The Government's Got Its Banning Hat On!

Now, if I wanted to suggest an increase in government efficiency and a decrease in the number of ministers, I'd strongly argue for centralising all the government departments responsible for banning stuff. Seriously, you could really thin down the Cabinet and make it more efficient. You could have the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, a Defence Secretary, an Education Secretary and the Minister for Banning Stuff. Your one stop shop Minister for all of your banning needs. It would be a busy ministry, though. Particularly since the Labour government now seems to have abandoned any pretence towards having a legislative agenda, and instead is mistaking the implementation of bans as being the sign of an activist government.

Today sees the announcement of the banning of legal highs (guess the manufacturers will have to think of a new category for their products now). Clearly the rip-roaring success of drugs prohibition has encouraged them to add more drugs to the roster of illegal substances. But, like a lot of the government's knee jerk banning, there is a sob story behind this. Listen to the words of the mother of someone who died from one of these soon to be illegal highs:

"I'm delighted. I think the Home Office is moving in the right direction.

"We need to tell people that GBL plus alcohol can equal death. Hester hadn't had that much alcohol and then later on that evening an old friend of hers gave her half a dose of GBL which he said was safe.

"So the two mixed together just sent her into a coma and she didn't wake up.

"She was studying molecular medicine but she was clearly unaware that it was dangerous and I think that is the key message to get across to young people, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe."

It is obvious that Hester's mother has suffered an appalling tragedy. But that doesn't mean that her opinion - which, quite naturally, will be anything other than objective under the circumstances - holds any more weight that any other citizen's opinion in this country. It doesn't give her specialist knowledge about GBL. Plus, her assertion that this will raise awareness about the dangers of mixing booze and GBL seems an irrelevance since it has now been made illegal. And finally, lots of stuff is less safe after you've had some booze. Including going up the stairs. Yet no-one is calling for a ban on going upstairs after a few beers.

What is really at the heart of this - and why I object so strongly to the banning of a substance I have never used and never plan to use - is the assumption that adults can't look after themselves and the mistaken idea that banning something is the same as educating people about it. Read these words from the Home Secretary - a man who is, lest we forget, an expert in nothing and is effectively just an over-promoted post man:

"Legal highs are an emerging threat, particularly to young people, and we have a duty to educate them about the dangers.

"There is a perception that many of the so-called legal highs are harmless, however in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis."

These legal highs may be dangerous. They may be more dangerous than dope. And maybe you can make a case for educating people about them. But by banning something, you are not educating people about it. Education should allow people to make an educated choice. You remove that choice when you ban something.

That's what I can't stand, and that is what everyone in this country should be protesting about. It isn't just about the banning of these legal highs. It is about the government assumption that prohibition is the same as education, and deciding what the private individuals in this country should and shouldn't have a choice about. All these sort of decisions mean is that someone like Alan Johnson knows better about what is good for you that you do. And I am not dumb or bovine enough to allow such decisions to pass by without some sort of comment and protest. No longer does nanny know best; this modern state presupposes that a government minister - the most temporary of appointments based more on loyalty than competency - knows what is right for you. And such an idea makes me feel utterly sick.