Plain packaging for cigarettes

Richard White had an interesting piece on the Guardian website on Tuesday, concerning plain packaging laws for cigarettes. Mandatory plain packaging comes into force in Australia next year, and there is already talk of the UK adopting similar rules. The UK’s nanny-in-chief, Andrew Lansley, is said to be keen on the idea. But as White suggests, there is little evidence that plain packaging would actually achieve its stated aim, which is to discourage youth smoking and impulse buying of cigarettes:

No evidence exists, however, to suggest that anyone "impulsively" buys cigarettes, nor is there evidence that the policy would make any difference to smoking rates as no country has yet implemented it. Just as a teetotaller would not be persuaded to take up drinking just because WKD is colourful, there is nothing to suggest that non-smokers start smoking because the packet has fancy emblems. In fact, with large text warnings on the front and graphic pictures on the back taking up a large portion of the packaging, there is little left of the manufacturers' own designs.

A display ban in England has already been agreed on, which will come into effect from next year for large stores and 2015 for smaller shops such as newsagents, and if tobacco is being hidden then no one, child or adult, will be able to see the packets whether they are plain or decorated with flashing lights…

White also notes that plain packaging it likely to prove a counterfeiters charter (apparently “85% of cheap cigarettes sold on London streets” are fakes) and points out that cigarettes are already much harder for children to get hold of than alcohol, which may in fact be a greater problem.

But, of course, I very much doubt that the real goal of plain packaging laws is to protect children and stop impulse buying. In fact, it is probably just another measure designed to stigmatize smokers, and constantly remind them that the authorities regard their habit as shameful and sordid. You can say what you like about smoking and the tobacco industry, but I still don’t think this is how government should treat grown-ups. Nor do I think it a legitimate basis for policymaking.

At some point, you have to say that enough is enough – and I’d suggest we’ve long since passed that point when it comes to tobacco control.

6898

blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/plain-packaging-for-cigarettes

Some good news, at last

Courtesy of the Cato Institute's Juan Carlos Hidalgo:

Mexican President Felipe Calderón seems to be experiencing a dramatic change of mind regarding his war against drug cartels. Soon after a drug gang set fire to a casino in Monterrey a few weeks ago killing 52 people, Calderón told the media that “”If [the Americans] are determined and resigned to consuming drugs, they should look for market alternatives that annul the stratospheric profits of the criminals, or establish clear points of access that are not the border with Mexico.” Many people interpreted that as a veiled reference to drug legalization.

Yesterday, during a speech to the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in New York, Calderón was at it again: “We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs,” he said. “But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions—including market alternatives—in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations.”

After launching a military offensive against drug cartels that has resulted in approximately 42,000 people killed in drug-related violence thus far, it appears that President Calderón has finally realized that the war on drugs is a futile endeavor and that drug legalization is the only alternative to the mayhem.

Better late than never, I suppose.

6897

blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/some-good-news-at-last

Can capital punishment ever be justified?

Next Wednesday at four o'clock London time, a man will be executed in the state of Georgia. Capital punishment is an extremely divisive issue that separates even those who represent similar ideological positions on the political spectrum. One is allowed to be undecided, a common opinion being that you wouldn't know where you truly stand until the issue directly affects you in someway. Yet regardless of positioning the issue of capital punishment must rest on a crucial crux- overwhelming evidence that the accused is guilty.

The man in Georgia facing almost certain execution cannot be held in this category, or at least there exists convincing evidence that could potentially call for a revised sentence. Troy Davis has been on death row for nearly 20 years following his conviction in 1989. He was accused and found guilty of killing local police officer Mark MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia. However, in the years following Mr Davis' conviction seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted their testimonies, many even alleging that they were subject to police coercion and intimidation techniques during the trial. In addition to this no physical evidence exists that links Davis to the crime.

Amnesty International have taken up the cause for Davis' clemency. Whilst they do not advocate a definite position concerning Davis' guilt they maintain an argument that is there "is room for doubt, there's no room for execution." This is surely something that both the pro- and anti- capital punishment camps can agree on (or at least concede to.)

Considering the enormous consequences of the margin for error in death row cases it seems, at least to me, that granting the state the power to kill individuals is a hugely questionable act, and it is perhaps this point that lies at the heart of my own personal questioning of the validity of capital punishment. Rothbard provides an answer to this concern proposing that capital punishment be initiated only at the victims request, therefore removing the state's overwhelming influence and putting justice in the hands of those that require it. But how do we ask the wishes of the dead? Rothbard proposes that we all, anticipating our potential murders, instruct others of our wishes in the style of a will. He suggests that,

The deceased can instruct heirs, courts, and any other interested parties on how he would wish a murderer of his to be treated. In that case, pacifists, liberal intellectuals, et al. can leave clauses in their wills instructing law enforcement authorities not to kill, or even not to press charges against a criminal in the event of their murder; and the authorities would be required to obey.

Whilst debating the death penalty requires endless time and a limitless word count, cases like Troy Davis' continually arise addressing our need to come up with a definitive answer to questions surrounding the death penalty. If we are to support it guilt needs to be clear, with no possible alternatives. In addition the death penalty should represent justice being enacted between people, not between the accused and the authorities, as a result, I'd argue that Rothbard might be on to something.

6877

blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/can-capital-punishment-ever-be-justified

Dealing with trolls

On Tuesday a man called Sean Duffy was jailed for 18 weeks for “internet trolling”. He was convicted of an offence under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act, which reads as follows:

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Now, there is no doubt that Sean Duffy’s posts – so far as I’ve been able to ascertain their contents – were despicably vile. I do not wish to defend him or his comments. Indeed – subject to the slight caveat that he may suffer from Asperger's syndrome – he deserves all the condemnation and moral opprobrium that may be heaped on him.

But am I the only one who is rather disturbed by the breadth of this legislation? Surely behaviour like Duffy’s is better dealt with privately – offending parties ought to be socially stigmatized and voluntarily blacklisted by website owners and Internet Service Providers. Just because something is offensive, even morally repugnant, does not mean that it should be a crime.

The way I see it, there is no need to balance the allegedly ‘competing claims’ of freedom of speech and public protection. It is merely a question of letting people assert their property rights to punish or censure unacceptable behaviour. Indeed, I’d go further – it seems to me a sad sign of societal weakness that we are depending on the state to be our arbiter of decency.

Still, this story does raise another interesting issue. Why is it that people on the internet are, quite often, so unspeakably rude? Is it the sense of anonymity? Or is it just that the internet provides an outlet for certain maladjusted and socially inept individuals, who we would not usually encounter in our day-to-day lives? I honestly don’t know.

Whatever the reason, I just wish people would remember that good manners cost nothing, but count for a lot. Even on the internet.

6867

blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/dealing-with-trolls

The tobacco-stained torch

During debates on the smoking ban, freedom is often invoked by both sides. On the one hand, your smoker or smoking-supporter argues that surely they should have the freedom to smoke wherever they like. On the other, supporters of the ban counter that it is unfair to subject non-smokers to tobacco smoke, and all its inherent risks, against their will just because they wish to be in a particular public area. Why should the right to smoke trump the right to be free of smoke?

That argument is probably one for the philosophers, and I’m not much interested in it because a policy solution to the problem does not require it to be answered. Libertarianism offers a perfectly just and amicable solution to the smoking dispute without the need for any intervention by the state at all. As with so many things, the solution is property.

The decision about whether or not smoking should be permitted or prohibited in a particular bar, restaurant or place of work should be entirely at the discretion of the owner of that property. This is a fundamentally just solution. After all, why should a smoke-averse individual who wishes to be in a particular bar trump the wishes of the owner of that premise, who smokes and like smokers? Similarly, what smoker could assert the right to smoke in a premise where the owner has forbidden it? Not only is this system just, but it also allows the market to find the balance between smoking and non-smoking venues. After all, smokers and non-smokers will both constitute consumer markets, generating demand for facilities in which they can either smoke or avoid smoke. The invisible hand will provide smoking, non-smoking and mixed facilities in the proportion to which they are required by the habits of the population. Property rights are upheld, and each side gets what it wants.

The only potential contested ground lies in the remaining grey area, ‘public spaces’. There are two kinds. The first is government property, which does not pose a serious problem as the government can exercise its right as property holder to ban or permit smoking the same as any other. The second, and more problematic, kind is public areas that are ‘held in common’ by or for the people. Should the government be treated as property holder in this instance, or should it not own these areas at all?

Henry Hill is the winner of the 2011 Young Writer on Liberty Award. He blogs at http://dilettante11.blogspot.com/.

6862

blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/the-tobacco-stained-torch

Misuse of anti-terror laws

6847

misuse-of-anti-terror-laws

 

The number of cases in which the US Patriot Act's "sneak-and-peek" warrants have been used, arranged by category. How many people are willing to bet that the British police have been any better? (Patriot Act: The kitchen-sink approach to national security)

Will they ban salt?

6825

will-they-ban-salt

Should the government micromanage the contents of food? This is the key question when alarmist statements, such as this morning’s ‘Excessive Salt in Bread’ are splashed all over the news.

There are two ways of approaching this issue. Either you leave individuals free to decide for themselves what they buy or don’t buy; or you let the government decide what’s on the shelves. The first you can achieve by information and labelling; the second by state diktat. For cigarettes and alcohol there has been a clear move towards the second option of state coercion.

Let’s take salt. I’m not going to dispute the science on this. Salt is probably not very healthy. Though our defences should start to go up when we hear statements being qualified with the lawyery ‘may’ (damage your health). Or when The Telegraph headline shouts that ‘Some loaves are as salty as seawater’, when in fact, not a single one of the 294 investigated breads was. Less than 1 % of the loaves contained more than half the salt of seawater.

The Consensus Action on Salt and Health was set up by well-connected experts to expound the view that salt is bad, and to encourage us to do something about it. Nothing wrong with people who have a bee in their bonnet about an issue to try to convince the public – we believe in free speech. But the situation changes when their views are imposed upon all of us by law. On their website, they list as their main achievements that they convinced the Department of Health to commit to salt reduction; and they encouraged the Food Standards’ Agency to pick up salt as one of their key campaigns. In other words: the taxpayers are now funding the CASH views on salt.

Today it’s salt; tomorrow it may be sugar, maltesers, coffee, or meat – all of which may be very harmful if taken in excess. A small group may become obsessed about a specific food product, start campaigning, and succeed in turning its views…into laws! Will we soon have to buy a pot of salt from behind the counter, by the gramme? Will we see black labels with two inch letters shouting ‘SALT KILLS’ ?

Choosing for state coercion instead of trusting the free choice of individuals reflects a particular view of humanity: that we, individuals, are not intelligent enough to make our own decisions; and that we need to be protected against ourselves. In this world, the scientists and the politicians become the shepherds, and we the sheep (that is: the lesser beings or animals). Here at the ASI we still believe that people are humans: that is, individuals who know what is in our own interest and who can make their own decisions.

By all means, allow the CASH to convince us that salt is bad and that we should be careful. If they succeed, the manufacturers will have an interest in labelling clearly what’s in the food. Food with less salt will sell better.

The freedom to be fat

6805

the-freedom-to-be-fat

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public – Adam Smith

As usual, Adam Smith was right. Today I can think of no trade about which the above is more true than the medical profession. I don’t just mean doctors’ use of occupational licensure laws to keep their prices artificially inflated. Politically active groups of doctors are possibly the greatest single threat to personal freedom that there is in the UK today. Their motivation isn't necessarily their wallets, but their egos. Bullies like to use the state to push people around so they feel powerful.

There’s a sad example of this in today’s call in the Lancet, a medical journal that is often used as a political mouthpiece by campaigning doctors, for the government to introduce a “fat tax” to curb obesity.

Of course, the proposal is utterly specious. It's pretty dubious whether the "obesity epidemic" claims are true or not. And which diet plan should be implemented? Is it bacon, sugar, bread or something else that makes us fat? Will political parties of this fat tax utopian future be divided between the Low-Carb Party and the Low-Fat Party? And what if fat people's early mortality rates mean that they actually save the government money in pension and care home bills?

The doctors err even by their own logic. As Will Wilkinson has pointed out, if fat taxers thought things through, they would favour a tax on fat people themselves, not on the food they eat. Taxing food punishes people who exercise so that they can enjoy Big Macs, but not people who are so lazy that they balloon out while eating a balanced diet.

The justification for pushing people around like this is the NHS. Shouldn’t people have to pay for their own illnesses? Well, yes – that’s how personal responsibility works. But having an NHS removes the personal responsibility, and artificial attempts to inject it into the system are doubly illiberal and wrong.

The government (and the electorate, for that matter) forces people to be in the NHS. You have no choice in the matter, and you can’t opt out of it. Jamie Whyte put it well: "first the do-gooders conjure up the external costs by insisting that no one should have to pay for his own medical care, then they tell us that they must interfere with behavior that damages our health because it imposes costs on others." This is perverse and illiberal. The tax would only affect the poor – rich people's spending habits wouldn't be dented. How easy it must be for doctors to pontificate about the need for a fat tax, knowing that such a tax would hardly affect them at all.

This creepy, controlling paternalism has plenty of fans in politics on both sides of the partisan divide. Doctors are the politicians' enablers, lending the weight of their “expertise” to the nanny instinct of the political class in exchange for the feeling of being important. No amount of expertise – medical or otherwise – should give somebody the right to interfere with another adult’s choices. Nor should democracy be used as an excuse to violate the sovereignty of the individual. If fat people are costing the NHS money, that's a mark against having an NHS, not against having fat people.

Welcome to Lootersville

6786

welcome-to-lootersville

It’s the fag end of a grim summer – the rolling debt crisis has the financial system on the precipice again, economic growth in the western world is faltering, famine haunts Somalia and the Middle East’s killing fields are especially productive from Pakistan to Libya.

It’s time for some spirited libertarian thinking, if not to solve all the world’s problems, at least a very little local difficulty here in the UK: what to do with all those looters? The jails are already full and they’re really only an enhanced training program for advanced criminality in any case. So how about combining something old with something new in a bold initiative?

Back in the old days, criminals were transported to far flung corners of the world like Australia. Not only did this remove undesirables from the home country but it planted the seeds for world class cricket, rugby and beach volleyball teams, not to mention addictive soap operas, decent wines and successful talk show hosts. All in all, not a bad result and better than what comes out Her Majesty’s Prisons now.

Unfortunately, we’ve run out of empty countries so enter The Seasteading Institute, a California outfit founded by Patri Friedman, grandson of ASI darling Milton Friedman. Their big idea is to create communities floating out at sea, much like giant oil drilling rigs, and populating these with libertarian-minded souls. As the Institute puts it, “we work to enable seasteading communities -- floating cities -- which will allow the next generation of pioneers to peacefully test new ideas for government. The most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world.”

Why not engage The Seasteading Institute to create communities for our malcontents, those looters who say there’s no place for them in our society? After all, what’s not to dislike for many of them in their current situation? A welfare system that breeds generations of dependency? An educational system that fails to teach literacy and numeracy? DIY shows to speed scrambles up the property ladder? Beggared pension schemes? Panel discussions by intellectuals about enhancing self-worth?

No, let the looters and rioters collect their guns, their knives, their drugs and their drinks and ship them out to a Seastead where they can make their own living arrangements. Could they do any worse for themselves? There’s a few billions now being wasted on silly schemes like high-speed rail links to Birmingham and offshore wind farms. If we’re determined to spend it all on something foolish, let’s at least try it on something imaginative.

Is now the time for a Castle Law?

6785

is-now-the-time-for-a-castle-law

Two months ago Anna Moore wrote a piece on the "castle doctrine", a legal practice which gives a person the right to defend themselves with potentially deadly force against an attacker on their property. Following last week's rioting, looting and general destruction of property, Castle laws seem a more and more attractive prospect. This might appear to be a reactionary measure to a rare occurrence but it is a measure worth considering.

At a time where home and small business owners face a real threat of violence towards themselves and their property, and when police resources are increasingly stretched beyond their limits, better defined rights of defending personal property would offer peace of mind as well as a definitive deterrent to would-be criminals. Rather than questioning what constitutes "reasonable force" we would be safe in the knowledge that if we were to ever be put in the terrifying situation of facing an intruder the law would offer us the absolute upper hand.

Particularly pertinent is the argument that castle laws provide stronger deterrents to potential perpetrators of crime. Many commentators attempting to explain the motivations of rioters have argued that those involved looted and destroyed property simply because they could and because they believed they would get away with it. As the rioting rumbled on stories emerged of vigilante groups taking to the streets to protect local homes and businesses and these groups seemed effective at ending misbehaviour in certain areas. Without advocating vigilantism it is clear to see that when the perceived costs of crime were raised the looters were deterred.

Senior Police Officers have expressed concern over the government's endorsement of property-owners rights fearing that a change in law towards the Castle doctrine could promote vigilantism. However, in my opinion, the opposite is true. Castle laws recognise that individuals are sovereign over their own property and equip them with the resources to, in extreme circumstances, protect this sovereignty to the extent that they wish. If each man is the "king of his castle", and recognised so by the law, the need for vigilante groups or individuals to purposefully take the law into their own hands is removed. In extreme circumstances, such as last weeks riots, it's easy to see the line blur between individual protection of property and group vigilantism. This isn't a result of the Castle doctrine, but perhaps because of its absence. Individuals would not be pushed into extralegal activity if the law effectively equipped them to protect what's theirs.