Against the ban on the sale of snus
A collection of snus pouches. Snus is different to snuff insofar as it is a moist tobacco inserted under the upper lip, while snuff is snorted up via the nose.
Since 1992 the sale of snus, an oral tobacco inserted in-between the upper-lip and the gum, has been illegal in the UK. This ban is both a needless impediment to individuals wanting to quit smoking and an unjustifiable restriction on consumer freedom. It should be abolished forthwith.
The central reasons cited for the ban on snus sale is its consumption produces both negative health effects and is addictive. Let us take both of these claims in turn. In terms of the health effect of snus the scientific literature really is mixed. According to a 2013 study snus use is associated with a substantially increased risk of oral and cheek cancer, yet according to another study of some 125,576 people there was no association of snus use with oral cancer whatsoever. The evidence for snus use concerning pancreatic and gastric cancers is similarly open to debate, as too is its effect on diabetes.
If there is a presumption in favour of liberty the scientific evidence behind the snus ban clearly isn’t sufficient to overturn it. Fortunately, this appears to be acknowledged by the Government, which has announced a possible review into the evidence behind the ban. Nonetheless, let us be pessimists and assume snus does cause cancer. Would its ban be justified on paternalist grounds then?
No, for to ban the sale of snus is to ban a highly effective means to quit smoking. Smokers after all aren’t addicted to cigarettes, they are addicted to nicotine. If a smoker is trying to give up, snus will provide that vital nicotine kick, which is so essential to quitting. If snus sale were legal there would be far fewer smokers in Britain, as many smokers would switch over to this vastly safer alternative. And as a result of fewer smokers, there would be far fewer smoking-related deaths, which today stand at 78,000 per year.
If the reader doubts snus could possibly be a substitute to smoking, look to Sweden, the only EU country not to have banned its sale. There only 5% of the population consumes cigarettes daily, the lowest in the EU, while 20% consume their tobacco through snus. It should be clear from this example snus is primarily a substitute, and not a complement to smoking. Given cigarettes aren’t going to disappear tomorrow, snus is the next best thing in helping people quit tobacco.
Yes, snus is still addictive – but is that necessarily a problem? Many individuals are addicted to coffee, yet few of us suggest banning Kenco. By similar reasoning it follows the State shouldn’t ban addictive snus either.
It should be noted here that snus isn’t actually illegal in Britain. Yes, it is illegal to sell it, but it is not illegal to possess or consume. Thus the justification for the current ban is it is unacceptable to get cancer from British sold snus, but it’s fine to get cancer from snus bought on your Swedish holiday! Consistency, at the very least, demands a total ban on snus or no ban at all, not the fudge we currently have.
The ban on snus sale is also an unjustifiable restriction on consumer freedom. The harm individuals may do to themselves is no warrant for restricting snus. If it were then Britain would be a far more illiberal country that it already is. Cigarettes and alcohol would be banned, and no doubt fast food would be rationed too, for in all three cases, the consumption (or excessive consumption) of the good does harm. Since no one in Britain today is suggesting banning these products, it is simply incoherent to still have a snus sales ban
Nonetheless, my reader deserves better arguments than the reductio ad absurdum presented above. Let me attempt this procurement. The essence of the paternalist argument presented is bad consumption should be banned, snus is bad consumption, and therefore snus should be banned. A valid argument, but not a sound one – for the second premise is false.
When it comes to the consumption of tobacco, food or drink the terms good and bad are entirely subjective. If an informed individual is aware of the consequences of their actions, and still decides to eat a Full English Breakfast everyday it makes no sense to say this consumption is bad for him. Sure he’ll reduce his lifespan, but given he’s aware of this fact, it is clear he values the breakfasts more than the additional lifespan. To this individual the Full English Breakfasts are a good to him.
By the same reasoning snus is a good to the informed snus user – and thus to ban it is to needlessly make that user worse off. Yes, it may shorten your lifespan by increasing your risk of cancer – but then many things reduce our lifespan. Unless one calls the deadly activities of hang-gliding and tree-felling bad per se it makes no sense to call lifespan shortening activities bad per se either. Thus snus use cannot be called bad simply because it may shorten your life either.
The first premise of the paternalist argument is also false – even if certain consumption is objectively bad that is no warrant to ban it. Individual rights, and especially those to property, outlaw the sales ban. Everyone is an end-in-themselves and their rights protect them from being used as tools to the ends of others. It would be wrong to force the snus seller to stop pursuing his own living. To do so rests on the unacceptable principle some individual’s livelihoods may be sacrificed for others’ interests.
Without doubt the case for the continued ban on the sale of snus is fatally flawed. On its proponents own paternalist grounds the ban doesn’t work, and more importantly it is an unjustifiable restriction on consumer freedom. By legalising snus sale smokers lives would be saved, lifestyle pluralism would be allowed, and individual rights would be respected again. For all these reasons, and more, the snus sales ban must be abolished forthwith. For it to remain is simply unjustifiable.