On the 14th of February this year, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion
Act 2002 came into force. We could, I suppose, regard it as a Valentine
present from the rulers who claim to love us. But there is nothing loving
in its intent or its penalties. The Act makes it a criminal offence,
punishable by a maximum of imprisonment for two years to publish or cause
to be published in this country any advertisement for any tobacco product.
Section 14 of the Act gives its enforcement officers the right to enter
any business premises without a warrant, and to make whatever purchases
may be required to prove an offence - that is, the Act enables entrapment
of the unwary.

I will not enter into the usual discussion of whether such prohibitions
serve their intended purpose to discourage people from smoking. What
empirical evidence I have seen indicates that such laws merely prevent
those who already smoke from switching to other brands, and that, freed
from the need to spend money on advertising, the tobacco companies make
bigger profits. But this is beside the point. What is important is that
smoking is and ought to be a perfectly lawful activity. Therefore, I see
no reason why the manufacturers of tobacco products should not be allowed
to encourage us to use them.

At the head of the Act is the following Declaration:

"Mr Secretary Milburn has made the following statement under section
19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

"In my view the provisions of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
HL are compatible with the Convention rights."

This is an untruth. Indeed, it is probably a lie, considering how the
projectors of this Act must have known what they were doing. The right to
advertise is a necessary part of the right to freedom of speech. There is
no essential difference between an encouragement to smoke a particular
brand of cigarettes and a declaration that the coming war with Iraq is
right or wrong. What is said in any of these cases may be wrong. It may
even be a deliberate falsehood with the intention of encouraging dangerous
or evil acts. But there is no essential difference between any of them.

Of course, it is claimed that advertising is a special case, because money
changes hands. But I fail to see how this is an essential difference. It
is not even a real difference, as political speech often involves spending
money: the main parties have their advertising budgets just like any
private company, and many interest groups hire the services of public
relations experts.

What we have, therefore, is an act of censorship. Perhaps it is difficult
to feel as sorry for the Directors and shareholders of a big tobacco
company that for some political martyr. But this is, even so, censorship.
As such, it is to be protested.

Let me, then, encourage my readers to go out and buy a packet of Benson
and Hedges cigarettes. These are, in my view, the best cigarettes on the
British market. Their smooth yet rich and mellow taste separates them from
all lesser brands. Nothing else - nothing, that is, that is legal - can
match their effect on my creative powers as I sit at my keyboard fretting
over the latest horrors of this age. At only £2.24 for a packet of ten
from the Student Union shop in my university, what bought pleasure could
be cheaper? If you do not smoke yourself, try them. If you are disinclined
to try them, give them as a present to some dear friend, and watch his
face doubly glow as he lights one. Do not believe the claims about the
danger of smoking them. Most of these claims are exaggerated. Some are
willful lies. As things stand, you are probably more likely to die from
the consequences of one of Mr Blair's wars than from smoking.

Yes, my dear Readers, make smoke, not war.

In closing, I must add that this endorsement has not been in any way
procured by Benson and Hedges Ltd. Nor, since Free Life is no longer
offered for sale, is it published in the course of a business. Nor, if I
am wrong in my reading of this terrible law, is it published with the
authority or even prior knowledge of any other officer of the Libertarian
Alliance.

---

FREE LIFE
A Journal of Classical Liberal and Libertarian Thought
Issue 43, 11th March 2003

Free Life ISSN: 0260 5112 Published on the Internet by Sean Gabb for the
Libertarian Alliance
E-mail:
http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/sean@libertarian.co.uk , Web:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/,
LA Web:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/
Free Life Editor: Dr Sean Gabb, LA Director: Dr Chris R. Tame
All material © the Libertarian Alliance and the respective authors. All
rights reserved.
The views expressed in articles in Free Life are not necessarily those of
the Editor, the Libertarian Alliance, its Directors, Committee, Advisory
Council, subscribers, or other authors.

Contents
Make Smoke, Not War - by Sean Gabb
The Problem with the Conservative Party: A Brief Reply to Steve Davies -
by Sean Gabb
The Problem with the Conservative Party: Steve Davies Writes Again - by
Steve Davies
The Problem with the Conservative Party: A Party Activist Replies - by
Sean Fear
The War and Domestic Politics: A Prayer for Boredom - by Sean Gabb
The War and Domestic Politics: A Comment - by Andrew Stubbs
The Coming War on Iraq: A Reply to Peter M. le Mare - by Robert Nock
Who Do You Think You Are? - by Gerald Hartup
Poetry for Today: After Blenheim - by Robert Southey
Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori