A grumble on the poor quality of a libertarian discourse on passive smoking

Spiked presents itself as “an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms.” – a statement of intent that in this wordy form oozes smirking superiority and arrogance but is attractive in principle. I am a firm believer in robust debate, wide ranging freedoms of speech and expression, including the right to be wrong, offensive and offensively wrong. I also believe that evidence is important in forming conclusions. I suspect that Spiked don’t, offering lightweight arguments of irresponsibility masquerading as concern for liberties instead.  Take this article by Suzy Dean on passive smoking for example. Dean is critical of arguments made by medical experts suggesting that the government should consider a ban on smoking in cars when children under 16 are present.
Dean sets out her case by arguing that the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the government’s management of risk concluding that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is not the threat it’s purported to be and therefore did not justify a ban. Before suggesting that “much of the science which makes up the passive-smoking case fails to mention that smoking-related illnesses – like lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease – are the product of a number of factors, such as genetics and diet, in addition to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke.”.
Dealing first with the House of Lords report, it’s conclusions are actually:

The evidence we took on passive smoking leads us to doubt whether government guidelines on risk management have been properly implemented. In particular, the purpose of legislation should have been defined more clearly and greater attention should have been given to available scientific evidence, the relative merits of alternative policy options and the impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice. Failure to consider these matters properly has resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. Lessons learned from the progress of this legislation should be used to ensure that future policy responses are transparent, evidence-based, and proportionate

The report is arguing not that the ban was unjustified, just that its stated intent was misleading.  Earlier in the report the Lords laid out their arguments, not disputing the harmfulness of passive smoking, but the balance of that against civil liberties and suggested that the government should have been more honest in explaining the legislation, suggesting that the aims and benefits of the smoking ban were directed more at reducing the overall level of smoking in the population than protecting non smokers.

On the subject of non-smoke related environmental and genetic contributions to ‘lung cancer, cardivascular disease and respiratory disease’ Dean’s arguments are disingenuous to the point of dishonesty.  Cancer Research UK make clear that ‘Smoking causes almost 90% of lung cancer deaths‘ and the evidence is strong in its role, in both passive and active forms, in cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease.  While diet and genetics undoubtedly play a part smoking is recognised as a major contributory factor, therefore reducing smoking adn exposure to smoke will reduce levels of these diseases.

After building her argument on assertions unfounded in evidence Dean then launches an attack on the “anti-smoking lobby demonising parents who light up around their children” by kicking the stuffing out of a schoolboy who appeared on a television programme with the strawman argument that ‘if you put a kid in the car with second-hand cigarette smoke, you are basically killing them’.  This, Dean imagines, is a “coercive, guilt-tripping impetus step[ing] out from behind the veil of passive-smoking pseudo-science”.  This is the thoughts of a school age child she is criticising, not a reasoned and evidenced argument.

Instead of sweeping up the straw and acknowledging the evidence Dean concludes that:

We should defend adult decision-making and tell the government and its army of moralists to butt out rather than watch our freedoms go up in a puff of smoke.

This kind nonsense has a following amongst many self-professing libertarians but is profoundly unhelpful to evidence based arguments of personal responsibility and decision making.  Instead of making arguments that adults should be able, as part of a package of rights, to take decisions which are certainly unhealthy for them and possibly for their children and thus making the honest case that being a libertarian means allowing people to harm themselves and to a lesser extent others she lacks the courage to do so, finding it easier to misrepresent a House of Lords report and ignore evidence undermining her assertions.

[bpsdb]