I think philosophically this kind of policy is where Labour and I tend to diverge on general approach - which is why I often find myself voting Lib Dem.
I am a “tax it, don’t ban it” kind of guy. With the exception being where there is good evidence that the act is harming others directly (which is why banning smoking indoors was sensible).
I think if smoking is costing the NHS more than the tax receipts bring in then the approach should be to increase the taxes until it no longer does. Over time this will either lead to fewer smokers because people can’t afford it, or enough taxes to cover the cost. Logically it has to result in one or the other and in either instance the societal cost is solved for. This is already happening in the UK as in 50 years we’ve gone from 50% to 15% of adults smoking. Therefore the costs of treating smoking related issues should inevitably start to drop over the next few decades.
I think this should also be our broad approach with all drugs, rather than creating underground economies and crime that needs policing - create tax revenues that can be used to help the people caught in the throes of addiction.
But… clearly our state doesn’t work like that which is just a fact of life. So the question is, is this legislation reasonable within the framework of our country’s existing drug policy? And I’m not sure there is good evidence that this would reduce the burden on the NHS in any tangible way, I personally tend to stay indoors to avoid being smoked out in a beer garden and I tend to think that for most adults this is just a choice they are making much like the choice of whether to smoke or not in the first place. And if people can’t smoke in beer gardens, I tend to be of the opinion they will just find somewhere else to do it. So colour me unconvinced. Maybe banning kids from being in those environments is sensible, though?
I’m not set dead against it but I need to see some good evidence that this kind of policy would be effective and thus far it’s all quite speculative.
