Smoking is rapidly dying out in the UK and US among young people – the first generation to come of age surrounded by laws that discourage smoking. Figures from the UK Office for National Statistics reveal that the proportion of smokers in the country fell to 15.5 per cent in 2016, down from about half in 2010. Although 19.3 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds smoke, the percentage has  declined by 6.5 percent.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the number of smokers aged between about 12 and 18 dropped to 3.9 million in 2016, down from 4.7 million in 2015. These figures include cigarettes and e-cigarettes, both of which have seen large declines in use.

However, the situation in developing countries has not been so positive. Back  in 2012 a study based on the Global Adult Tobacco  Survey showed that nearly half of men in 14 developing countries were tobacco users and that women were starting to smoke at younger ages. Overall, researchers predicted. at that point that  smoking would cause one billion deaths in the 21st century.

The good news is that quit rates have been  higher in countries with programs in place for discouraging tobacco use and helping with quitting.  Uruguay is interesting because of its stringent anti-tobacco policies, including mandated graphic labels on cigarette packaging, sales tax increases, bans on tobacco advertising and on indoor smoking in public places. Tobacco use in Uruguay has decreased by 25 percent over three years.

Among other promising data, 70 percent of Uruguay’s smokers expressed regret for every having taken up smoking, and in the five-year period covered by the survey, over two-thirds of smokers at least attempted to quit. Positive health changes are already being seen, and may in part be attributed to these policies. The ITC found a 22 percent reduction in the rate of hospital admissions for heart attacks and a 90 percent decrease in air contamination in enclosed public spaces in the year after they were enacted.

Hopefully, by picking off one developing country after another we can stop smoking, based on the interpretation of trade agreements.  Only recently Philip Morris sued the Australian government, which demanded plain white wrappers and the words Smoking Kills on them.  Philip Morris tried to get this overturned before a tribunal, a favourite trick.  But the new regulation was surprisingly upheld.   The Australian used a clause in their 1993 Hong Kong bilateral trade deal and the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.  The days of smoking might be numbered.

Since 2012 the conversations of people travelling on buses in Maryland have been recorded.

It’s one thing to have active video recording, which can help identify the drunk and the trouble- makers. But to record passenger ‘s conversations! This is really going too far. What this mass surveillance hopes to achieve is puzzling. Maryland has visited this issue four times, and the objection to stopping the recordings (not one person has proved to be undermining the Constitution or to be in league with ISIS) is that to change the cameras so that the the driver activates the recordings when he thinks an incident is developing would incur too great an expense. (Ovetta Wiggins, Washington Post)

George Orwell really got his forecast right didn’t he? Everywhere we look we see intrusion into privacy and encroachment on civil liberties. Serious bombers and planners of massacres don’t generally plan their attacks on local buses stopping and starting in rural Maryland.

A  RAND Corporation report reveals an alarming pattern: gun salesmen based in the US  now ship worldwide, with Europe the biggest source of profit. Lax gun laws in the US are undermining stricter rules elsewhere. Over half of the weapons for sale are from the US, with the revenue from Europe five times higher than from domestic sales, through the dark web.

Although sales account for less than an estimated 1 per cent of items sold on the dark web – transactions go far beyond simply putting a gun in the mail. The information and technology available to potential lone-wolf attackers on the dark web range from manuals on how to create explosives to detailed instructions on how to disassemble and ship a gun to various overseas destinations,

The dark web is a subset of the internet that requires specific software to access so that users can remain anonymous. Registration and access are straightforward. Not all items for sale there are illegal, but the promise of anonymity makes it easier to subvert the law. This anonymity makes buying or selling items risky: the person at the other end of the deal could be a scammer or the police. But previously, to purchase an illegal firearm,  you had to contact a gang involved an arms trafficking gang and convince them  that you weren’t with the police. This was tricky; they might scam you.

To help build trust between buyers and sellers, dark web marketplaces allow them to review transactions the way they would on eBay or Amazon. Many dark marketplaces even offer payment protection.  Vendors on the dark web have also honed their delivery tactics. They may often disassemble weapons into many parts that are sent in different packages. Some parts are embedded in less conspicuous items like old stereos or printers.  (Timothy Revell. New Scientist 29 July 2017)

What are we doing tolerating this stuff?  Why  was the dark web ever allowed in the first place? The 2nd Amendment, allegedly allowing arms to be be bought and used for “self-defence” (hah!) in the US is being traduced by unscrupulous gun makers and dealers who are potentially (and probably actually) exporting terror and death overseas via the internet, alongside advice on bomb-making and other  terrorist techniques. Why would anyone want to buy American guns unless they were al Queda or ISIS supporters, assassins or ruthless gangsters?   This whole thing is a form of pornography, only pornography generally doesn’t usually kill people.  No pussy-footing or discussion!  This is not a matter for Epicurean reasonableness.   Close it down!

The second of my two-part series on how enlightened citizens should respond to the farce that is the Trump administration. You can read the first part on the Democrats here, http://hanrott.com/blog/how-the-democrats-should-respond-to-trump/. Also, next Monday the Modern Philosophy series is returning, so look out for that! 

Being an anti-Trump Republican is a lonely job. The President enjoys an 80% approval rating amongst Republican voters. In a era of hyper-partisanship, many people believe that because Democrats hate Trump so much, he must be doing something right. The potential collusion with Russia and other scandals are fabrications or exaggerations by the media, purported in order to undermine him. Similarly, the only reason why he hasn’t achieved more is because of Democrat opposition, treachery within the Republican ranks, and the corrupt nature of ‘the swamp’ (a nickname for the Washington establishment.) This means that any Republican who openly opposes Trump will come under fire from their core supporters, especially if they live in a state or district where Trump has a net positive approval rating.

So I have a lot of respect for Republican politicians and outspoken conservative commentators who critique Trump and the general direction of the conservative movement. No one has done a better job of doing this than Senator Jeff Flake. He recently published a book, Conscience of a Conservative (just like Goldwater), in which he not only rejects Trump, but also the nationalism, populism and disregard for traditional conservatism that led to Trump winning the nomination. I completely agree that in America, just as in every country, there is a need for a healthy debate between respected individuals who are thoughtful and principled. Whatever your feelings are regarding the Republican Party, it is just as necessary to the wellbeing and functioning of American democracy as the Democrats. So of course Flake is right that the GOP should ditch its cult of personality fixation with Trump in favour of universally applicable conservative principles.

However, Flake presents too simplistic a picture. He seems to imply that before Trump came along, conservatives were largely intelligent and moral. Then Trump ruined the movement, so by getting rid of him we can return to an idealised state of affairs prior to 2016. The reality is more complex. It’s certainly true that conservatism has degraded since Trump sought the Republican nomination. But it was hardly perfect before then. While Flake acknowledges the failures of specific Republicans like Newt Gingrich or Mitch McConnell for being excessively partisan, he doesn’t account for the Republican establishment’s toleration and utilisation of illiberal nationalism for electoral gain. Conspiracy theories like Obama not being an American, evolution being a product of militant atheism to destroy Christianity, or climate change denial, were routinely accepted ideas amongst the conservative base even before Trump came along. Given how sceptical of climate change Mitt Romney was, was it really surprising that Trump’s assertion that climate change was invented by the Chinese to make American manufacturing non-competitive, proved popular? Nor is conservative demagoguery the exclusive preserve of Trump- the Economist points ought that Republicans have long made vitriolic and implicitly racist remarks against ‘welfare queens’ to promote fiscal conservatism amongst the working class. https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21725785-jeff-flake-arizona-says-donald-trump-destroying-conservative-movement

Given the long-term degradation of conservatism, I am far less hopeful for the future than Flake. The senator only criticises Trump and other Republican elites. But the real blame lies with ordinary Republican voters. They chose Trump above a plethora of real conservatives like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. They then voted for him in the general election, instead of choosing a genuinely conservative third party candidate. Republican elites didn’t invent conspiracy theories or bigotry; those things already existed amongst the electorate, and were simply politicised to the Republicans’ advantage. Since Trump’s inauguration, it has become obvious that the man is unfit for office. The various scandals shows he has clearly acted improperly, if not illegally. He gets into needless fights far too easily. He is short-tempered and easily goaded. He doesn’t have a consistent and coherent vision for the American economy, nor for America’s place in the world. He has appalling approval ratings, not only in America but worldwide. Yet it is Republican voters who choose to stick by him. If Trump’s popularity amongst Republicans dropped from 80% to say 40% or less, he would be finished.

The fact is, the vast majority of Republicans do not care about the sort of principles Flake believes in. They don’t know anything about Edmund Burke, Adam Smith or Thomas Paine. Most of them haven’t read anything by Milton Friedman or F.A Hayek. Abstract principles like constitutionally limited government, free markets and individual liberty mean little to them. Instead, what concerns them is not the size of government, but who it works for. That’s why they are perfectly happy with Trump’s protectionist economics or statements he’s made in the past about protecting Social Security and Medicare. Government can be as big as it likes, as long as it works for ‘ordinary Americans,’ as opposed to immigrants, foreigners, and liberals who live in big cities. What drives Trump voters is identity politics, not ideology.

The reason why Trump was surprisingly successful was that he understood this, the traditional Republican elites didn’t. Republicans in Washington have long been out of touch with their base on a whole host of issues, because they wrongly believed the base shared their conception of and dedication to conservatism. Now that their folly has been exposed, they dare not criticise the base for fear of losing office. So instead, they collude with Trump in order to achieve their long-term objectives like tax cuts and healthcare deregulation, while pretending to be on the side of working class Trump supporters. This strategy may work for the next few years. They already have another conservative Supreme Court justice and the repeal of various Obama-era regulations. They may get tax cuts and healthcare deregulation yet. But come the forthcoming elections, they will not be able to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president. Their moral cowardice will be their downfall. The best thing that can happen to American conservatism is the collapse and total defeat of the Republican Party, which will hopefully be reformed into a party backed by intelligent and authentically conservative voters, as opposed to the pretence of conservatism and nationalistic dog-whistling that characterises today’s GOP.

This is part one of a two-part series on how sensible and thoughtful people should respond to the increasingly chaotic and scandal-prone Trump administration. This week I’ll be talking about the Democrats, next week about the Republicans, so look out for that! 

In theory, Democrats should be cheery at the moment, at least from the perspective of electoral prospects. Their prediction that a Trump presidency would harm America’s reputation on the world stage and prove divisive at home has come true. Far from uniting America, the country is more divided than ever, with Trump suffering from record-low approval ratings for a president at this stage of his tenure. Even on the Republicans’ own terms, the administration has been ineffective at getting things done. While it’s true that a Supreme Court justice has been nominated, the Trans-Pacific Partnership cancelled and some Obama-era regulations repealed, the two big issues for the GOP- healthcare and tax reform- remain unaddressed. If both were as urgent as Republicans have been telling us for years, then they should have drafted legislation and agreed upon it, ready to be made law upon a Republican electoral victory. Their failure to plan has made a mockery of both themselves and the wider conservative movement.

So if Trump and his Republican Congress are such obvious failures, then why aren’t Democrats more popular? Partly because they’ve failed to learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. They still assume that attacking Republicans will be enough to win. But Democrats need to put policies of their own that command popular support, or else continue to be irrelevant. The problem with Clinton’s campaign is that it seemed so content with the status quo, only promising minor tweaks when America is desperately in need of major reform. Such complacency ought to have been purged from the Democratic ranks, yet to this very day it stubbornly remains.

Take for instance, healthcare. For years, the Republicans have been opportunistically taking advantage of Obamacare’s shortcomings- high deductibles, high premiums, people who still lack insurance. But the fact is, none of those issues can be addressed by the federal government without more taxes and regulations, which Republicans are ideologically opposed to. This has been clear ever since the Affordable Care Act became law, yet most Americans didn’t realise it until now. However, many Democrats seem content to only propose minor adjustments to the ACA now that it enjoys majority support. This simply isn’t good enough. Voters’ concerns about the ACA were perfectly legitimate, even if some of them were wrong to propose repealing the law in its entirety. As I’ve proposed in detail here (http://hanrott.com/blog/what-americans-can-learn-from-the-nhs-and-what-britons-can-learn-from-american-healthcare/), any American should be able to buy their way into Medicare, by giving up a higher proportion of their income to the government, thus guaranteeing health insurance to everyone using an existing and largely popular mechanism. The Democrats should be united in their support for this, yet from many we hear very little.

Healthcare isn’t the only area where Democrats lack ambition. Social security is another. It’s clear that America has a poverty rate far too high for a country with that high a GDP per capita. It’s also clear that the incomes of the wealthiest Americans have risen at a far faster rate than for the general population. So why not reform the welfare system and the tax system at the same time, by introducing a negative income tax. It’s a complex proposal and the specifics would have to be figured out by experts. But in layman’s terms, its essentially a form of wealth redistribution, where everyone earning below the tax threshold gets paid a lump sum, depending on how much they earn below that threshold- the less they earn, the more the government gives them. It would have the double advantage of both drastically reducing poverty and simplifying the tax code, rather than the mess of deductions and credits that currently exists. But I’m yet to hear any Democrats talk about it.

Although Democrats should be bold and radical in their proposals, they should shy away from some of the more crass class warfare rhetoric that was very prominent in the 2016 Democratic primary, particularly from Bernie Sanders. I won’t for a moment defend any illegal or immoral behaviour committed by anyone in the financial sector. But if the Democrats are to win businesses over, they must demonstrate that they aren’t the enemies of wealth. Rather than rant about how terrible some rich people are, they should talk about the benefits of Democratic policies for everyone, the rich included. For instance, spending more on the education system will give employers a better educated workforce. Repairing and upgrading the country’s infrastructure will be good for business. Moreover, the Medicare for all plan would mean that employers would no longer have to feel as if they have to provide healthcare for their employees. This would represent a major saving for them.

Finally, I think the Democrats at the federal level should be honest and realistic about what they can achieve. America’s federal system is a wonderful thing, but it limits the power of the federal government. Instead, Democrats need to utilise the state and local governments more, particularly in times like these when the federal government is so ineffective and hostile. If federal environmental regulations are repealed, reenact them at the state level. If the federal government won’t build new roads or railways, then the states should do them, using local taxes and private investment. The downside of all this is that most governors and state legislatures are Republican. The Democrat obsession with the presidency has come at the expense of smaller but equally important elections. Democrats should fight much harder in these, including ensuring that the currently embarrassing rates of voter turnout improve.

Awhile ago I was recommended to write a post on the future of European integration. At the time I had just completed a module on the subject at university. But since I had not performed as well in it as I hoped I would, I felt like I didn’t have the expertise to treat the subject properly. Moreover, the increasing volatility of politics has made the future hard to predict. What I can do is outline the vision Europe’s leaders have for the EU, and give my response to them, as well as draw comparisons between the vision of the EU27 and the UK’s future after Brexit.

This week’s article comes from the prime ministers of the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland- three wealthy and politically stable EU member states. https://euobserver.com/opinion/138669. The overall gist of their vision is one of stability, continuity and common sense reform; building on the successes of current levels of European integration, rather than trying to do anything too radical. For the three leaders, the dream of a European superstate is a silly fantasy that isn’t going to happen, even if it’s desirable. But equally, they see no reason to abolish the existing aspects of the EU that enjoy popular support, such as financial passporting rights, the absence of customs checks, or Eurotom. For Europe to thrive, both the EU and individual member states must step up to the challenge. A pragmatic approach is needed, where policy areas are made either on the EU level or the nation state level, depending on which would be most effective. The EU cannot continue to be a scapegoat for the failure of its member states; if a country suffers from too much debt or underinvestment in education, it cannot blame Brussels.

I’m very impressed at the maturity and thoughtfulness of these three leaders. They don’t engage in insults or conspiracy theories. Their solutions are practical, realistic and evidence-based. Most importantly, they remain calm in what remains quite a challenging time for Europe. Given Brexit, it would be tempting to assume that the EU is hopelessly flawed and needs a radical overhaul. But the fact is, the UK has always been the most Eurosceptic member state, even when its economy was doing relatively well (until recently.) In particular, freedom of movement has always been unpopular here, but not anywhere else. You don’t get Germans or Swedes protesting against EU migrants, even when they make up a higher proportion of their populations than they do ours. So there’s no need to get rid of any aspect of European integration that has popular support, even if British people don’t approve of it.

The level-headedness of these prime ministers couldn’t be a greater contrast to the mess that is the state of Britain’s leaders. On the one hand, the governing Conservative Party is a laughing stock on the world stage. A host of negotiators, both British and European, say that we are totally unprepared for the negotiations, and have unrealistic prospects about their outcome. Our leaders have insulted the EU, telling it to ‘go whistle,’ and even accusing it of trying to undermine our election. The idea that centre-right Jean Claude Juncker could be in favour of hard-left Jeremy Corbyn is blatantly absurd, yet the prime minister believes it regardless. But on the other hand, Labour’s leadership seem just as deluded on Brexit. They seem to believe we can have all of the benefits of the Single Market while leaving it, which isn’t the case at all. The more intelligent Labour MPs (including my local MP) have been sidelined by Corbyn’s unexpected success in the most recent election. The only consistently pro-European party, the Liberal Democrats, are still a mere shadow of their former selves.

Like these three leaders, I’m not a European federalist, because I don’t think a European nation is workable given the size and cultural diversity of the EU. The problem in Britain is that everyone in the EU is perceived to be a federalist, except us. Nothing could be further from the truth. The are a few federalists, of course, but there are also a few communists. Just because some people hold a particular view, doesn’t mean everyone does, and it certainly doesn’t make it likely to happen. The fact is, any significant transfer of power to the EU would require a treaty change, which as a member state we could veto. These three prime ministers also outline their opposition to treaty change here.

The misperception of the prevalence of federalist ideology is only one aspect of how the British people were misinformed. If they had heard more arguments from the likes of these three men, perhaps Brexit would never have happened. The EU aside, the governments of these countries are not all that different from David Cameron’s administration. They both value balanced budgets, stability, free trade and much more besides. They are certainly closer to the centre of British public opinion than the likes of Nigel Farage or Liam Fox. But what distinguishes them from Britain’s pro-Europeans is their ability and willingness to outline a positive vision for the EU and its nations, rather than simply warn about the consequences of leaving. Most British people seem embarrassed to be ideologically pro European, even if that is what they are. Equally, unlike the Conservative Party, they do not blame the EU for their own failures. The main problems with Britain’s economy- low productivity, high house prices in the London area, and a regional imbalance in wealth creation- all have nothing to with the EU. When they persist and perhaps worsen after Brexit, the fallout will be anger and a feeling of betrayal.

I hope the vision of these three leaders materialises, and I suspect it will. Contrary to the predictions of many Leave supporters, the EU is remarkably united. It will continue to build on the successes of the Single Market to new areas, particularly digital technology and energy, to promote competition and choice across borders. The biggest challenge to the EU is the Euro, which the leaders fail to mention. The Euro has clearly been a success for many nations, even poorer ones like Estonia and Slovenia, which is why it is as popular as ever. https://www.ft.com/content/37e5d471-f25f-3dc7-9c7b-6218d5907687. But for some, Greece especially, it hasn’t worked as intended. Although Greece should honour its debts, it should also be allowed to leave the Euro if it wants to.

Because I’m British, I want Britain to do as well as possible. So I hope the Leave campaign is right that Britain will thrive outside the EU, or at the very least, not be at the bottom of the European economic growth table for much longer. It’s almost impossible to say for sure how things will turn out. But for now, I suspect that if Britain thrives in the future, it will be despite Brexit, not because of it.

From The Times:

What lay behind last year’s historic vote to leave the EU? As soon as the referendum was over, Brexit advocates began to claim it was all about “freeborn Englishmen and women casting off the EU’s federalising yoke”. No, says Clare Foges. To see the reality, you need only look at the polls that YouGov has been conducting fortnightly since 2010. Immigration was and is the “clincher” issue. Most Leavers didn’t vote for the UK “to take back control” in an abstract sense, but to retake control of its borders and slash immigrant numbers. Problem is, it won’t happen. The Government has long “controlled” non-EU net migration (which exceeds EU net migration), yet has never been able to stem it, any more than it has illegal immigration (reckoned at 250,000 a year). What hope, then, of Theresa May “controlling” the flow of EU arrivals now her party has lost its majority and is under huge pressure to accept freedom of movement as part of a soft Brexit? So after all those promises and all the pain of Brexit, there’ll be “no major reduction of immigration at the end of it”. I fear we’re set to become a nation fuelled by the “greatest sense of betrayal in generations”.   (Clare Foges, The Times, re- published in The Week, 22 July 2017)

I don’t at all perceive any sign of rising fury or sense of betrayal –  yet.  The Brexit referendum vote was met with delight by the Little Englanders and those who believed that £350 million would magically be applied to the National Health Service within weeks, instead of being sent to crafty foreigners in Brussels.  The vote was narrow and the Remainers did a dire job at getting over the dangers of Brexit.

Since that referendum, which should have been treated as advisory, pending full research into the implications and into the dozens of complex problems to be sorted out (or not), the Remainers have acted like so many resigned sheep.  No agitation at the fecklessness and cluelessness of the government.  Seems it’s a done deal, except that it isn’t.  Yes, the general election didn’t go well for the Brexiters, but only because, at long last, young people put down their cellphones and voted, but not really for the principle of the EU, real politique and their own futures.

Ms. Foges’s sense of betrayal will come, but far too late.   The economy is already stalling.  London, for one, is being run day to day by immigrants, and will still be run by immigrants in ten year’s time.  Only by then the full horror of what was so casually done will have seeped through, and then it will be too late.  The perpetrators of this stupidity will blame someone else, but, nonetheless, it will be the Brexiters who will have visited the greatest historical betrayal in British history upon the population.  For the moment the latter are asleep.

Maybe the only way the Brexiters can get rid of the immigrants is when it dawns on the world that China is top dog and Chinese is the language to learn.  Then even young foreigners will stop coming to London to hone their English and go to Singapore or Shanghai to learn Chinese.  Young immigrants are not in London because of its good bus service.

From Sam Edge, Ringwood, Hampshire, UK

Most of the cost of drug development comes from the public purse, not from the large pharmaceutical companies (3 June, p 22). Independent research has repeatedly shown that these companies spend only around 15 per cent of their revenue on research and development. Tellingly, most spend at least twice as much on marketing.  The remuneration of the bosses has risen inexorably for no other reason than it has been able to.

From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK

It is commonplace these days to encounter companies set up with notional dual objectives: to meet social needs at the same time as making profits for shareholders. I can think of no example where the two motivations haven’t sooner or later come into conflict as, for example, when economic forces place pressures on profits and the social need is pushed into second place and suffers.

A company may be supplying multimillion dollar drug regimes, as Clare Wilson describes, or social carers for pennies, storing up the crisis that James Bloodworth predicts (3 June, p 24). Whatever their initial ambitions, the profit maximisation imperative eventually takes over.

The obvious long-term solution in both cases is clear. All aspects of health and social care must be brought under social ownership and control. That way, the efforts of the universities – alluded to by Wilson – will be recognised; investment can be directed purely towards need, rather than towards areas of maximum potential profit; and any profits can be fed back into the system itself rather than into the pockets of remote and uninterested investors.   (The above letters appeared in June 2017 editions of New Scientist, and have been edited for the sake of brevity).

My comment: the horse is long out of the stable.  There is no public appetite for nationalization, and in any case government is rarely any good at managing companies.  However, if company wants to do business with the NHS, there should be communitarian rules:  limits on what companies should pay their CEOs (say no more than ten times the average salary?); no television advertising of ethical pharmaceutical drugs; the banning of gifts (inducements) to prescribing doctors. Or, if companies groan under this regime, they should be able to repay the government and universities for all research costs, and thus have more control  Let pharmceutical companies make profits by all means, but, in the spirit of Epicurus, moderate profits.  It is not acceptable for the public to be paying for most of the research only to be ripped off in the pharmacy.