Sunday 21 October, 5.00pm until 6.15pm, Garden Room
Are we entering a new prohibitionist era? Drinking and even smoking are still perfectly legal, but there is a palpable sense that they are less acceptable than they once were. Cigarettes have become far more expensive thanks to punitive taxes, and the authorities would like to do something similar with alcohol. The spread of ‘no drinking’ zones in public places also seems to follow the pattern of smoking bans, which now cover every indoor public space and many outdoor ones too. So are we witnessing prohibition by stealth? Instead of banning certain activities, is the state trying render them socially unacceptable?
Putting smokers beyond the social pale certainly seemed to be health secretary Andrew Lansley’s objective when he explained the decision to implement a ‘plain packaging’ policy for cigarettes: ‘[It] is about moving to a place where tobacco and smoking isn’t part of normal life.’ An Australian court’s decision to uphold an even more extreme plain packaging policy has paved the way for similar moves worldwide. And where official anti-smoking policies have gone, anti-booze strategies look set to follow. Dr Vivienne Nathanson of the British Medical Association was angered recently by the proximity of booze to other food stuffs. ‘We have to start denormalising alcohol,’ she said. So might we see ‘plain packaging’ for alcohol too? And will that other bane of public health, so-called junk food, be next for the denormalisation treatment? With a black market already blossoming for tax-free tobacco, can we expect the rise of home-brew and moonshine, or even organised crime dealing in booze as it does with other illicit drugs?
More fundamentally, is it right that the government, aided and abetted by health professionals, seeks to change and mould our behaviour? Or should we be free to determine our own social norms, what is normal and what is not, rather than have these decided for us? In the past, those calling for abstinence, such as the nineteenth-century Temperance movement, did so in moral terms: alcohol damaged and inhibited that which was considered virtuous, be it hard work or good judgement. Is there a moral argument being made today against boozing or smoking? And if not, what does that tell us about the contemporary drive towards the ‘denormalisation’ of certain forms of behaviour? Or is it simply a good thing that the government is looking out for us, encouraging us to adopt lifestyles which won’t cost the NHS millions or make town centres no-go areas on a Saturday night? Are we witnessing a sensible attempt to change our behaviour for the better, or an assault by stealth on our everyday freedoms?
Listen to session audio:
Download mp3 (Right-click and choose “Save link as”)
|Dr Sarah Jarvis|
GP; fellow, Royal College of General Practitioners; BBC1 One Show doctor; author, Women's Health for Life
associate editor, spiked; writer on science and risk; author, Panic on a Plate: how society developed an eating disorder
|Dr Michael Nelson|
director of research and nutrition, Children's Food Trust
director, lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; author, The Art of Suppression
manager, UK government relations, SABMiller
judges coordinator, Debating Matters Competition; freelance journalist; co-founder, Birmingham Salon
Instead of an outright ban on activities deemedJason Smith, Independent, 15 October 2012
The deaths of 11,500 pensioners could be avoided over the next decade if minimum alcohol pricing is rolled out in England, according to new research.BBC News, 7 September 2012
The government is, once again, taking us for fools. Using the usual misinformation, it's trying to tell us what to drink and how to live our livesDavid Atherton, The Commentator, 30 July 2012
It's key to understand that some addicts have a deep emotional connection to smokingLaurie Penny, Independent, 1 July 2012
Tougher rules on alcohol marketing may be needed, including possibly a ban on sports sponsorship, MPs say.Nick Triggle, BBC News, 19 June 2012
Denying cigarette companies the right to decorate their cigarette packets is a draconian measure of which Stalin’s censorship police would have been proud. It suggests that the Government thinks it can control our thoughts and our desires.David Hockney, Daily Mail, 15 April 2012
The prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a notorious fiasco. The War on Drugs has been a deadly failure. Bans on alternative nicotine products keep people smoking cigarettes. Attempts to suppress legal highs result in more drugs hitting the market. Prohibition doesn't work but the world is filled with prohibitionists. Why?
Chris Snowdon, Little Dice, 3 October 2011