smoking ban

Now that Bloggers for Burma Day is past, my attention has been drawn to an article written thirty five years ago by Milton Friedman as then President Nixon was preparing to step up the "war on drugs". I think it appropriate today as President Brown prepares also to step up the "war on drugs" here at home (at the same time as the Czech Republic apparently starts the process of decriminalizing). You'll find it, which I reproduce in full below, along with lots of other useful documents and research hosted at the Schaffer Library of Drugs Policy:

Prohibition and Drugs

by Milton Friedman

From Newsweek, May 1, 1972

Stop Cannabis Prohibition
Originally uploaded by Professional Recreationalist

"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and com-cribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."

That is how Billy Sunday, the noted evangelist and leading crusader against Demon Rum, greeted the onset of Prohibition in early 1920. We know now how tragically his hopes were doomed. New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state. Prohibition undermined respect for the law, corrupted the minions of the law, created a decadent moral climate-but did not stop the consumption of alcohol.

Despite this tragic object lesson, we seem bent on repeating precisely the same mistake in the handling of drugs.

ETHICS AND EXPEDIENCY

On ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at least a qualified yes. But for responsible adults, I, for one, Would answer no. Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of goodwill may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse-for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.

Consider first the addict. Legalizing drugs might increase the number of addicts, but it is not clear that it would. Forbidden fruit is attractive, particularly to the young. More important, many drug addicts are deliberately made by pushers, who give likely prospects their first few doses free. It pays the pusher to do so because, once hooked, the addict is a captive customer. If drugs were legally available, any possible profit from such inhumane activity would disappear, since the addict could buy from the cheapest source.

Whatever happens to the number of addicts, the individual addict would clearly be far better off if drugs were legal. Today, drugs are both incredibly expensive and highly uncertain in quality. Addicts are driven to associate with criminals to get the drugs, become criminals themselves to finance the habit, and risk constant danger of death and disease.

Consider next the rest of us. Here the situation is crystal clear. The harm to us from the addiction of others arises almost wholly from the fact that drugs are illegal. A recent committee of the American Bar Association estimated that addicts commit one-third to one-half of all street crime in the U.S. Legalize drugs, and street crime would drop dramatically. Moreover, addicts and pushers are not the only ones corrupted. Immense sums are at stake. It is inevitable that some relatively low-paid police and other government officials-and some high-paid ones as well-will succumb to the temptation to pick up easy money.

LAW AND ORDER

Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that would accomplish so much to promote law and order?

But, you may say, must we accept defeat? Why not simply end the drug traffic? That is where experience under Prohibition is most relevant. We cannot end the drug traffic. We may be able to cut off opium from Turkey but there are innumerable other places where the opium poppy grows. With French cooperation, we may be able to make Marseilles an unhealthy place to manufacture heroin but there are innumerable other places where the simple manufacturing operations involved can be carried out. So long as large sums of money are involved-and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal-it is literally hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce seriously its scope. In drugs, as in other areas, persuasion and example are likely to be far more effective than the use of force to shape others in our image.

As a side observation, the self same predictions as Milton makes here, 35 years ago, have been repeated just this week as Trading Standards officials fear the recent increase in the age at which youngsters can buy tobacco products will lead, as it will inevitably, to rogue traders flogging them fake fags over the school fence to get round the law. As the Schaffer library presents in a different article, the banning of something that is itself addictive is fraught with so many dangers as to make it nigh on impossible and certainly counter-productive. For those of us who already understand this, it's like watching a horrific train crash happening in slow motion knowing you are unable to prevent it.

Just a week into the ban on smoking in enclosed "public" places, there has been much coverage of Conservative plans to increase the tax on alcohol to discourage "binge drinkers" - an idea which, if memory serves, was mooted late last year by the government itself anyway. I like to think that it was such a crazy idea then that it contributed to Ms Hewitt's removal from the health brief.

But on both issues, on health grounds at least for the participants (if not the passive smokers and people beaten up by drunks), surely the best answer is a complete ban? Both are drugs. Alcohol in particular can be served up as a very powerful concoction, ten or more times more powerful than the cider I used to get hold of at school. In study after study when respected organizations look at the wider social effects of different drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, they have upheld the "Blakemore/Nutt hierarchy of harms" which puts alcohol fifth, tobacco ninth, both ahead of cannabis at eleventh and ecstasy way down at nineteenth out of twenty one substances they evaluated. You can read the whole reasoning in the RSA report - and don't pretend to tell me that the RSA is looking at archeological pot finds from the Bullingdon Club of the eighties as we are perhaps led to believe, they are looking at today's market in drugs.

In 2004 in Britain around 106,000 people died from causes related to smoking tobacco, and every other smoker is likely to die because of illness and disease caused by their use of tobacco. There were 8,389 alcohol related deaths. And, while there were 2,598 deaths 'from drug related poisoning' that includes prescribed and over the counter drug misuse, and in fact only 663 were put down to heroin, methadone, cocaine, amphetamine (including ecstasy) and GHB. And, as we know from these studies, the alcohol related deaths are if anything rising not falling.

So clearly the rational response is to ban what are two of the most addictive and dangerous substances we know of. Why would any government wish to be complicit in the licensing for recreational consumption of such killers? But not only that, the Treasury no doubt rubs its hands with glee at the prospect of taking money from these drug addicts and the pushers who supply them, the tobacco and drinks industries. Blood money - that's what it is.

So, which of you competing authoritarian parties is going to bite that bullet? It's populist tinkering nonsense. Something must be done, this is something so let's do this. Let us choose our poison and help make sure our choice is a safe as possible by legalization and regulation of all these substances. Banning them makes their grip stronger. Indeed, as recent evidence on cannabis shows, it makes them stronger.

And I haven't even begun to talk about caffeine, sugar and chocolate. These last two of course contributing to a ticking time bomb of ill-health and early death through obesity related conditions. If you believe people know best and are capable of making their own decisions, let them. Otherwise, do the rational thing and ban all these currently legal killers too and be done with it.

Technorati Tags: alcohol, cannabis, conservatives, drugs laws, liberty, smoking ban

...on the other hand, the one good thing about the smoking ban is that it brings starkly into the open the fact that the "state" acting in the "best interests" of its citizens can decide and enforce with legislation and criminal penalties what you can and cannot do with your own property. Of course it always has in all sorts of different ways, but at least it's out in the open now.

So we can proceed to Land Value Tax unopposed by those who think it is not right for the state to take some of "your" property wealth yet okay to tell a landlord what he can and cannot allow in his own property...:)

Technorati Tags: land value tax, smoking ban

Interesting thing over at Tim Worstall's place on the statistical evidence for the smoking ban.

i wonder if it is also statistically significant that Sir Richard Peto, probably the foremost epidemiological statistician and long time collaborator with the late Sir Richard Doll on the tobacco issue, says rather non-commitally that "if this ban helps people who want to stop to manage to do so then it could save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of premature deaths."

If, of course, they survive the pneumonia.

Let's face it, this is a grubby piece of nanny-state legislation used to demonise what is a grubby habit - and I write as a smoker who is at the same time not proud of my addiction but not in the "right place" to have the willpower to give up at the moment. And at the same time presents an interesting precedent about property rights and the state.

All sorts of figures were trotted out before the debate on the ban, such as that 80% of people would prefer going out or start going out to pubs and restaurants if they were smoke free. Why then, could the leisure industry not react to this fantastic market potential without legislation forcing them to do so? Well, any pub or especially pub chain would be taking a risk with their existing customers by unilaterally banning smoking. So, in a classic piece of rent-seeking and market manipulation they wanted government to tell them they had to so they would all be "disadvantaged" at the same time.

Yes, smokers had become too bolshy over the past couple of decades, exercising a "right" to smoke anywhere that they hadn't enjoyed previously - old fashioned pubs had "smoke rooms" long before any desire of the middle class to segregate smokers; I remember in upmarket restaurants and hotels and at formal dinners nobody would dare smoke at the table - that one smoked in the lounge with one's coffee and digestifs in a similar fashion to ladies being dismissed to the drawing room so the gentlemen could smoke after genteel dinner parties.

Of course, the sort of places the hoi-polloi want to go these days are too focussed on money making to have redundant spaces like lounges for after dinner mints and cigars or rooms specifically established for the working man to stop for a pint and a fag on the way home. Many a pub has had its internal walls ripped out to make more space for crammed in binge drinkers.

I daresay that the most effective way of making smokers face up to the grubbiness of their addiction would have been to allow a two tier system to develop in response to market demands, and have some pubs full of pristine, crystal clear air and others where you couldn't see the bar as you entered the establishment for the clouds of smoke. Eventually, even smokers, and especially their non-smoking friends, going out for the evening would abandon the filthier establishments and persuade their addicted friends that a better night would be had without the smell and choking fumes.

Technorati Tags: liberty, smoking ban

Apparently the Palace of Westminster is exempt from this draconian smoking ban.

Given that the staff already went on strike because they were being treated differently, and worse, than other public servants, I think this is appalling. If it is an argument about protecting workers' health why are they any less worthy of that protection?

Disgraceful. Abolish the lot of them, I say. We can do without Westminster.

...who seems as appalled as I am at the relish with which our party has taken to banning a four hundred year old "pleasure": Forceful and Moderate: Smoked out....

Now, I accept the public health arguments, and I accept in particular (as a member of UNISON how could I not) the arguments about the dangers to staff. Yet still there are ways round having to illiberally ban something. Many people take on jobs that have risks to their health or personal safety. Health and Safety legislation tries to get employers to minimise those risks in most cases (for example with protective gear) but in some cases, when all that's done and risks still remain, employees can command a premium.

If 80% of people really want to eat and drink in smoke free places this is plenty incentive for the industry to give them that option. Since more than 20% of people smoke anyway (and it's higher amongst the young adult population), isn't there a good chance that only those who do would be prepared to work, for more money if possible, in an establishment that permits smoking - I know almost everyone in my SU bar are smokers - they get extra breaks!

As a party we have, or had at least, policy in our "abolish regulation" stuff to replace the national minimum wage with a more flexible arrangement negotiated and enforced thropugh trade and workers associations on a region by region basis so it could reflect the costs of living in different places. We could add into this premiums for working in smokey bars perhaps. A real liberal response to this would be to try to level the playing field in favour of the workers, not outlaw something (especially something that is still so very, even if inexplicably, commonplace).

Incidentally, does anyone know how this affects hotel bedrooms? I have a get around in my mind already. Small hotel, bedroom suites rented by the hour with more settees and tables than beds, room service delivering booze. Get the picture? The wealthy can get round anything.