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."

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.