Mark with care this week’s statement from John Reid, the Health Secretary, on smoking. With the excitement of Archimedes in his bath, Mr Reid claimed to have discovered the golden mean, “the balance between protection for the majority and personal freedom for the minority”. His new theorem holds that “you are free under the law to do things that risk your own health. What you are not allowed to do in a civilised society is things that damage the health of others and do things that cause discomfort to others.”
This is an almost exact plagiarism of John Stuart Mill. He wrote that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” A person’s freedom to do what he wants, said Mill, should be limited only insofar as “he must not make himself a nuisance to other people”. Mr Reid professes to agree.
Mark with care this week’s statement from John Reid, the Health Secretary, on smoking. With the excitement of Archimedes in his bath, Mr Reid claimed to have discovered the golden mean, “the balance between protection for the majority and personal freedom for the minority”. His new theorem holds that “you are free under the law to do things that risk your own health. What you are not allowed to do in a civilised society is things that damage the health of others and do things that cause discomfort to others.”
This is an almost exact plagiarism of John Stuart Mill. He wrote that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” A person’s freedom to do what he wants, said Mill, should be limited only insofar as “he must not make himself a nuisance to other people”. Mr Reid professes to agree.
Endquote --
It also seems to draw "inspiration" from some of he speeches of Woodrow Wilson if my memory serves me correctly.
If Parliament - the sovereign power in this country wanted to ban tobacco it could.
Tobacco kills over 120,000 people in the UK annually.
If 300 Jumbo jets fell out of the sky every year with the loss of all passengers then they would banned.
So why don't they? Money - lots of it - Immediate tax on a packet. Corporation tax on the company.
The societal cost (sum of all direct and indirect costs to the individual, others and the state) of smoking far exceeds the tax take. The problem is that the yesterday's smoking commits tomorrows costs and without tomorrow's tobacco tax the cost must fall on the general tax payer. Who pays when today's smoker shows lung cancer in 20 years?
Rock and a hard place: the long term benefit is borne by current taxpayers who receive minimal direct benefit. no wonder the politicians duck the issue!
“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” A person’s freedom to do what he wants, said Mill, should be limited only insofar as “he must not make himself a nuisance to other people”. Mr Reid professes to agree.
ummmm, how does that principle sit with the banning of hunting?
David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote: .... | This is an almost exact plagiarism of John Stuart Mill. He wrote that | “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any | member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to | others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient | warrant. ” A person’s freedom to do what he wants, said Mill, should be | limited only insofar as “he must not make himself a nuisance to other | people”. Mr Reid professes to agree.
As in "John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill"?
If Parliament - the sovereign power in this country wanted to ban tobacco it could.
Tobacco kills over 120,000 people in the UK annually.
If 300 Jumbo jets fell out of the sky every year with the loss of all passengers then they would banned.
So why don't they? Money - lots of it - Immediate tax on a packet. Corporation tax on the company.
The societal cost (sum of all direct and indirect costs to the individual, others and the state) of smoking far exceeds the tax take. The problem is that the yesterday's smoking commits tomorrows costs and without tomorrow's tobacco tax the cost must fall on the general tax payer. Who pays when today's smoker shows lung cancer in 20 years?
If they stop smoking now they probably won't have lung cancer in twenty years. The lungs apparently recover quite quickly if you take the cause of injury away.
If they stop smoking now they probably won't have lung cancer in twenty years. The lungs apparently recover quite quickly if you take the cause of injury away.
Be careful. 'quite quickly' according to the medical profession means that your chances of getting lung cancer are cut to about half after 5 years of quiting smoking, and after 10 years being quit you're probably near the chances for a non-smoker. For me, I'm smack bang in the middle of that kind of tme scale. Not that I'm counting of course.
I like that.
I also like the fact that hangovers are considerably less when you don't smoke. I drink to that.
It was the PM programme. I listened on the way home one day.
Talking of John Reid, Radio 5 played an extract from last nights Newsnight featuring a bout between the lad Paxman and the chap Reid from Westminster. I often watch that program, really sorry I missed it last ngiht, it sounded a ball.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:46:25 +0000, Al C-F <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> how does that principle sit with the banning of hunting? By counting the fox as "others".
And anthropomorphising (what?) the fox.
I have never had a problem with the idea that killing animals for pleasure is not something to be particularly proud of.
But, in the context of the quote, banning hunting by others to avoid offending your sensibilities does not fit well with "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others."
To extend the defintiaion of harm so, seems a slippery slope!
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:46:25 +0000, Al C-F <[email hidden]> wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
>>how does that principle sit with the banning of hunting? > >By counting the fox as "others".
And anthropomorphising (what?) the fox.
I have never had a problem with the idea that killing animals for pleasure is not something to be particularly proud of.
But, in the context of the quote, banning hunting by others to avoid offending your sensibilities does not fit well with "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others."
To extend the defintiaion of harm so, seems a slippery slope!
Yes, you are clearly right, and we should also allow the disembowelling of live monkeys too, not to mention torture of dogs. Oh we should also not attempt to prevent self-harm by the metally ill.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should allow that the quote was perhaps a little too simplistic.
