LA News Release: No to a Smoking Ban in Cars!

Libertarian Alliance News Release
Wednesday the 16th November 2011
Release Time: Immediate
Contact: Dr Sean Gabb,, 07956 472

No to a Smoking Ban in Cars!

The British Medical Association has called for a smoking ban in cars. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance denounces this call for the following reasons:

  1. It is not the business of the State to protect individuals from the alleged effects of their own actions. The argument that smokers may
    impose costs on others via treatment on the NHS is really a comment on the totalitarian implications of the coerced pooling of risk at the heart of state health care. Even if valid, this argument would also justify recriminalising gay sex to reduce the cost of treating aids, or banning all dangerous sports.
  2. The argument from “passive smoking” is based on falsehoods. There is no way of gathering meaningful data, nor even sound epidemiological evidence that passive smoking exists. The alleged figure of 300,000 children harmed every year in the UK by passive smoking is what is called a “junk statistic.” It is in the same league as the claims made in the 1980s about the number of people who would die of aids by 1990, or the claims made in the 1990s about the numbers who would soon be dead from mad cow disease. It is almost as gross a falsehood as the fraudulent global warming claims made by British scientists.
  3. These statistics produced by pressure groups and politicians are plainly dubious on their own account. Every single statistical claim reported by the media and accepted by the politicians seems to justify higher taxes or tighter controls on adult actions, or both. There was a time when it was necessary to bribe priests into saying that God wanted if before the authorities could oppress ordinary people. Nowadays, a set of junk statistics is produced.
  4. The demand for a smoking ban in cars is also an instance of the “saving the kiddies” argument. This proceeds by hiding the agenda of control behind a cloud of hot air about the need to protect children.

Therefore, the Libertarian Alliance is against any smoking ban in cars.

Associated article: The Passive Smoking Scare: When Ruling Class Propaganda Masquerades as Science, Sean Gabb, 26th November 2010

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. He is the author of over a dozen books and a million words of journalism. He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at

His latest novel, The Churchill Memorandum , asks what England and the world have been like in 1959 if there had been no Second World War. If you like Bulldog Drummond and Biggles and the early James Bond, this will be right up your street.

Or his book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back , explains how its current ruling class has turned England into a totatlitarian police state, and how this ruling
class can be overthrown and utterly destroyed.

Or another of his books, Smoking, Class and the Legitimation of Power , explains how the current “war” on smoking has nothing to do with making individuals healthy, but everything to do with enhancing the power of a totalitarian ruling class, and enriching its relevant client groups.

You can see other books by Sean Gabb here .

Extended Contact Details

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 800 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at

Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance
2 Lansdowne Row
Tel: 07956 472

7 responses to “LA News Release: No to a Smoking Ban in Cars!

  1. I wrote a post a while ago at Cats about how progressive prohibitionism is like being executed with a bacon slicer. Here comes the next slice.

    The problem is, we’re not going to stop any of this until we can purge the Puritans. Charles II banned them from parliament, the clergy and the universities, and that turned out not to be enough. We sent half of them across the Atlantic, and made the gross error of letting them have a seaworthy boat.

    During the twentieth century they had marxism and fascism to distract them. Now they’re back on their core business, and that’s why all this is happening. O, what a world it would be if bloody Jean Calvin had been burned at the stake instead of Servetus.

  2. Good press release.

    Do you know if any news outlet will be refering to it or if it has any impact?

  3. If lots of you would facebook it, that’ll be good for a start. Word does get round, albeit slowly.

  4. I did a spot on Vanessa Feltz. She announced that my comment on banning gay sex was loathesome, and that she would cut me off at once. The silly old cow then did just that.

  5. FAT silly old cow.

  6. Pingback: BMJ Group blogs: Journal of Medical Ethics blog » Blog Archive » Smoking in Cars and the BMA: The Counterwheeze

  7. EFGD writes to me as follows:

    Banning smoking might prevent burns to drivers in sensitive areas. Might stop them swerving whilst trying to light a ciggy. Might be more pleasant for those in the car. Have you sat in a ‘box’ full of smoke? Personally, Sean, I think it would be better not to lump other issues into the debate as they end up being both red herrings and detractors. I for one do not want smoking banned in cars, but I would not use the argument you gave to include global warming, as an independent group of scientists have found similar figures to the pro-global warming scenario. Nor would I use the save the ‘kiddies-not’ argument, as studies have shown kiddies lungs to be smoke contaminated by smokers (full time) in their homes. Again it detracts from a more nuanced and less emotional argument. Adults choosing is a whole different ball game to inflicting it on those with no choice. Thus one could say, against you, that reducing people’s freedom makes them better off when they are using short-term freedoms to hurt themselves and others in the long term. One blow at a time against those who wish to curtail freedom of individual choice seems to work better. Just my opinion.