Where next for the wowsers?

The Australian
August 17, 2012

IT has been a big week for finger-wagging. Cigarettes will be sold in vulgar, olive-green packets from December now that the tobacco companies (hereafter known as “big tobacco”) have lost their High Court challenge to the government’s plain package legislation.

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell is considering restricting customers to four drinks an hour after the death of a young man in Kings Cross. Meanwhile a self-appointed posse of moral vigilantes is policing the children’s clothing racks in Target, tut-tutting about “inappropriate” fashion choices for girls. We are told they represent a popular rising tide of public anger. How about we put that to a vote?

Australians do not need to be told that smoking is harmful; they have heard that message loud and clear. In 1945, 72 per cent of men were regular smokers; by 2010, only 16.4 per cent of men and 13.9 per cent of women were still lighting up, and the figure was still falling. For all its huffing and puffing, the government cannot tell us how many more they expect to give up the habit, or if this legislation will do anything to accelerate the natural decline. Since budget forecasts have not factored in any fall in tobacco revenue, we assume that sights have been set low. While the effects on public health are uncertain, the legislation will at least bring a rosy glow to the cheeks of the nanny statists, who assume as a matter of course that the rest of the country lacks the self-restraint to make good decisions. In celebrating the High Court decision yesterday, The Sydney Morning Herald, otherwise known as the Nanny State Gazette, advocated further restrictions on personal choice.

Alcohol advertising should be banned apparently, and booze in general frowned upon. We must go to war against gluttony in all its forms; restrictions must be placed on sugar, fat and any dish beginning with the word “Mac”. It will not stop there. Those with the capacity to enjoy French fries and a glass of wine in moderation will be punished to save a reckless and careless few from themselves. The Australian takes a different view, believing that an informed, educated public should be allowed to make its own decisions about what to eat, smoke and drink. They are certainly capable of deciding what represents value for money on the newsstand, as the Herald is all too aware.