Last week, I headed up to University of York for a debate hosted by one of their societies. The topic was ‘This house supports the smoking ban for the sake of the economy’. It was reassuring that they had made it a debate about economics. Smokers cost the NHS about £3 billion per year and tobacco taxes alone raise £9bn, meaning it doesn’t take an economist to see that smoking is good for the public finances. Given the Chancellor’s sterling credentials and her concern about fiscal black holes, perhaps that leaves some hope that she may vote against the ban too.
Heading up to York my feelings were mixed. I was hoping that the students would be receptive to the clear and concise economic arguments I had prepared. My debating teammate, Chris Snowdon, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, was less optimistic. Students these days aren’t known for their intellectual open-mindedeness, after all. The results of the entry poll suggested the pessimism was warranted. Some 21 favoured the ban with just 14 opposing, plus 22 abstentions.
Given the simplicity of the economic case for smoking and the need to fill ten minutes, I focused on the pragmatic reasons for opposing the ban. Looking at previous prohibition attempts around the world, there is only one logical conclusion – it should be avoided. The prohibition of alcohol in the US from 1920 to 1933 saw over 11 million prescriptions written for ‘medical liquor’. With the NHS already suggesting vaping as a better alternative to smokers, it isn’t hard to imagine the NHS writing prescriptions for vapes too.
The rise in crime during prohibition is particularly damning. It’s far easier to convince the public to buy a product from gangs that they had been buying legally for years before. Better funded gangs meant more serious crime. The murder rate during prohibition was significantly higher than the decades on either side of it. New York had at least 32,000 speakeasies during prohibition, many of which were frequented by the very police officers paid to shut them down. Other police officers were bribed to turn a blind eye.
The UK already has a gang problem and an enforcement problem. Anyone that has walked through a town with a population of greater than ten will smell cannabis being smoked. A tobacco ban here would just mean the same errors repeated. Looking around the room, I could see that many were receptive to this line of argument which was hammered home with examples from Australia where there are firebombings of rival gangs involved in the illicit tobacco trade. Australia of course has among the highest tobacco taxes in the world.
Chris followed up with the moral case. Smoking only causes harm to the individual and passive smoking can be avoided by just not standing next to someone smoking. He also covered the economic arguments against smoking made by our opponents. The bulk of the cost comes from ‘loss of productivity’. This is built on the main assumption that because smokers earn less and die earlier on average, by not smoking they would raise their income. While it’s true that they would have more money due to not paying the astronomical tobacco tax, it is not true that the millions of low paying jobs would suddenly spike in salary.
Following our speeches, the debate opened into a Q&A. It was here that I really started to believe that there was hope yet for the next generation. We had a few questions aimed towards us, mostly about if it is a good thing for a government to allow harmful things to happen. The students seemed convinced that a more fundamental question about the role of government should be asked – notably whether it should dictate how you live your life.
The questions to our opponents showed how well our arguments against the ban had worked though. One student asked, ‘Is it really the role of the citizen to be as productive as possible for the sake of the government?’ This cuts to the heart of the prohibitionist movement which obviously agrees that we should preserve things like maternity leave, annual leave, weekends or that part-time jobs shouldn’t be banned, even if these policies reduce productivity. The productivity argument is just a disguise for their dislike of smoking.
The final question was the real blow though: ‘How can you support a prohibition when it’s expensive and ineffective?’ Our opponents didn’t have much of an answer and settled on, ‘it’s best to educate people on the dangers of smoking and let them make their choice.’ ‘Yes!’ I said, ‘That is exactly our point, let people choose.’ An exit poll was then conducted, which revealed 20 in support of the ban with 27 against, meaning we had managed to win an additional 13 votes, even taking at least one from the other side. Maybe the kids are alright after all.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
