|
Big brother threat to our way of life 
Smokers, drinkers — the present Government seems intent on regulating
more and more people’s lives. PAUL DONOVAN says it’s time
a balance was struck.
BANNING thing seems to have become the order of the day with the present
Government.
Smoking, protest and the right to silence have all been among recent casualties.
And having achieved a comprehensive smoking ban the next targets appear
to be drinkers and the obese.
Now I must declare an interest before continuing.
I am not a smoker and generally welcome the ban. I do like a drink but
don’t see the need for any establishment of prohibition.
Obesity is a problem but should not be the focus of state regulation.
Some bans make perfect sense but the concern is about the growing desire
of the state to intervene and regulate individual lives.
Take the smoking ban. The ban went live in England last July. It was the
final piece in a jigsaw of measures aimed at cutting smoking.
Earlier advertising had been restricted to the point where it is now only
possible to put an A5 poster in a shop next to the display of cigarettes.
Even then 30 per cent of that notice must include a health warning.
The age to purchase tobacco has risen from 16 to 18. Cigarette sales dropped
4 per cent in the three months after the ban was implemented.
Not satisfied anti-smoking campaigners Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
want cigarettes taken off display and sold under the counter.
Some also argue for the legal age for purchase to rise to 21. Bans on
vending machines selling cigarettes are also in the pipeline.
The way in which the ban has been imposed is also anti-competitive.
The present situation appears to be one of Government saying to retailers
we will let you sell tobacco but intend to make it as difficult as possible.
The effects of the ban are seen outside office blocks and pubs across
the land where people shelter outside to have a cigarette.
In many work contexts a whole industrial relations nightmare has opened
up with staff who don’t smoke feeling they are losing out to those
who do and punctuate their days with regular fag breaks.
Many of the reasons for the smoking ban make perfect sense. Smoking kills
which is not good for those who smoke or the rest of us who pick up the
health bill.
But is it not also a way of people letting off steam and relieving stress?
Stress is also a big killer.
The same types of arguments applied to smoking are now being remoulded
and deployed to urge restriction — if not an outright ban —
on the purchase of alcohol.
The seemingly constant sight on television screens of people drunk and
reeling around city centres have no doubt helped to spur this campaign
on.
This type of behaviour has always gone on but only gained profile with
the proliferation of CCTV in city centres and police observation programmes
over recent years.
Past ignorance of course is no reason not to act now.
No doubt some restrictions on alcohol sales would be a good idea but surely
it is not time to set off down the road to prohibition.
There seems to be a failure both in the areas of alcohol and tobacco to
recognise that by making such drugs difficult to obtain it often makes
them more attractive, particularly to youth.
The lesson is already there from those drugs that have been banned like
cocaine and marijuana.
The level of smuggled and illegal sources of tobacco has grown since the
smoking ban was enacted.
The type of black market that would develop if alcohol were banned can
be seen by reviewing the bootleg operations of the prohibition years in
America.
Another target has been obesity. This is another drain on the economy
and health service with conditions like diabetes on the increase as a
result.
Information and education are no doubt required plus some control of advertisers
but surely that should be the limit of intervention at present.
Many of these problem areas are the result of an out of control market
economy.
Excess drinking and smoking is often due to the stress and strain of daily
life.
Similarly the advertising industry that has played a crucial part in promoting
smoking, drinking and eating junk food as positive must take some responsibility.
There do need to be controls but the wider picture as to why people smoke,
drink and eat the wrong things also needs to be addressed.
The crucial point of this debate is the creeping power of the big brother
state to decide what an individual can do.
If the state continues to take this power unchallenged what will be next?
Maybe the state will start deciding whether the ill, elderly or disabled
live or die according to how useful they are to society.
It is noticeable that while the state is seemingly happy to prohibit certain
practices it also fails to pick up its own responsibilities in other areas.
So for example pension rights are cut and provision of care services reduced
despite a burgeoning elderly population.
This is a contentious area.
The question of where one person’s rights stop and another begins
has always been hotly-disputed.
The situation is not helped in this country by the lack of a constitution
guaranteeing individual citizen’s rights.
Individuals should be allowed to drink and smoke but only in so far as
it does not interfere with the liberties of others.
There is a careful balance that needs to be maintained. To date the balance
is probably about right but there are worrying signs that states desire
to intervene to regulate individual lives is on the increase.
The individual liberty of the citizen is under threat as never before.
|
