The Nanny State's Ashtray: How The New Tobacco Bill Burns Individual Liberty
We are not children. We are adults capable of weighing risks, making choices, and accepting the consequences.
Written By: Charl Heydenrych
With the advance of state power, few pieces of legislation are as indicative of government overreach as South Africa’s new Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill. Pretending it's about protecting people's health, this bill is not merely a regulation; it is an assault on individual liberty, property rights, and the very idea that adults in a free society are capable of making their own decisions. It is the nanny state in its most patronising form, treating every citizen as a wayward child in need of constant, suffocating supervision.
Let us be clear: the debate is not about whether smoking is healthy - it is not. The science is settled, and the health risks are undeniable. But in a society that values freedom, the role of government is not to eliminate all risk or to legislate personal virtue. The state’s legitimate interest in smoking extends only to two areas: protecting non-consenting individuals from harm (primarily children and unwilling bystanders in public spaces) and managing the financial burden that smoking-related illnesses place on the public purse.
The new bill obliterates the distinction between what their responsibility entails and an individual's responsibility in one fell swoop. Instead of focusing on the actual problem – the cost – it seeks to control the behaviour itself. This is a serious error in thinking. All are aware of the burgeoning cost to the state healthcare system from smoking-related diseases and it is a genuine concern. However, the solution is not to treat the entire population like children. The answer lies in the principle of personal responsibility, a concept the bill seems determined to extinguish.
Consider the model used by the private sector, which has already solved this problem with elegant simplicity. Insurance companies do not ban their clients from smoking. Instead, they quantify the risk and adjust premiums accordingly. Smokers pay more for life and health insurance because their choices carry a higher statistical cost. This is a fair, rational system. It respects individual choice while ensuring that the financial consequences of that choice are borne by the person making it.
Why can't the state adopt a similar, fiscally responsible approach? Instead of banning displays, dictating packaging, and turning business owners into enforcement agents, the government should focus on the economic impact. If a smoker chooses, or is forced by economic realities, to rely on the state for healthcare, it is entirely reasonable to expect that they contribute more to the system – through dedicated levies or a tiered access system – to offset the costs linked to their lifestyle. This approach deals with the financial burden directly, not the individual's choice. It would also leave those who take responsibility for their own medical care, whether through private insurance or personal savings, free to live as they see fit, without the state peering over their shoulder.
This brings us to the bill's most blatant overreach: its complete disregard for property rights and the principle of consent. The notion that a restaurant or bar owner cannot designate a well-ventilated area for smoking patrons is an autocratic infringement on their right to manage their property as they see fit. We have long understood the simple social contract: "my freedom to smoke ends where your nose begins." But this principle is built on consent, not state-coerced prohibition. If a private establishment clearly designates an area as "smoker-friendly," adults who choose to enter are exercising their own free will. Those who find smoke offensive are equally free to not enter or patronise any other establishment that would be happy to cater for them. The market, not the minister, is the most efficient arbiter of such preferences.
At its core, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It replaces voluntary interaction and personal responsibility with blanket bans and ministerial decrees. The immense power granted to the Minister of Health to regulate, prohibit, and penalise at will should be a chilling prospect for anyone who believes in a constitutional democracy with a clear separation of powers. It creates a system where the whims of a single politician can dictate the private choices of millions.
We are not children. We are adults capable of weighing risks, making choices, and accepting the consequences. If the state’s concern is truly the economic fallout of smoking, it should address the economics directly. It should not use its fiscal concerns as a Trojan horse to sneak in a specific moral code and use this legislation to control our behaviour. This bill doesn’t protect public health as much as it poisons public freedom. It is time to tell the nanny state to put out its cigarette and leave the adults to make their own decisions.
Charl Heydenrych is an Associate of the Free Market Foundation.
Typical of socialist mentality... they have to control every facet of your life while providing absolutely no real benefits. The ANC legislates in the pretense of governing. Until we get them out of power we will continue with this type of subjugation.