Opinion
Roger Bull argues that bans on product displays in stores impinge on consumers' right to choose.
Just before Easter, Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia announced that the Ministry of Health was having another go at banning the retail display of tobacco products.
Although the media attention was focused on the Government's decision over seabed and foreshore ownership issues, the prospect of a ban on a
product category should not go unnoticed.
There is no debate about the health risks of tobacco, nor of the need to regulate the product. But consumers need to be aware that restrictions placed on tobacco products soon permeate on to other products.
This is particularly the case when vocal public-health lobby groups are active, be they anti-smoking, anti-alcohol or anti-obesity.
One simple point that advocates lobbying for tobacco display bans conveniently ignore is that consumers must be over 18 years old to buy the product.
The fact that consumers cannot actually touch the product without first asking a store attendant for the product is also ignored.
Little consideration is given to the impact a ban may have on consumers who want fast transaction times within a convenience store.
The puritanical drive to rid New Zealand of tobacco products may well be labelled as "nanny state", as it underlines a more ominous undercurrent.
And that is that a very vocal few end up telling adult New Zealanders what products they can or can't buy, with complete disregard for the notion of consumer freedom or personal responsibility.
Add to this that any opponent to their way of thinking is labelled "in the pocket of big business" and therefore cannot be trusted.
Consumer freedom is a fundamental principle of the retail sector and for a democracy as a whole.
While tobacco is an obvious target, other interest groups are waging campaigns using tactics employed against tobacco - demonisation of a product category and research "demonstrating" public concern. That results in politicians all too willing to pick a cause designed to generate media attention.
If it's not spray cans to stop people sniffing paint fumes, it's restrictions on Panadol to try to prevent access to the precursors of the drug P.
Some may argue that this is necessary to protect ourselves from these dangers. But where do you draw the line?
Are chocolate, crisps or bottles of soft drink to be hidden away to prevent people from becoming fat or stopping diabetes?
Education is the simple answer and makes common sense. But we all know common sense is less than common.
Retailers need to stand up against efforts to ban the display of tobacco. This debate is not about the rights or wrongs of tobacco, but rather about defending adult New Zealanders' freedom to make a decision.
And that is worth the fight.
Roger Bull is chairman of the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 769 stores across New Zealand. British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco are listed as premier members of the association.
