported this because it was an unpleasant experience going to pubs and university common rooms and breathing in other people's thick lingering smoke. A majority smoked in the common room. I believe it did damage my health to some extent, and if I wanted to socialise, I had no choice but to endure it. However, outside the smoke dissipates much easier because there is fresh air all around. Even those little shelters to keep the rain off are open to the breeze. It is a fair compromise for the smokers to have free run of the outside.

We also need to consider the effect on the pub's business. If you can't smoke on the premises at all, many would just stay at home and enjoy cheaper booze from the supermarket (if Labour doesn't come for that as well). Pubs and smoking go hand in hand, a pint and a ciggie being the ideal combination of vices for many. If you deny people that, pubs will lose trade. Pubs are already closing down at a massive rate, worsened by lockdowns, demographic change and increased cost of doing business. In the year 2000, there were about 61,000 pubs and in 2020 there were 47,000 - a decline of 23% (Statista). Hostelries are not just businesses and employers, but hubs of communities, especially for older people. This law could very well kill what remains of the fragile industry.

A counter argument would be that the 2007 ban did not destroy the pub industry, as many claimed it would. It even made pubs more open to some, such as families with children; but you would need to fully examine the statistics to see whether the ban was a net loss or benefit to profits. I would argue it did not destroy the sector because there was that compromise of smokers using the gardens. Most smokers accepted this with good grace, and it works.

We should just leave it up to individual establishments to set policy. This was the case before the 2007 ban. Many pubs and restaurants would have 'no smoking' areas, although in an enclosed space this didn't always work too well. In my small local, a plastic sign on a metal stand wasn't a very effective shield (funnily enough). If they wanted to outright ban smoking, establishments had that right, but pubs mostly realised this would be bad for business. So if a pub wants to outlaw smoking in its garden, fair enough. My gaffe, my rules - as the adage goes. Smokers will vote with their feet and go to another tavern which lets them indulge their habit. Non-smoker purists will have places that cater for them. The point is, it should not be up to Keir Starmer and Wesley Streeting.

More on pubs next time.

All rights reserved, Ed Pond, 2024