R.I.P. Roger Scruton

Philip Neal has drawn attention to the death of Roger Scruton, and to his paper WHO, WHAT and WHY? Trans-national Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organisation.

1. Introduction

In this paper I consider a matter of growing concern to all who believe that legislators ought to be accountable to those for whom they legislate. I shall be considering the way in which a political agenda can be promoted without hindrance, once legislative powers are granted to transnational bodies answerable to no national electorate. And I shall focus on one example: the current attempt by the World Health Organisation to impose, through the machinery established by the United Nations, punitive legislation directed against the manufacturers, distributors and users of tobacco products. There are other examples: European Commission directives, which have the force of law regardless of the will of national legislatures, may be used to advance the interests of lobbyists who have no accountability to those upon whom the directives are imposed; while the UN, through its commissions and ancillary institutions, is attempting to shape the law of its member states in accordance with an agenda set by Western pressure groups and political élites.

Nevertheless, the case of the WHO and tobacco is of particular significance, since it shows how an institution with a purpose that few would question can be turned in a wholly new direction, in order to impose the social and political agenda of a handful of activists. The case will therefore set a precedent, not only for further legislation by the WHO, but for an ever-expanding raft of laws imposed on us by unelected, unaccountable and unejectable bureaucrats. The case is also interesting for another reason, in that it raises in an acute form the question of liberty. What philosophical principles govern, or ought to govern, legislation designed to limit our choice of lifestyle? When is such legislation justified, on what grounds, and by what legislative body?

Written in 2000, this was prescient. Did Scruton write any more along these lines when the UK smoking ban came into force in 2007? Perhaps he did, but I have not read it.

Yet he was no friend of tobacco. He was instead the enemy of unrepresentative government.

I like cigars, and will smoke a cigar if someone offers me one. All other forms of tobacco repel me, and I am persuaded that cigarette smoking on a regular basis is harmful. My father died of emphysema, no doubt exacerbated by the many cigarettes he smoked into middle age. He was 74 when he died, however, and had no regrets. I shall try to prevent my own children from smoking — partly because smoking begins as a kind of insolence. I welcome the law which obliges cigarette manufacturers to warn us against their own product, and often think that the same should apply to the manufacturers of junk food, motor cars and televisions. If it were shown that cigarettes posed a threat not merely to the body but also to the mental and moral health of those who smoked them, I would favour more severe restrictions on their sale and use, of the kind that exist (though with increasingly less effect, it has to be said) in order to control drugs like cocaine and heroin. I avoid places here people smoke, unless I am one of them, and am glad that efforts are being made to segregate smokers and to protect children from a habit which is quite reasonably regarded as a vice, and which has been so regarded since Sir Walter Raleigh first brought it from America. In short, I am against tobacco; though not so much as I am against hard drugs, mobile phones or hard-core pornography.

Does smoking really begin as “a kind of insolence”? Perhaps it does when it’s intended to break rules. But if there’s no such intention, where’s the insolence?

And if he was “glad that efforts are being made to segregate smokers”, then perhaps he welcomed the 2007 UK smoking ban as the best effort yet to successfully segregate them, and “protect chiiiildren” from them.

He says quite openly that he’s against tobacco. But it appears that he’s also against a long list of other things that include junk food, motor cars, televisions, hard drugs, mobile phones, and hard-core pornography.

Three of these items are relatively recent technological innovations. Why was he against them? I don’t watch television, but that’s not because I object to the technology, but rather that I object to the fact that TV broadcasters don’t speak to or for people like me. So mine is a political objection. I don’t use phones very much, but that’s not because I object to the technology, but that I object to something that demands that I stop whatever I’m doing to answer it whenever it imperiously rings. I have no objection whatsoever to “junk food”, which is usually hot, tasty, and nutritious, and to which the real objection would seem to be that it is held in hand rather than addressed with knife and fork on a plate on a dinner table. As for hard-core pornography, it consists entirely of pictures, and to object to pictures is no different from objecting to written words. So all in all, I’m not against any of the things that Scruton was against. Nor do I even think that smoking is a “vice”, or if it is then my voluminous tea consumption is equally a “vice”, along with everything else I habitually do.

Can anyone who is against tobacco ever be a staunch defender of it? I somehow doubt it. Which may be why I never thought of him as one of tobacco’s defenders.

Perhaps the explanation is that Scruton was a professor of aesthetics, and his was primarily an aesthetic objection to junk food, motor cars, televisions, hard drugs, mobile phones, and hard-core pornography. And, in the end, isn’t the objection to tobacco by the antismokers in Tobacco Control, when all the pseudo-science is stripped away, also an aesthetic objection? They just don’t like it.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to R.I.P. Roger Scruton

  1. Vlad says:

    Reading that paper left a bitter taste…with this kind of ‘friends’ who needs enemies?

  2. smokingscot says:

    19 years ago he wrote this.

    Furthermore, tobacco advertising has specialized in evoking old ideas of male prowess and female seductiveness: even now, cigarette ads dramatize decidedly un-hip fantasies that stand opposed to the elite culture—after all, the target consumer is the ordinary person, whose fantasies these are. Nor should we forget that tobacco is big business, from which giant corporations make vast profits by the hour. In almost every way, tobacco offends against political correctness, and precisely because it seems to put older people at their ease and enable them to deal confidently with others, it raises the hackles of those who have never achieved that precious condition and whose discomfort is only increased by the sight of others so harmlessly and sociably enjoying themselves.

    Source: https://www.city-journal.org/html/what-acceptable-risk-12043.html

    So in a flowery way he’s sussed that they don’t much like what we do because they’re a tad envious.

    And another insightful from 1998 in the Wall Street Journal

    And why this assault on tobacco? The answer can be stated in two words: political correctness. Smoking is a macho habit; its adepts do not claim the exemptions that are claimed by feminists, ethnic minorities or groups devoted to undermining Western culture. Smokers can be attacked without cost because no one is prepared to defend them. Of course even the California Legislature cannot ban smoking in bars on Indian reservations. For that would not be politically correct. The Indians are an ethnic minority, and therefore safe from the busybodies who persecute the rest of us.

    When things are really bad, the easiest policy is to attack the old and settled ways of Western society, for then the opinion-formers will be with you, and the professional screamers will be quiet. The fact that you thereby do no conceivable good to anyone is beside the point.

    Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB886955257717182000

    In many respects he knew way back the who, the what and the impact – and discovered, as we have that “they’ve” manipulated the system (same as they are with Trump).

    I doubt he’d say very much after the ban, knowing it’d take more than a lone voice to overturn it.

  3. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Nevertheless i consider Scruton a great writer.
    If you loved England before the nanny state took over read his ‘England – An Elegy’.

  4. Joe L. says:

    OT: A police officer threatened to arrest Louisiana State University football players for smoking cigars in the locker room of the opposing team’s stadium (Alabama) to celebrate the final win of their 15-0 season. It turns out the unnamed officer was just a nasty, antismoking bully who tried to abuse his (her?) authority, and the players were ultimately allowed to continue smoking in the locker room. Two wins for LSU in one night! Congratulations, fellas! Smoke ’em if you got ’em!

    Cop threatens arrest for LSU players smoking cigars in championship locker room

    A smoke-filled LSU locker room got a surprise warning early Tuesday morning.

    A police officer threw water on the party when telling the national champions they could not smoke the cigars that burned for easily 15 minutes after beating Clemson.

    In fact, the officer announced to the players any smoking cigars in the locker room would be subject to arrest. Several players holding stogies laughed at the warning like it was a joke but the cop wasn’t smiling.

    Another officer tried to tell them it was OK to celebrate with a smoke in the locker room but he insisted his commander told him it was a no-go.

    Nobody was arrested.

    The party, however, continued.

    LSU beat Clemson 42-25 on Monday night in the Superdome just down the road from the Baton Rouge campus. It capped a perfect 15-0 season but that didn’t get any leniency from the police officer entering the locker room just after midnight.

    The haze from the locker room spilled into the hallway before reporters were allowed inside for interviews. Heisman winner Joe Burrow walked out puffing his cigar on the way to his postgame press conference after completing one of the more remarkable seasons for any college quarterback.

    • Joe L. says:

      Correction: The championship game (and subsequent cigar smoking) took place at the Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana, which is the home stadium of the NFL’s New Orleans Saints. It’s even worse knowing there are such antismoking law enforcement officers in New Orleans, which, until they forced through a smoking ban a few short years ago, was one of the few remaining laissez-faire cities in the US.

  5. Philip Neal says:

    Scruton was very much a traditionalist conservative, not a libertarian, but he was perceptive enough to see that the Global Blob is the overriding enemy.

  6. Smoking Lamp says:

    Antismokers exist on both sides of the political divide. It’s time to expose the hate and manipulated information (read propaganda) used to expose the antismoker hate.

    Here is a nice overview of the mechanisms of manipulation used to justify smoking bans (read persecuting smokers): “Beliefs, manipulation and lies in the tobacco issue”https://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html?fbclid=IwAR0JG9bEahB6HMzMQkbg43vzPtx-VOtFH777roDox5or5XUOBI3XfdX6HSA (h/t CAGE Canada)

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.