Tar and Feather Brains: Tobacco Control’s Contempt for Citizens

Last week was a grim period in tobacco control.

• Australia’s vape ban has been a roaring success… for organised crime.
• The FDA seems intent on banning open-system vapes, starting with SMOK devices.
• The WHO has produced a tobacco trends report that is gloomier than a Smith’s record.

Individually, these events are all bad. Taken together, they’re a horrific snapshot of how people in power — both elected and non-elected — are failing citizens across the world with policies that are misguided, shortsighted and contain more than trace levels of contempt for the general public.

So, what’s going on here? Why are these public health bodies and governments so out of tune with the public?

What is the role of government and public health organisations?

I guess the first thing to do is to strip the question back to first principles. To do that, we need to ask a question: What are governments meant to be?

On the one hand, there are people like me who think the government should be small and keep out of our lives and decisions as much as possible. However, it should have the power to stop people from causing harm to others—basic Classical Liberalism, then.

On the other, some people believe that the government should be mixed up in everything we do. In effect, they should be our parents, spouses, landlords, and our executive function. Thrusting them into that role means giving them extraordinary power to decide how we live and what we do.

Of course, there is a lot of middle ground between these two polarities that most people fall between.

Protection from harm

The protection of natural rights is a complex subject. It’s deeply nuanced, and it requires some balance, particularly when it comes to protecting individuals from harm caused by others.

To be clear, I don’t think we can “let the market decide” whether companies dump toxic sludge in our lakes or in our lungs. Some mechanisms must exist to protect citizens from harm.

However, if our actions only harm ourselves, why does the government need to overreach?

And what happens if our actions barely even harm ourselves, as in the case of vaping and nicotine pouches? Where does the authority come from to decide for me what I can or can’t do?

What is going on with these bodies?

It’s easy and tempting to write off the actions of these bodies as being driven by coercion, control, and corruption. After all, in some cases, that is what is happening. But it takes a relatively pessimistic opinion of human nature to be happy with that as an explanation.

Instead, I think (or hope) that the Tobacco Control community is driven by good intentions. Yes, there is a level of arrogance here in casting themselves as saviours. Additionally, there is a lack of self-interrogation about the tactics they use to achieve their aims, including lying, unfairly discrediting opposition, misrepresenting research, etc. But, again, I choose to look at it through a lens of good intentions because I have faith in humanity.

And look, I get it. If I had to break a red light to save a baby from a burning building, I wouldn’t give a second thought about the traffic violation. But there is no valid moral framework that suggests the ends justify the means, especially if we must corrode our own character to get there.

Final thoughts

This whole thought process only works if you think people are helpless, weak, and need protection from themselves. You have to have a very pessimistic view of human nature to believe that the only way we can thrive is by being treated like toddlers.

We can’t engineer our way out of the problem of human nature. People need access to accurate product information and health advice, and yes, even the odd nudge or incentive can work. However, a helicopter parenting approach to public policy can only stunt the development of citizens.

Obstructing access to harm-reduction products to “protect us from ourselves” requires contempt for our abilities as rational people capable of self-determination.

We loan these people power. It’s not inalienable. If they treat us like children, it’s a clear sign that they’ve gravely misunderstood the dynamic and are not fit to represent us.

The minimum that we deserve as citizens is respect. Government officials and organisations must show it or get out of the way.

Hope in Argentina?

In the wake of a bleak week in global tobacco control, with Australia’s vape ban bringing success for organised crime, the FDA considering banning open-system vapes and a gloomy WHO report on tobacco trends, Martin Cullip offers hope in Argentina.

He observes, with the unexpected rise to power of President Javier Milei, a committed classical liberal, Argentina could reevaluate its approach to tobacco control and embrace harm reduction strategies. Cullip suggests that the repeal of current e-cigarette restrictions could align with Milei’s principles of individual freedom and limited government intervention, while stimulating economic growth and setting a regional example.

This optimistic view provides a stark contrast to the failures and excessively paternal approach afflicting other health bodies and governments’ handling of tobacco control. Read the full article from Martin here.