Vices Are Not Crimes

One of the most important timeless lessons learned, then forgotten, then learned again, then forgotten again, and so on, is Lysander Spooner's famous maxim that "vices are not crimes".  And to forget this crucial distinction, is to ultimately lead to numerous evils, from 1) amoralism and nihilism on the one hand, and 2) the most egregiously tyrannical abuses and overreach of government power (from things like Prohibition, the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs, MLDA 21, etc. all the way to slavery, eugenics, and sometimes even full-blown genocide) on the other, typically disguised as either protecting the nation's "moral fiber", and/or "progressive" social engineering for the "greater good".  In truth, it is anything but moral or progressive.  Thus, individual rights must be inalienable, and the government should never stray from its original mission of protecting life, liberty, and property.  Once the natural right to self-ownership becomes usurped by the state, the very foundation for individual rights ceases to exist, and of course that invites all kinds of trouble, as history has so painfully shown time and again.

To quote Spooner, from his Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875):

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another…In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting." 

"Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be…no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property." 

"If these questions…are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to…ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice…If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being, to 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' is denied him." 

"What man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, 'We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it…not only for ourselves, but for all…And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion?'" 

"[A] government, formed by voluntary association, would never have been thought of, if the object proposed had been the punishment of all vices…nobody…would voluntarily submit to it. But a government, formed by voluntary association, for the punishment of all crimes is a reasonable matter; because everybody wants protection for himself against all crimes by others." 

"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess." 

"Nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But…everybody has a natural right…to defend his own person and property against aggressors…And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals...It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices." 

"To punish men for their vices…is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed…because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness." 

"Everybody wishes to be protected, in his person and property, against the aggressions of other men. But nobody wishes to be protected… against himself…He only wishes to promote his own happiness, and to be his own judge as to what will promote, and does promote, his own happiness." 

"The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he possibly can have—consistently with the equal rights of others—to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property…the object aimed at in the punishment of vices is to deprive every man of his natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own property."

"[People]…must be permitted to control themselves and their property… each man’s life is his own."

We ignore such sound advice at our own peril.

The Right Way, And Wrong Way, To Phase Out Tobacco

We are now officially in, or at least quickly approaching, the "endgame" of tobacco control, as they say.  In chess, the endgame is said to begin when queens begin to disappear, and thus checkmate is increasingly within reach.  In tobacco control, it roughly begins when 1) smoking prevalence drops low enough, 2) the best "cards" of existing tobacco policy measures have already been played enough, and 3) the Overton window has shifted far enough against smoking, that it is now becoming increasingly realistic to openly consider phasing out at least some types of combustible tobacco products (especially cigarettes) at some point in the future.

Various targets for reducing overall smoking prevalence have been floated by various experts, such as a goal of no more than 5% by 2025 or 2030, no more than 2% by 2050 or 2060, and so on.  And beyond simple aggregate numbers, another related goal is to reduce the massive (and often widening) inequalities by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, etc. within those numbers in various countries. 

Twenty-One Debunked acknowledges that there are some very good arguments for such a phaseout that even many libertarians can grudgingly concede, given how 1) cigarettes are the only legal product which, when used as directed, kill at least half of those who use it, making them defective by design, 2) most smokers admittedly dislike their habit and want to quit, but often have great difficulty doing so, 3) cigarettes rob people of their autonomy, 4) alternatives currently exist.  And that is before one even delves into the negative "externalities" that these products impose on others and the environment.

That said, there are right ways to further such a goal, and there are wrong ways.

A number of endgame strategies have been discussed, some of which have been implemented recently.  These include, 1) banning the sale of cigarettes, and possibly other combustible tobacco products, in a given jurisdiction completely from some future date onwards, after a reasonably long delay, 2) putting a gradually "sinking lid" on the number of tobacco retail outlet licenses, until the number of licenses drops to zero, 3) phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine content of cigarettes, and possibly other combustible tobacco products, to a non-addictive level, 4) hiking the excise tax by 10% every year, and 5) an age-based (or "generational") strategy that permanently bans the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after a specific year (say, 2000 or 2010), while still allowing it for those born before that year.

It is this last one that Twenty-One Debunked takes the most umbrage at of all.  We denounce this arbitrary discrimination by age for the same reasons that we denounce the Tobacco 21 laws.  We believe it is wrong on principle as it flies directly in the face of any idea of equal protection of the law, by denying individual rights to some group of legal adults relative to others.  And not only that, but it is a truly lousy endgame strategy that drags things out that much longer compared to, say, the first strategy on the aforementioned list (i.e. banning it for everyone).

Twenty-One Debunked prefers the third strategy on the list, namely phasing down the maximum allowable nicotine levels in cigarettes to a non-addictive level, and only for cigarettes and little cigars/cigarillos, and possibly roll-your-own cigarette tobacco.  Leave all other tobacco products alone, and keep vaping products on the market, albeit with the maximum allowable nicotine levels reduced to European or Israeli levels (which is still plenty strong).  We have preferred that strategy since 2013, in fact.  We do NOT prefer the first two strategies, but would still much rather have those than the last.  Even the tax hike strategy (which increasingly robs from the poor and gives to the rich) is head-and-shoulders better than that!

Another thing we would find at least somewhat acceptable would be to limit the types of stores that can sell tobacco products.  For example, they could only allow tobacco to be sold at dedicated tobacco/vape shops, or stores that one must be 18 or older to enter.  That would thus eliminate the most visual temptations for children and teens, and triggers for relapse that former smokers have to face every day, at convenience stores, grocery stores, etc.  Or at the very least, stop selling them at pharmacies.

One should note that commercial, pre-rolled cigarettes, more so than any other existing tobacco product, are by far the very biggest drivers of the tobacco epidemic of the past century, so even if those (plus little cigars) were the only targeted item for a tobacco endgame strategy, any switching to alternatives would not even come close to sustaining such an epidemic for long on the scale that it has been thus far.  All of the other combustibles (medium to large cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah/shisha) and smokeless tobacco (chew, dip, snuff, snus, lozenges, etc.) have always been basically niche products.  So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now.

But whatever strategy one follows, we must be sure to allow enough lead time for a just transition and to minimize the creation of black markets, and we must not criminalize possession or consumption of tobacco.  Any endgame strategy worth following must concentrate on the supply side, while also tackling demand by making quitting easier.  Vilification of smokers does not further that goal in the long run.

UPDATE:  The FDA is now moving to join Canada, the UK, and EU in banning menthol cigarettes (and perhaps flavored cigars too).  Twenty-One Debunked is kinda on the fence about that, but at this point we will not oppose it.  The reason why Big Tobacco adds menthol is because it masks the harsh taste of nicotine, making it easier to get hooked and harder to quit, particularly for young people.  And while the much-noted racial overtones and undertones of menthol cigarettes are practically unique to the USA, due to decades of aggressively race-targeted marketing by Big Tobacco, the sheer deadliness and addictiveness of these products makes them a net detriment to the Black community on balance.