Adam Smith Institute

The Government is currently inviting responses to a consultation document on the future of tobacco control in the UK. It includes proposals to ban the display of tobacco in shops and outlaw cigarette vending machines. Forest, which champions the right of smokers to puff in peace, has created an e-card through which you can tell the nannies in the Department of Health to buzz off. It reads:

• I oppose the introduction of unnecessary regulations that will threaten jobs and small businesses, and inconvenience millions of consumers.
• I oppose the proposals to ban the display of tobacco in shops, and ban tobacco vending machines.
• I support measures to educate children about the health risks of smoking, but I oppose measures designed to demonise adult smokers.
• I oppose the stigmatisation of smokers and the erosion of civil liberties by Big Government.

If you want to send one, click here.

When Gary Glitter – former glam rocker and convicted paedophile – was released from a Vietnamese jail and deported, the UK government's reaction was comically predictable. Concerned that he might eventually dredge up on her patch, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced a package of 'tough' new measures on sex offenders. They would face more stringent police monitoring. Restrictions on their travelling abroad would be extended. They might even have their passports confiscated.

It seems that when even the humblest sparrow falls, the government feels compelled to announce some new initiative about the problem, and so convince us all that they're on top of it. What does it matter if they haven't bothered to think it out beforehand?

The UK's restrictions on sex offenders are already some of the world's 'toughest'. Do we really need to re-visit them again? Are ministers telling us they got it all wrong the last time? And since only 1% of offenders go on to commit another serious sex crime, aren't the current laws pretty effective? If it's 'evidence-based policy' you're after, that's pretty good evidence.

But of course it isn't 'evidence-based policy' that ministers are after. They are after two things. First, to justify their existence by introducing as many initiatives on as many subjects on as many occasions as they can muster. That's how Westminster careers are advanced. And second, to convince the public that they are on the ball. The trouble is, that by loading 'tough' measure on 'tough' measure, and 'tough' rhetoric on 'tough' rhetoric, they scare the public rather than reassure them. Paedophilia, yob culture, knife crime and the rest are no more common than they were decades ago. It's just that ministerial spin has frightened us into believing that they are. it's a game the politicians can't win - every 'tough' measure makes them look even less in control. Which is undoubtedly the reality.

Implementing curfews seems all the rage these days in the United States. Last week a town in Arkansas ordered a 24-hour curfew for all residents in a neighbourhood struggling with high amounts of violence and drug dealing. Peaceable citizens passing through the neighbourhood in any form of transportation could be stopped and searched by officers under the mayor’s orders. Another recent curfew on teenagers was implemented in Hartford, Connecticut. Teenagers less than 18-years of age cannot be out and about past 9PM without a parent or guardian. 

Sure, these curfews are set up to protect innocent bystanders from being caught up in the violence on the streets, but at the serious cost of their civil liberty to move about freely. It is not the government’s job to decide when people are allowed to traverse their own neighbourhood or if they are able to sit outside to enjoy the summer weather. People should be able so make the decision for themselves when to stay inside when the risk of straying past their doorstep is too high. The government should focus on the individual criminals and preventing their ability to commit crimes instead of forcing all citizens to sit under house arrest.