An end to the packet of 10?

Children need to be protected from themselves. Adults do not.

That pretty succinctly sums up where I draw the line with regards the power of the state. Adults sometimes need protecting from one another, but never from themselves. A few caveats can be inserted for particular groups (e.g. the mentally ill) but the basic point stands.

But should we allow our efforts to protect children from themselves to impact on the freedom of adults?

Rumours have reached Liberal Polemic that the Department of Health is planning to consult on whether to ban packets of 10 cigarettes. The reasoning is that children are more likely to buy packets of 10 than of 20, and that packets of 10 therefore facilitate underage smoking.

The problem with this is that there are plenty of adults that buy packets of 10 cigarettes. If small packets were banned, it would reduce the freedom of adults to buy cigarettes in smaller quantities. It may even encourage them to buy more – unable to buy packets of 10, they will have to buy packets of 20 if they want any cigarettes at all. As people tend to use up the cigarettes they have, this will not only will this constrain the freedom of adults; it may even lead to worse health outcomes.

But what about the children? The legal age for smoking is anyway 16, which is fairly low (though there are moves afoot to raise it to 18). Under 16s should not be buying cigarettes at all, and I would expect purveyors of the evil weed to apply the law as diligently as off licences do (or rather, should!); if there is any doubt about a customers age, ID should be required (the ownership of the adult-rate photo-card that accompanied my train ticket was my tool of choice as a young smoker). There are of course cases where children look older than they are (as a 6’ teenager I didn’t get asked for ID very often), but the proposed response is a hammer that will crack a few adult nuts along with those of the children. The government should ensure that the law is applied rather than implementing other measures to compensate for its failure.

The final consideration might be that it is the 16 and 17 year old smokers who are being protected. They can legally buy cigarettes, but it is made more difficult in the hope of dissuading them from starting, or continuing. If so, I remain uncomfortable. If they can legally smoke, why make it harder for them? Raising surmountable (price) barriers is only quantitatively different from raising insurmountable (legal) ones; it represents moves by the State to protect adults (which, with regards to cigarette consumption, they are assumed to be) from themselves. There is an argument for taxing cigarettes, but it should be based upon the extra costs smokers incur, which are picked up by taxpayers under our welfare system; the tax on cigarettes (as on pollution), should pay for the externalities, rather than penalising those whose lifestyles we disapprove of.

I’m probably wasting my time, however. Smoking is becoming increasingly demonised by moralisers who believe they have every right to protect people from themselves. Defending smokers and their rights is never popular; they have the same status today as drinkers did a hundred years ago. They are frowned upon and thought to be showing a crass disregard for themselves, their family and society. All of this may be true, but if their behaviour is legal we should be willing to tolerate it. If it is illegal, we should stamp it out. But we should not make the lives of law-abiding citizens harder in our efforts to compensate for our inability to enforce the law.

"A packet of 5000 B&H, please."

The unbelievable hubris of the bien-pensant classes

According to the latest edition of Children Now,

The Institute of Public Policy Research think-tank has called for the compulsory introduction of smart cards for 18-year-olds that would restrict the amount of alcohol they can buy.

Those of you interested to learn more may purchase a copy (for the free exchange of ideas is not universal within the left-leaning Institute) of the article that Jasper Gerard penned for Public Policy Research. Those for whom US$ 39.00 is better spent elsewhere (anywhere!) may welcome a summary:

[T]he UK has ‘lost the plot’ when it comes to regulating alcohol. [Gerard] proposes raising the drinking age to 21 or requiring 18-year-olds to carry smart cards which record how much they have drunk each night and restrict under-21s to three units of alcohol.

Words can barely express my contempt for this execrable suggestion.

18 year olds, one might remind “New Labour’s favourite think tank” (as The Economist likes to style them), are adults capable of making decisions for themselves. They are considered old enough to have sex with whomever they wish, vote in parliamentary elections, and brave death in the service of Her Majesty. They may drive cars, pay taxes and – not insignificantly – serve in the legislature which would need to enact Mr. Gerard’s idiotic proposal.

Of course, the idea that individuals may exercise their freedom in a manner which is unpalatable to others is no more popular with the new-wave of C21st dirigistes than it was with their Syndicalist authoritarian forbears. The sense of illiberal state planning is reinforced by Gerard’s other suggestions

· increasing the number of prosecutions and the level of fines on retailers selling alcohol to minors

At what point did we start planning for the number of prosecutions so as to achieve social ends? I thought prosecutions were a response to infractions of the law!

· increasing taxes on drinks targeted at young people, such as alcopops

Young people tend to have low incomes, and like all intelligent consumers they will adjust their consumption habits to reflect price-signals.

· restricting advertising of drinks aimed at youngsters

This makes sense if aimed at the under-18s, though many parents will allow their children to stay up after the “Watershed”. There is no way to avoid the “targeting” of 18-21 year olds as they will watch many of the same programmes as 21-30 year olds.

· allowing 16 and 17-year-olds limited amounts of alcohol in pubs, bars and
restaurants when consumed with a full meal and accompanied by someone over 21.

I understood that even younger children were allowed to drink with a meal. This is a sensible proposal, allowing a gradual introduction to alcohol in a controlled environment in an attempt to demystify it. As such it seems to fly in the face of Mr. Gerard’s other policies, and would be better as advice to parents than recommended legislation.

I have argued before that we need a consistent and logical approach to ages of consent in this country. It makes no sense that we allow a 16 year old to breed but not to vote, a 17 year old to drive a car but not buy a drink, we expect 16 year olds to pay taxes but not influence how they are set or spent, and allow them to join the army but not to fight.

Mr. Gerard’s proposals fly in the face of this logic. They demonstrate the classic meddling instinct of those uncomfortable with the consequences of freedom. There are a raft of sensible policies that might be introduced to cope with the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the UK, but forbidding a portion of the adult population their freedom simply on account of their age is not among them.

Gerard’s article in Public Policy Research is endemic of a belief that well-intentioned people are better placed to make decisions about how individuals lead their lives than those individuals themselves. It shows appalling arrogance.

Quality, not quantity, is what we need in education

Ministers appear to be considering raising the compulsory school age to 18. It is hard not to sympathise with their motivation for this. Alan Johnson (one of the few Labour ministers that retains some credibility) told The Times that “It should be as unacceptable to see a 16-year- old working, with no training, no education, as it is now to see a 14-year-old… We should find it … repellent that a youngster of 16 is not getting any training.” Coming from a man who left school at 15 with no qualifications, it is hard not argue.

This raises a question I have discussed before about the need for a proper and meaningful legal definition of adulthood. At present one “comes of age” after 18 years, but may drive a car at 17, have sexual intercourse at 16, and not stand for parliament until 21. There is no logic to this. The school leaving ages are an example of this. At present children can leave school and start work. Technically, that means we have child labour – albeit not with the overtones of exploitation that that term usually carries.

Some Liberal Democrats believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16. I believe that this should only be the case if we believe that 16 and 17 year olds are mature adults capable of exercising their judgement well enough to make such a weighty decision. Whether they are or not is a discussion for another day, however. My point here is that if they are, then they are adults.

If 16 and 17 year olds are adults, it would be wrong (I might even hazard criminal) to require them to spend a further two years in education. No matter how much they would benefit from it, it would be a violation of their freedom. After all, they have the right to an education; should they ten be obliged? If they are children then we may at least have the right to take that decision for them. If not, it would be as unacceptable as conscription.

The proposal anyway raises a more obvious problem. The reason why school children are not getting satisfactory qualifications is not a lack of time – they spend 11 years in school and still a quarter of them are functionally illiterate and innumerate. It is the quality of education in those 11 years that is letting our children down, not our failure to require them (remember, they are already entitled to it if they wish) to attend school for another two years.

This proposal is bound to be expensive. While its motivation is undoubtedly high-minded, ministers would be better off concentrating on improving literacy, numeracy and qualification levels prior to children reaching 16 rather than making headline-grabbing gestures that fail to address the real problem.

Ages of consent

The new year is clearly upon us. I’ve just watched the news and it’s full of substance, rather than the Christmas fluff that has predominated over the last week. Two stories struck me particularly: the accession of two new countries to the EU and Government plans to change the legal age of smoking.

I’m fairly agnostic about what the legal age for smoking should be. The precise point at which one becomes an adult, trusted to make decisions for oneself, is one I would be happy to debate, but it’s not going to fire my blood. However, it does raise two very interesting issues.

The first is the fact that the Government is moving the goalposts for existing smokers. There are people who are able at present to buy and smoke cigarettes, but who will shortly be temporarily banned from doing so, before they again become old enough. While I can see why the government may want to protect future seventeen year olds from nicotine – a policy which can only be justified by arguing that they are unable to make rational decisions for themselves, which is debatable that that age – changing the rules so that existing smokers are now forbidden to buy cigarettes until another year or two has passed seems arbitrary.

The second issue is the long overdue need to harmonise the various ages of consent. It makes no sense to me that a 16 year old may have sex but not buy alcohol; that a 17 year old can drive a car but not smoke a cigarette; that either can pay taxes but not decide how those taxes are spent; or that at 18 one can chose a representative in Parliament but may not stand for parliament oneself.

The only reason for having any age limits in society is to protect children (and sometimes ourselves) by restricting certain decisions to those who are mature enough to take responsible decisions in their own and others’ interests. In reality adulthood neither comes at a definable moment, nor does that transition occur at the same for all, but that level of nuance is probably beyond the law. The law will need to distinguish in manner. I believe that instead of randomly applying legal age limits to various activities, we should decide at what point a person legally becomes an adult and empower them at that point with complete freedom.