Nanny State or Negligent State?

Addiction Economy Thought for Today - is it a Nanny State which intervenes to prevent smoking harms or a Negligent State which is failing to do its job properly if it allows it to remain?

Danny Finkelstein here in the Times, (sorry paywall) going through the process of his conversion to the ban on cigarettes for everyone born after 2009.

He originally researched the effect of passive smoking to argue against the ban on smoking in public places. When speaking to the medical community he did a handbrake turn and voted for the ban which has saved many lives.

"Allowing someone to smoke in my face, and in the faces of their co-workers, no longer seemed to me like gentle conservatism. It seemed to me like collaborating in an aggressive act."

In response to Truss and others voting against the new rule, which will end up preventing a 41 year old and not a 42 year old from buying cigarettes because it is 'ridiculous and impractical' he has now concluded:

"This is not foolish to point out. Truss is right. It’s just that I think the legislation is more right. It is more ridiculous and impractical to go on allowing people to become addicted to something we (and they) now understand is lethal. If we had properly understood how dangerous smoking was we would never have legalised it in the first place.

But we did not understand. And we did legalise it. This legislation may be a little tricky, and a bit inconsistent, but it will save many lives. And anyway, true Tories quite like a little messiness and idiosyncrasy. There’s something rather British about it.

Wonder if we can persuade him of the same argument for alcohol, gambling, unhealthy and ultra-processed foods, social media, cryptocurrency trading and vapes!