Comments on: Why we shouldn’t be worried about Andy Burnham’s proposals on smoking

By: Owen

Owen — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:58:41 +0000

Smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, it also affects those around the smoker. Sure, it needn’t necessarily do so, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate for the government to discourage people from doing it. Speeding isn’t inherently harmful to other road users, but it’s still desirable that there are sanctions for doing it. You might have grounds for saying that the harms of secondary smoke (and of the grief suffered by people who watch their loved-ones die of lung cancer) are punished disproportionately relative to other comparable harms – though some evidence would be nice – but the principle is sound.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:32:22 +0000

“Some smokers – well, OK, most smokers who are aware of the issue – are undeniably quite pissed off that taxes on tobacco bring in considerably more money than the NHS spends on treating smoking-related diseases, but I don’t see that they have much reason to complain, particularly if they argue against restrictions on smoking on the grounds of personal liberty”

Owen, do you not think that tax should be based on what people earn, not how they live their lives? Obviously the tax on smoking hits the poor hardest. If you want to talk about the government’s empty coffers maybe you should put forward some strong arguments for how we can save money (like not going to war, increasing corporate taxation, increasing progressive taxes of all sorts) rather than backing a stealth tax that hits the working classes. I mean imagine, god forbid, if they put a tax on listening to radio 4 and reading the guardian – would you expect the middle classes to keep quiet on that one?

By: Salman Shaheen

Salman Shaheen — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:44:12 +0000

“In any case, this post was to a large extent written to annoy you”

- Hahahahahahaha! I don’t think I’ve ever come across a more valid justification for an article on this site…

By: Reuben

Reuben — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:33:07 +0000

When used in certain ways and under certain conditions it does effect other people. Smoking – in and of itself – is essentially a personal lifetyle choice.

Tax doesnt fuck people at the point at which their smoke starts affecting others. It fucks people simply for smoking.

LOL yes i gathered as much and it succeeded.

By: Owen

Owen — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:28:59 +0000

Well yes, but smoking *isn’t* just a personal lifestyle choice – secondhand smoke affects other people (those living in the same house as smokers if nowhere else). In any case, this post was to a large extent written to annoy you, so don’t take it too seriously

By: Reuben

Reuben — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:28:44 +0000

“I’m probably a bit less likely to view the right to smoke as a fundamental human freedom in any case”. Oh and sorry for using blog speech, but lets cut down the straw man. Not a fundamental human right but certainly a civil liberty. In a mature liberal democracy we can surely be a bit more ambitious than simply seeking to protect “fundamental human freedoms” no?

By: Reuben

Reuben — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:24:41 +0000

According to Owen’s logic, one could affirm the non-authoritarian credentials of virtually any law or “behaviour tax” on the basis people can ‘choose not to do it’. The question however is whether people have the right to engage in certain behaviours without being financially penalised at the behest of government. One might question my decision to put law and tax in the same category – yet there is good reason to. quite simpyl a taxx is – like a fine – a demand for money which arries the full force of the law and which is backed up the possibility of criinal punishment.

By: Reuben

Reuben — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:20:09 +0000

“most smokers who are aware of the issue – are undeniably quite pissed off that taxes on tobacco bring in considerably more money than the NHS spends on treating smoking-related diseases, but I don’t see that they have much reason to complain, particularly if they argue against restrictions on smoking on the grounds of personal liberty (as is commonplace on this blog). No one’s coercing smokers into buying tobacco products, so raising taxes on them isn’t authoritarian”

Sorry but this is a really, really silly argument. If the government was to tax people for wearing purple, or for painting their front door green, then of course people should would have the option of choosing not to. However there would still be a question of whether people should be financially punished for making what are essentially personal lifestyle choices.