Alcohol, smoking, drugs and obesity: Does the Scottish Government have the right to tell you what to do with your own body?

The argument against state intervention in drugs, alcohol, obesity and smoking is a moral one, not a question of effectiveness. Does the government have the right to tell you what to put in your own body?

Prohibition may not work when it comes to public health matters, but state intervention often does – opponents of the nanny state need to accept this if their rebuttals were to carry any weight.

Every government must strike a fine balance between liberty and the greater public health – there are very few proponents of all-out libertarianism, and similarly there are few Moaist authoritarians in the world when it comes to controlling public behaviour. Complete prohibition doesn’t work either. Just ask the people involved in two of mankind’s oldest pastimes – drug taking and prostitution.

Most of us fall somewhere along the centre ground. For example, I’d wager most, if not all, Scots support restricting the purchasing of tobacco products to those aged 18 or over. But opinions vary over plain packaging, the banning of menthol cigarettes and indoor smoking.

The proportion of adults who reported themselves to be current smokers in 2021 was 11 percent, down from 28 per cent in 2003.

What can’t be disputed, however, is these policies work.

The proportion of adults who reported themselves to be smokers in 2021 was 11 per cent, down from 28 per cent in 2003. In a country with a socialised healthcare system, the savings to the public purse caused by a reduction in lung cancer diagnoses is substantial.

The same can be said of the Scottish Government’s attempts to curb alcohol deaths via state intervention in the drinks industry. There are now numerous studies showing the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing (MUP) on Scotland’s overall alcohol consumption, and the effects consumption has on the nation’s health.

According to a Public Health Scotland meta-analysis, studies show MUP “has reduced deaths directly caused by alcohol consumption by an estimated 13.4 per cent and hospital admissions by 4.1 per cent, with the largest reductions seen in men and those living in the 40 per cent most deprived areas”.

The report’s authors say this equates to 150 fewer deaths and 400 fewer admissions in 2022/23, using England, which has not implemented a MUP policy, as a control. There are also several international studies showing the effectiveness of alcohol advertising on children and young people.

And yet, as with the implementation of MUP, I’m frequently contacted by representatives of various bodies who argue a ban on alcohol advertising would not be effective.

However, it seems obvious the advertisement of any product is effective at increasing the consumption of that product. That’s why the UK advertising industry is worth billions. It follows that a ban on advertising would be similarly effective at curbing consumption.

The argument against such state intervention is a moral one. Does a government have the right to tell you what to put in your own body? I’m an adult – surely I can decide to smoke menthols, or drink whisky, on my own?

Arguing that state intervention does not work at all only undermines the moral authority of people who believe the state should have no say in how you enjoy yourself. Opponents should be clear, and honest – just because state intervention works, doesn’t mean the government has the right to tell you what to put in your own body.