Cigarette display ban…
The BBC has this story, that the government is considering a ban on displaying cigarettes in shops.
This seems absurd. The smoking ban I could sort of understand, as it removes the possibility of passive smoking from the workplace (but I still had doubts about it). But this I do not get.
Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said it was “vital” to teach children that “smoking is bad”.
“If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I’m willing to do that,” she said.
Yes it is important to teach children that smoking is bad. I do not see the link between doing that, and the removal of cigarettes from display.
If people want to smoke, are over the age of 18, they should be able to walk into a shop and purchase cigarettes. While perhaps putting them under the counter is would not require a huge amount of additional effort on the part of the smoker, it does seem that the government really is crossing the line.
Cigarette advertising is already banned, the age limit has been increased to 18, there is additional tax payable, there is a smoking ban affecting many places, there are warning labels on packs of cigarettes… Will this further measure really help? Is it necessary? I think not.
(for the record, I don’t smoke).
PS - Peter’s Apology has an interesting post on smoking licences here
I disagree with his harm analysis, and think that the harm principle, or at least some reading of it is relevant. Current legislation only allows adults to smoke (to prevent harm to those without the capacity to reason properly) and there are restrictions on where they can smoke (to prevent harm to others). I think that this proposed display ban, and especially a system of smoking licences, would go against the harm principle.
Edit: Dizzy isn’t very happy about this either, and raises a couple of interesting practical points
March 24, 2008 at 1:17 am
Wrong link man, you want this one:
http://petersapology.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/smoking-licenses-a-step-too-far/
I obviously haven’t seen the research that Primarolo is talking about, but if it is in fact true that not having cigs on open displays helps, then I guess I’m for this idea. After all, it’s not making it impossible to smoke, and it’s a pretty minor change. Obviously, if there’s some huge hidden cost that we haven’t considered (perhaps it would be really expensive for shop owners) then that might change things, in which case it’s these new considerations that are doing the work.
I’d have to hear an argument as to why this is a step too far. Cigarettes are clearly demerit goods, and as such the State can take reasonable actions in order to lessen their consumption. Again, this is dependent on Primarolo’s presumably complex empirical premise, but if she’s right, what’s the problem? It hardly seems an attack on an important liberty - the liberty to put ones ciggy display wherever ones wants it hardly seems important at all.
You’re right that the current legislation seems analysable in terms of something like the harm principle, but I’d wager that this is partly political. I don’t think paternalism’s a bad thing always (though don’t get me wrong, in many areas eg. drugs policy, it’s a fucking disaster), but Joe Public does. Obviously it’s not in the government’s interest to try and justify legislation via an appeal to limited and reasonable paternalism, lest the gutter press cry Nanny State.
March 24, 2008 at 1:21 am
EDIT: The causal link that Primarolo is talking about is between starting smoking early and getting particular diseases. In the Beeb article at least, there’s no mention of research which shows that not displaying ciggies is effective in dampening demand.
That said, Primarolo does make it clear that this is dependent upon the empirical premise (”if this means …”). If it turns out that such actions don’t in fact dampen down demand, she’d presumably not support such action. That seems like an eminently sensible position to me.
March 24, 2008 at 1:28 am
Well I’m sure there is an empirical link between executing all smokers and the propensity to start smoking cigarettes early - this obviously does not entail that we should execute smokers…
Apologies for this slightly annoying analogy. I know it’s not entirely appropriate.
My point is that there must be a point at which the government says these (adult smokers) are rational agents and should be allowed to make an informed choice to harm themselves. As long as the agent is informed (which I think education and health warnings guarantee) and is rational (ie the agent is adult and reasonable), then I don’t think the government has any business intervening.
I don’t think paternalism is a bad thing always either. But then again most things are not bad always. My gripe is with imposing another (potentially unnecessary) layer of government intervention and regulation.
March 24, 2008 at 1:52 am
What’s doing the work with that analogy is that if the government were to execute all smokers it would be violating important liberties, and obviously acting unjustly for a whole variety of reasons. It is these independent reasons that make the action ridiculous, and it is my contention that no similar independent reason exists (or at least, that one has not been advanced yet) in the case of this proposal.
So, it’s not a case of empirical link and desirable end entailing a course of action as right or just. Obviously, that’s just a crude form of consequentialism, and consequentialism is a load of shit. Rather, it’s that if a course of action leads to a desirable state of affairs, then there is a prima facie reason to do it. If there aren’t any good reasons which tell against this prima facie reason, then I think, on balance, the action in question would be a good thing to do. This is a sensible system, and in this case is all the more helpful because we all agree that it’s generally better if people don’t smoke (ie. a state of affairs is better if ceteris parabus, fewer people smoke). So, with that as a premise, we then have to look for good reasons not to implement legislation which takes us to this desirable state of affairs. Clearly, in the executing people case, or in the banning-cigs-completely case, excellent reasons exist.
The reasons that you offer do not tell against the proposal. For making sure cigs aren’t openly displayed does not mean that adults can’t make an informed choice to harm themselves. Of course they still can! If Primarolo’s sketchy proposal was put into action tomorrow, you’d still be able to buy your pack of 20 easily. So, there’s no offence to the liberty of the smoker, as far as I can see.
March 24, 2008 at 2:04 am
I think that concealing cigarettes under the counter imposes an additional and unecessary level of difficulty on the smoker. Perhaps it is justified as you say, but where does one draw the line?
You are right to say that the problem with my execution analogy is that execution violates important rights. However, this could be rephrased in simple cost/benefit terms. Execution imposes high costs to smoking, the effort of having to ask the shop assistant to get the concealed cigarettes imposes a lower cost. Yet somewhere on this spectrum we must be able to say ‘enough’.
My conservatism is based to some extent on a skepticism about the role of the government in deciding such things.
March 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm
But it’s not really an unnecessary level of difficulty, is it? The smoker will have to do just what they’ve always had to do, and ask for cigarettes. There’s nothing terribly burdensome about *that*!
Anything can be phrased in cost/benefit terms. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the government changing the cost/benefit analysis of something, but if this change in the cost/benefit analysis being changed *also violates important rights*, or causes some other morally relevant change, then we have good reason to oppose it. But it’s these additional considerations which are doing the work, not the change in the cost/benefit analysis.
You’re right that somewhere along the continuum we have to be able to say ‘enough’. And, in many cases it’s perfectly obvious where we would say ‘enough’ - namely, when the government violates some liberty that we recognise as important, or when some other morally relevant consideration comes to mind. Perhaps it’s difficult to do that at the edges, and I guess there’s some vagueness, but that’s not a problem in this case, when it’s *perfectly obvious* that keeping cigs out of sight does not violate an important liberty or impose a great burden, and conversely, it’s perfectly obvious that execution does violate important liberties. So, in this case at least, there’s no problem with it being difficult to identify reasonable action. Perhaps in some cases it is difficult, but that’s not relevant here.
Given those considerations you raise don’t tell agains this proposal, I still think it’s a good idea. And given that whether or not such proposals become legislation will be decided by a decision procedure that you recognise as legitimate (or approximating legitimate), I don’t see a problem.
March 24, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I would disagree that ‘it’s perfectly obvious where we would say ‘enough’ - namely, when the government violates some liberty that we recognise as important, or when some other morally relevant consideration comes to mind.’
I object to the principle that it is fine for government to involve itself in peoples’ lives right up to just before the point at which it violates liberties.
Liberties or rights are the bare minimum protection that one has from the state, not a target. The simple fact is that this is a case of the government invading the personal sphere, and I think we should try to avoid that where it is not necessary.
As The Right Student points out (http://therightstudent.com/2008/03/nanny-state-433.html):
’surely the fact that there are cigarettes on show doesn’t cause people to think ‘oh they look nice, I’ll have a packet of those’ (or ‘oh I saw someone smoking one of those on TV so I want to buy some now I can see what they are and where they are available for purchase’).’
On a separate issue, returning to the notion of harm. When we discussed it a while ago, you argued that suicide shouldn’t be allowed - which at the time I disagreed with. You argued for this on the grounds that a suicidal agent is not a rational one. So the harm principle does not stand when the agent is not rational - I can accept this. Why though, should the government seek to limit the rational smoking agent from harming themselves (assuming that passive smoking is not an issue) by concealing cigarettes from view in shops? Can you really respond that someone who decides to smoke is not being rational?
March 24, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hurrah, I’ve worked out how to quote!
But I didn’t claim that the government could do whatever it wanted, provided that it does not violate liberties. This is an inaccurate characterisation of two counts. Firstly, I specifically stated that there might be other considerations (aside from liberty violations) that could tell against the prima facie reason the State has for bringing about desirable states of affairs. In each case, people can offer what reasons they think tell against that prima facie reason, and then we can investigate whether or not they are good reasons. There could be a multitude of non-liberty reasons, but it’s up to whomever opposes a particular proposal to enumerate them for us. That’s sensible. Secondly, government legislation isn’t necessarily bad if it violates liberties - I deliberately said important liberties, since some liberties are pretty unimportant. The liberty to drive a car whilst not wearing a seatbelt, or the liberty to give oral sex to a dog in the street, are both genuine liberties, and the law prevents you from doing either of those things. But clearly, they are not important liberties, so that the law violates these (trivial) liberties does not tell against the particular law. Agreed?
Clearly the government should not invade the personal sphere when it is not necessarily. That’s true by definition. I mean … nobody’s going to say “we should do X, because it’s unnecessary”. The question is, what is an unnecessary interference. I think that if a govt proposal would lead to a desirable state of affairs (ie. fewer smokers), then that gives us a prima facie reason to enact that proposal. If a good reason can be given that tells against the prima facie reason, then fair enough. But no good reason has been given in this case.
Well, as I’ve been saying, it hinges upon an empirical premise, which I don’t know the answer too. If the empirical premise if false, then clearly we shouldn’t make it illegal to display cigs. But surely here we’re working under the assumption, for the sake of argument, that it is true.
Also, there’s a discussion of this over here:
http://www.wizardsforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16200&start=0
and several people give anecdotal evidence that they’ve impulse bought ciggies.
I should probably clarify my position re: suicide. By saying that suicide should not be allowed, I do not mean that people who attempt to commit suicide should be locked up or fined, or punished in any why like that. I merely mean that if an agent of the State found somebody trying to kill themselves (perhaps they are starting to put a rope around their neck, or are preparing to slit their wrists), then that agent of the State should try to prevent that person killing themselves (using force if necessary). The alternative is quite unpalateable - should a policeman just do nothing if somebody is about to slit their wrists? Surely not - that’s not the sort of policeforce I want!
But back to smoking. Yes, it’s certainly true that if people want to smoke (and thereby harm themselves) then they should be allowed to do that. That’s why prohibition of cigarettes would be completely wrong. But, the government isn’t proposing banning them, so it isn’t preventing rational people harming themselves. Indeed, it’s not making it any harder at all. All that smokers would have to do if this proposal became law would be to ask the shopkeeper for their pack of 20, which is exactly the same as what they have to do now. So not only is the government not preventing people from buying cigarettes, it’s not even making it any more difficult for them to buy cigarettes. If Primarolo’s proposal became law, it would be very easy (thankfully) for anyone who wants a cigarette to get one. Thus, I can’t see anything wrong with it.
March 25, 2008 at 12:15 am
EDIT: Also, I should make clear that my position on suicide is not identical with my position on euthanasia. That the State should interfere with attempted suicides in the ways I’ve talked about does not mean that euthanasia should be illegal.
May 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm
In Canada, a cigarette display ban has already passed. In fact, on May 31st 2008 (only a few days away) the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will need to comply to this new law. If store owners do not, they can be subjected to a fine well in the thousands of dollars. It’s unfortunate, becuase over 10,000 convenience stores owners will not be ready to hide their cigarettes. While I am a smoker myself, I can see the benefits of coverging up the tobacco. It can help you quit alot more easily (out of sight, out of mind) and perhapse prevent people from picking up the bad habit. Either way, if goverment officals believe this is the right move for the better good of everyones health then its worth a shot, right? Besides, store owners can conceal their cigarettes with government regulated tobacco storage solutions which can also help give the store a more esthetic look.