Let us decide for ourselves

Britain's 14 million smokers are being victimised following the Government's announcement that cigarettes are to be sold only "under the counter".

The Department of Health's rationale appears to be that the glittering and colourful displays of cigarette packets behind newsagents' tills are driving thousands of young people to take up the habit.

It is hard to overstate the extent to which the Government has already "de-normalised" smoking. Unlike other dangerous products, large parts of the packaging bear warnings about the possibly fatal consequences of consumption.

Grim graphic images of grotesque tumours and blackened organs now cover the reverse of the packet. Ever more shrill and disturbing advertisements about the risk of smoking – all paid for by the taxpayer – appear on our television screens.

Just in case you don't get or don't believe the message, it is also now illegal to smoke in enclosed public places.

But this latest move – to allow cigarettes to be sold, but not displayed – comes close to criminalising tobacco without actually doing so. It also forms part of a belligerent and bullying political culture which should be resisted, not just by smokers but by anyone who supports personal responsibility and human freedom.

The first point to make about the ban is that it will have no measurable public health benefit. Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, claims that "enticing multi-coloured displays encourage young people to start smoking… My hope is that shops will use this opportunity to promote healthier goods to their customers."

This shows a deeply patronising and warped view of young people. If only, the argument seems to go, corner shops would rip down their glittering displays of Marlboro Lights and Silk Cuts and replace them with brightly wrapped organic celery or gold-packaged bean curd, Britain's 15-year-olds will undergo an epiphany that transforms their consumer preferences. What nonsense.

Many youngsters are tempted to try cigarettes because they are forbidden fruit. Because there is something risqué, defiant and daring about doing so. It's a way of sticking up two fingers to authority. The process of "de-normalising" cigarettes may make smoking even more attractive to some youngsters.

Secondly, if you really want to stop people smoking before they turn 18, then why not enforce the present law more effectively? Fines for selling cigarettes to children could be increased if necessary – at present, small retailers might face a bill of about £2,000 or more for selling to children. But the higher the fine, the more care the retailer will take in ensuring that the customer is not underage. A licence is also needed to sell tobacco at all. This licence could be suspended or even extinguished for repeat offenders.

But, above all, we need to regain a sense of proportion. Very few people would doubt that smoking cigarettes is bad for you – on some estimates, regular smokers may see their life expectancy diminished by 10 or 15 years.

But how much do we really care if people wish to engage in an activity that has negative health consequences for them?

Smokers do not constitute a drain on the NHS – the enormous tax levied on cigarettes easily covers the medical costs of every smoker's treatment.

Passive smoking represents an utterly trivial public health risk – especially compared to those innocent bystanders who suffer from "passive drinking" (much of the mindless violence on British streets is fuelled by alcohol) or "passive driving" (there are about 250,000 casualties every year on Britain's roads).

We are in serious danger of wishing to pursue the thankless and soulless task of trying to eliminate risk from human behaviour. Smoking is just the thin end of the wedge. The Government is rapidly snatching from us our rights and abilities to make decisions for ourselves. We have to ask where this will all end.

If newsagents can no longer display shiny tobacco products, why should we allow McDonald's to display mouth-watering images of juicy beef burgers?

If youngsters really are taking up the dreaded weed because of the allure of cigarette packaging, then isn't an enormous picture of a Big Mac a contributory cause of obesity?

Perhaps fast-food outlets should be allowed to display only healthy green salads, with anything containing too much fat or too many carbohydrates being available only on an "under the counter" basis.

And if cigarette packets must now contain imagery of diseased lungs and rotting teeth, then why not insist that a proportion of McDonald's wall space is given over to photographs of clogged arteries and overweight people having their stomachs stapled?

What is particularly maddening about the endless petty interference of politicians like Alan Johnson is that the need for the Government to provide us with health warnings and flag up risks is much less than it was 50 years ago.

In fact, it's declining by the day. Before the dawn of the information society, many people didn't appreciate that smoking cigarettes carried substantial health risks. They were far less conscious of the impact of various dietary choices. They were less aware of the dangers of alcohol.

Today, however, the same problems do not arise. The mainstream media – and the internet – pumps forth a vast quantity of information about the health risks and benefits of virtually any consumable product you can name.

For the growing tens of millions with access to the internet, this huge databank of health advice is available free at the click of a button. This is a far cry indeed from the claim made for Camel cigarettes, in the days of black and white television, that they "agree with your throat" and "more doctors smoke them than any other cigarette".

In 2008, adults can be expected to make decisions for themselves. We don't need interfering, bullying politicians to tell us what these decisions should be.

We know that many things in life can be dangerous. We know that too much indulgence can harm us.

But we own our own lives and our own bodies, so should be free to decide for ourselves.

Unfortunately, when we refuse to follow the advice of people like Alan Johnson, their reaction is just to shout at us louder and louder. Politicians shouldn't be surprised when the reaction of the general public is to listen to them less and less.

Mark Littlewood is communications director for Progressive Vision, an independent think tank campaigning for "new and liberal solutions to the problems facing British and European society". Visit its website at www.progessive-vision.org