The Financial
Times was quick to praise David Cameron for his support of moves to
introduce plain packaging of tobacco. “This law - likely to be passed by MPs in
a free vote – will be the most significant step in years to boost public health
in Britain. It is welcome,” it thunders.
This is a
remarkable claim. Even supporters for the measure admit the evidence is
marginal and the impact expected to be small. Perhaps the newspaper believes
there has been little progress on public health in recent years.
The letters pages were
mainly silent on the FT’s stance. Noteworthy was a response from Britain’s
greatest living artist David Hockney. He advised the FT: “You
state that cigarettes will be sold in ‘boxes decorated in an off-putting shade
of olive green’. I don’t believe there are ‘off-putting’ colours, especially
for a cigarette packet. The colour will be quite beautiful in a couple of
weeks.”
But I think there is a smarter
objection based on the ideas of Adam Smith. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments he
warns against leaders with a scheme to remake society according to some master
plan of vision.
“He warned that such people fall in
love with their vision of the ideal society and lose the ability to imagine any
deviation from that perfection,” writes Russ Roberts in his excellent book How
Adam Smith Can Change Your Life.
Adam Smith “is giving a fundamental
warning to politicians and those who would support them: when you are trying to
legislate behaviour in a complex world, you have to remember that people have
certain natural desires and dreams. Human beings like to do what pleases them.”
Roberts points to the war on drugs,
which has failed because “too many people like to use drugs. And too many
people see those desires as a potential for profit, which it surely is. It’s
very hard to stop that natural propensity to truck, barter, and exchange.
Transactions will take place between people who want to use drugs and those
eager to serve that desire because of the profit that follows.”
The war on drug persists for many
reasons. But one of them is that “a lot of regular, everyday people who simply
believe that taking drugs is a bad idea continue to support the policy...
People have trouble with the idea that it’s OK for recreational drugs to be
legal while still discouraging children and others from using them.”
On smoking Roberts notes that use has
fallen by 50% in the second half of the last century. Even though smoking
remained legal. “That’s a massive change. Sure, say the critics, but we could
have and should have cut it to zero. But that’s a fantasy…”
Smoking rates are being steadily cut in
a way that is more effective than the war on drugs. Beware the criminal opportunity!
In a world where the lowest cost producer is going to win because price is the
only marketing differentiator, then government is handing a competitive
advantage to the criminals.
The world is a complex place. If I was
an MP I would vote against this proposal. As my customers make a living from
responsibly selling a legal product to adult smokers and as my company earns
money from the tobacco industry communicating to shopkeepers, you could say
that of course I would say that. But Russ Roberts, an economist at Stanford
University, puts a better case than I could make on my own. The world is a
complex place. Managed decline is better than anarchy. The FT is guilty of
wishful thinking.
Comments
Post a Comment