It has become a common criticism of the UK Blair and Brown administrations (as well as our own Jim Anderton) that they represent a species of left-wing “puritans.” Or so says Scots libertarian Fraser Nelson…

Why? Nelson’s primary target is ‘drug prohibition,’ as well as the ban on firearms in the United Kingdom, and alarming announcements from UK Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman that all forms of sex work should be banned as well.

According to him, street drug prices have fallen through the floor when it comes to ecstacy, cocaine and heroin. It turns out that, as with the availability of guns, much of their illicit distribution can be traced back to the illicit cash flows to and from neglected and impoverished ’sink estates.’  It’s possible to bypass the inevitable blame-the-incumbent myopia, and blame it on the continuity of Thatcherite Tory policies that blame poverty on dysfunctional social behaviour.

However, I suspect many New Zealanders will be surprised to learn of Deputy PM Harman’s prohibitionist bias against sex work. In New Zealand, there was a furious debate between rival reformist and socialist feminists and radical feminist advocates of maintained prohibition of sex work, as well as criminalisation of ‘kerb crawling’, in which the act of approaching sex workers to purchase their services is banned.  Harman wants to force workers out of the security of regulated brothel environments and onto relatively unsafe street contexts.

Sceptics of the failure of prohibitionism often point to anti-smoking laws as one instance where sharp curtailment of the supply has led to decline in usage, and Nelson acknowledges that to be the case. However, there was substantial public pressure, fueled by health promotion warnings, beforehand.  In which case, why not ban boxing, which may also result in brain injury and eventual death. Ah, but then, what about skydiving and horse racing, whose accidental death risks are far higher, according to statistical measurements?

And while we’re talking about the iniquity of prohibitionism here, for justifiable reasons in the context of sex work and some softer drugs (like cannabis and BZP), isn’t it somewhat hypocritical for the New Zealand Christian Right’s pro-belting zealots to rant and rave about the deprivation of the parental “liberty” to hit children, when they want to ban the free speech and publications of advocates of euthanasia reform (the Society for Promotion of Community Standards), any access to abortion whatsoever (Right to Life New Zealand), and support Third World regimes that still criminalise and harrass lesbians and gay men?

Usually, prohibition doesn’t work. Perversely, it inflates demand through imparting an ersatz ‘transgressive’ aura, and inflates the prices of prohibited commodities or transactions on a ‘black market.’ But who are the real advocates of modern prohibitionism? The Christian Right, who aren’t exactly allies to centre-left governments. Sorry, Fraser. Wrong target, mate.

Recommended:

Jim Lietzel (ed) Regulating Vice: Misguided Prohibitions and Realistic Controls: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2008.
Fraser Nelson: “Government Stealth Warning” Arena 197 (August 2008): 82-83.

John Meadowcroft (ed) Prohibitions: London: IEA: 2008.