Put the brakes on bansturbation
Why is it that Liberal Democrat politicians so often line up behind illiberal policies.
We had much support for the smoking ban from LibDems - just to reiterate, nobody forces you to go to the pub, there is no aspect of coercion or forced harm there, even for bar staff. It was just a tool of the anti-smoking lobby who wish to ban all smoking, no matter what (even smokeless cigarettes are the enemy).
Recently we’ve had Julia Goldsworthy supporting a curfew, a policy which treats all young people as criminals rather than dealing with those who are the cause of crime.
Now we have Tom Brake, drug crusader, trying to ban the sale of cannabis seeds and crusading against ‘drug paraphernalia’, no doubt to ‘protect the young’.
If seeds are being sold to minors, then just like alcohol sales prosecute the seller.
The war on drugs is one of the chief causes of suffering in this country, and across the world. If cocaine weren’t illegal then the drug lords of Columbia would not have arisen to supply the demand. The demand would have been filled by peaceful farmers and processers who would make a living from the cultivation and processing of a crop.
If the massive suffering the war on drugs causes is not enough for a liberal to oppose the war then what about liberal fundamentals? It is not the place of government to protect someone from themselves. That is government has no right to prevent people from taking what drugs they like.
As for drug paraphernalia, restriction of it is a government restriction on the freedom of expression and should be condemned. Protest against it by all means, but never use government force against it. You wouldn’t sanction someone attacking the shop owner on their own, why does it suddenly become okay for you to get a gang to do it on your behalf?
We need to call a halt to government bans on things and reverse the bans we have in place. All banning something does is shift it to the red market where violence rules.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Nobody forces me to go the pub but I like doing so and I don’t want to leave it wheezing and smelling like I’ve been rolled in a fireplace.
Smoking is a shitty, anti-social activity which I wouldn’t ban but I would ask the people doing it to keep their shit in their own homes, not bring it to where I want to relax with friends and family.
Freedom is a wonderful thing but in a crowded island you need some rules to stop people killing each other. There is no such thing as complete freedom.
On other drugs, the only solution is legalisation and regulation.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
With regards to the smoking ban, surely this is liberal. The ban ensures all bars/ pubs etc are open for anyone who wants to go into them. Smoking and smokey atmospheres reduced the choices/opportunities of those who did not smoke, which is certainly illiberal.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
It always amazes me how “liberals” seem to be unable to understand the utilitarian liberal argument over smoking.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
So going to a pub is now a fundamental right?
That’s pure unadulterated rubbish.
I too prefer not being in a smoky environment, but it is NOT MY PLACE TO FORCE OTHERS TO STOP SMOKING FOR MY COMFORT.
That is a massive abuse of power and one no liberal should support.
Liberalism is not utilitarianism. Some utilitarians have been broadly liberal, but the two are different, and often very opposed.
There are utilitarian arguments for the single child policy of China, it does not make it liberal.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“nobody forces you to go to the pub, there is no aspect of coercion or forced harm there, even for bar staff.”
Actually Tristan as the smoking ban applied to all public enclosed places and everybody has to work soemwhere, are you suuggesting that those who do not wish to come into contact with second hand carcinogens, smoke etc claim indefinite invalidity benefit.
Also as a result people do have the right to go to work wherever, with whomever they choose without detrement to their health. I also know a number of former smokers who found it easier to give up since the ban came into effect. The net result long term on the cost of healthcare and therefore the tax burden of all is lessened as second hand smoke related cancers will decrease, as if the number of smokers falls will the number of direct inhalation smoke related disease.
Being liberal means protecting the rights of all, which often requires a balance to be struck as you cannot please everyone all the time. Therefore on balance after heated discussion with non-smokers and smokers on both side of the debate the party agreed to support the ban. Something I feel was done for liberal not utilitarian means.
However, making it a crime to be out because you are young and possess seeds or owning paraphernalia are two steps that cross that threashold.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
For me, the smoking debate is only about employees’ health. I know you dismiss it Tristan; but I would argue, that most people don’t have a “choice” to turn down a job for the same reason that most people don’t have a “choice” over salary and other terms and conditions of work. On that basis I think a ban on smoking in workplaces is a perfectly legitimate restriction on the freedom to smoke.
(I personally think it’s a calculation of the risk to others against the benefit to the smoker - even a small risk to others isn’t worth it if there’s a very limited benefit. I think it’s analogous to juggling knives in a crowded street - you may be really good at it, and therefore really unlikely to drop one and stab somebody, but is anyone really be up in arms about the fact that chucking knives around in the street is banned?).
July 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Your irrelevant and far-fetched comments about the ‘anti-smoking’ lobby do your argument a great disservice.
Of course there are people with an interest in health who think smoking is a bad thing, and of course not all of them are liberals. But a CONSPIRACY of people, all of them with single, focused intent? Please, get a sense of perspective and then we could at least have a rational debate about it.
I stand by the view that banning smoking in workplaces is absolutely liberal. The fact is that it happened long ago (admittedly by private bans) in almost all workplaces except the ones where the majority go to spend their leisure-time. Poorly paid service sector staff deserve a lot more respect than they often get.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I endorse wit and wisdom’s comments wholeheartedly.
Smoking is a foul habit which can cause severe irritation (and possibly downright harm) to others.
Thos who wish to smoke are free to do so - but they should do so in private - not inflict it on others.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
The anti-smoking brigade - the core is people who would see smoking made illegal and suppressed. Those are the people who promulgate false, alarmist science. They are the core who drive it, the majority are taken along through bad reporting and propaganda and the desire to ‘make life better’ through force.
Look at the rhetoric when we’re told that the smoking ban is successful - its all about how people are stopping smoking, never about how worker’s health is improving. That gives away the true motives of the legislation.
Liberalism is about freedom. That means being left alone by the state, not regulated and ‘helped’.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Lois - a pub is private property. Nobody forces you to go there.
Why is that such a difficult concept?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Lee: You’re implying that people can only disagree with the smoking ban by being unable to understand it; by implication, people who disagree with smoking bans must be a bit thick, or deliberately obtuse. However, an individualist has no problem in disagreeing with a smoking ban and perfectly well understands that this puts the individualist at odds with utilitarianism, with the point being precisely to argue that utilitarianism is (sometimes) a bad idea.
Neil: ‘The ban ensures all bars/ pubs etc are open for anyone who wants to go into them.’ - except for people who want to smoke! The smoking ban might still be a good idea (overall I’m personally glad that it happened) but it can’t really be described as a fundamentally liberal idea; the fact that perfectly good and sensible liberals can disagree vehemently over it seems to prove that point.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Wage slavery and the distorted labour market is a big topic.
If there are people who have no choice but to work in a pub, the solution is not banning smoking, it is to free the labour market.
The labour market is so distorted by regulation and legislation that workers have very little power.
In the past this was due to the feudal system, and then the forced expulsion from the land of workers so they would work in factories.
Then came the pro-union legislation when unions, government and business got together to shore up their own positions and deny workers power (the New Deal in the US is a great example of this, led by big business to shore up their positions and to prevent workers from having any power).
Things like the minimum wage act against workers, distorting the market, making capital investment more profitable and leading to unemployment from the lowest skilled (its unclear what the effects of the current level of minimum wage in the UK has - it is not particularly high, although equalisation for young people will almost certainly lead to less jobs for the young).
The raft of regulation faced by businesses makes it far more difficult to start a business or for small businesses (or cooperatives) to survive leading to an artificial advantage for big business.
Banking legislation has restricted entry into banking and historically prevented access to credit for the poor.
Other things affect the labour market too. Taxation means less money to spend which means less work available.
The state run education system seeks to force everyone into the same mold and drastically fails many people, particularly the poorest.
Planning laws prevent low cost housing from being built and discourages (or prevents) economic use of the land.
This is the real problem. The lack of freedom in the labour market, caused by massive government interference on the behalf of special interests.
If labour had the power it would have in a free market then working in a smokey bar (or other unpleasant environment) would not be forced upon anyone.
Unfortunately, almost everyone is against a free market.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“I too prefer not being in a smoky environment, but it is NOT MY PLACE TO FORCE OTHERS TO STOP SMOKING FOR MY COMFORT.”
Who said they have to stop smoking? Oh that’s right, for all the righteous indignation of smokers and misguided liberals about how we supposedly have no right to occupy the same public space as anyone else without physical discomfort…you also forget that it’s not other peoples place to force me to inhale and be discomforted by smoke for THEIR comfort because they don’t want to just step outside.
I’ve since been very annoyed at the anti-smoking lobby and will happily stand against the further measures they keep trying to take to stop people from smoking, but this one aspect was a purely liberal one.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“Lois - a pub is private property. Nobody forces you to go there.
Why is that such a difficult concept?”
I love this argument, as if different areas that public have access to have different levels of access rights, that some people in society are somehow less mobile and have less opportunities because of the actions and choices of others. How is that liberal again?
July 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“You’re implying that people can only disagree with the smoking ban by being unable to understand it; by implication, people who disagree with smoking bans must be a bit thick, or deliberately obtuse.”
Way to read far too much in to what was said. I said that any liberal (not libertarian) that believes that the smoking ban is illiberal is a bit thick, not everyone. It’s one thing to not agree with the ban, I respect that opinion, it’s another to claim the ban is illiberal which it is patently not.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Obviously people have different access rights to different areas. The pub could be closed and turned into a house with no access rights, or turned into some sort of mutual that everyone can buy a share in. Thats the opportunity to use your property as you wish.
Everyone has equal rights to access on public property, and on property that is subject to rights to roam and rights of way. Otherwise, its dictated largely by the owner. In what way is this illiberal?
Once again, you aren’t being forced to inhale. If you are informed this is a pub in which smoking is allowed and enter, you consented to be in the presence of smoke. Nobody is denying you or other the right to open pubs or any other business where you choose to ban smoking and can enjoy your preference. You are preventing people from opening pubs where smokers can enjoy their preference. In what way is a monolithic one-size-for-all legal restriction liberal again?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I obviously didn’t read too much into what was said. You said exactly what I thought you did, and you’re still wrong.