Banning “Vices” — On the Road to a Brave, New World?
“Smoking causes cancer” — it was this slogan, released by the American surgeon general in 1964, which first started off the array of smoking bans around the world, when the alleged proof of harmful effects not only of active but also of passive smoking, or second-hand smoke, gave activists and lawmakers free reign to “protect” the people from the “ill effects” of the habit indulged by then the majority of the adult population. Some 20 years later, it was banned on domestic flights in the US, soon after on all flights. The 90s saw a massive anti-smoking campaign, resulting in even more bans. By the end of the 90s, the WHO drafted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, furthering the movement and seeking a global eradication of tobacco consumption. Today, with most of the world having some form or other of tobacco control, they seem to have mostly succeeded.
This begs the question, however, whether this “victory” for the benefit of the masses deserves applause or a more critical scrutiny, considering its far-reaching effects on cultural habits and personal choice and freedom. On 2 November 2016, the World Cancer Congress released data on alcohol’s cancer “death toll”, in a move reminiscent of the 1964 surgeon general’s warning, with other reports already suggesting means as to contain the consumption of alcohol and make people more aware of its effects. Now, it may seem far-fetched to assume alcohol will receive a treatment similar to tobacco considering the “unique status” of the latter — but is it? Unbeknownst to many, the temperance movement never fully went extinct after the end of prohibition in the United States, but continued to exist, still trying to influence lawmakers into reviving prohibition. Organisations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, shouldn’t be taken lightly, though, as they possess a vast amount of assets, monetary as well as influential, investing up to $250,000,000 annually for their health cause. Under the guise of caring for the people’s well-being, they fund studies, scientists, universities, and journalists to spread the word of the grave dangers posed by even moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. They operate via affiliate organisations to create the mirage of multiple sources supporting the agenda, effectively brainwashing the people into believing the propaganda with but little questioning. It is hence unsurprising that news-coverage is rather one-sided as well and does little to actually investigate the veracity of the studies in support of these claims.
But it isn’t only alcohol that has lately come under fire from organisation seeking to “improve” the health of the people. In recent years, sugar and fat have both been targeted for their detrimental effects on health and the increase in health-care expenses. Countries such as Denmark and the UK, among others, have introduced taxes on sugar to battle the “obesity epidemic” and force their citizens to conform to a more healthy lifestyle; in August of 2016, Canada contemplated the introduction of plain packaging for soda — standardised packaging with massive warning labels covering it entirely, stripping it fully of any brand colours or logos. A similar law had been introduced for tobacco products in Australia in 2012, with the UK, Ireland, and France following suit.
Future developments regarding alcohol, fat, and sugar remain to be seen. Their fate, however, appears to go in a similar direction tobacco has been forced over the last thirty or forty years. Bit by bit, unsubstantiated study by unsubstantiated study, they will become more and more heavily taxed, their points of sale reduced, and consumers shamed and ostracised. Uniformity, mentally as well as physically, seems to be the new trend, and people are coerced to obey their new health-overlords. With people blindly following authority and forfeiting individuality for the promise of immortality if only they avoid these grave vices, it will probably be mere decades before another prohibition act will drive alcohol connoisseurs and food aficionados into speakeasies the way they were in the America of the 1920s — this time, however, globally.
So, do these movements deserve applause? That depends on one’s personal perception of choice and responsibility. It may well be you believe the claims of the ill-effects, though ill-proven at best, of the moderate consumption of tobacco, alcohol, sugar, and fat, enjoy the smoke-free air when walking into a building, appreciate the prospect of the absence of drunkards throwing up on the toilet in the bar you frequent, like the way obese people are bullied into losing weight so they don’t offend your eyes or are taxed excessively for being a burden on health-care. The question is, however: How will you react if a habit you love will be declared undesirable and you are now part of the group of the unwanted? Will you unquestioningly accept their narrative, or will you start to question the motives for such moves? The prohibitionist crusade has long since become a multi-billion dollar industry, with pharma corporations making fortunes in the sales of cessation drugs and food supplements, as well as other corporations genetically manipulating food to suit the requirements of the health craze. Criticism, naturally, falls on deaf ears and is hardly ever uttered in mass media.
For advocates of personal responsibility and opponents of nanny-statism, the only silver lining lies in the repetition of history and civil disobedience: Between 1890 and 1930, fifteen US states had banned the sale of possession of tobacco, with others restricting its use; since the introduction of the plant to the Old World, multiple bans had been passed (and repealed), sometimes under the threat of death and/or excommunication for transgressors. The same holds true for alcohol, with people flouting bans as often as not, and the prohibition amendment being repealed in America. Even in Islamic countries, people still consume alcohol, albeit secretly. With measures now being implemented all around the world, it remains to be seen whether the desire to live life according to one’s own preferences will win out this time, or whether the supporters and benefactors of this brave, new world finally managed to subdue individuality and lead humanity into an age of sobriety and obedience. With massive media support
Sources:
