The Government is set to ban disposable vapes (Image: PA)
Consumers have been urged to “fight back” against nanny state campaigners trying to control what they drink or eat.
Small and well-organised activist groups, some receiving taxpayers’ money, are trampling on the rights of the general public, according to a leading think tank.
They are trying to regulate or ban smoking, alcohol, gambling and unhealthy food, said the Institute of Economic Affairs.
The losers are ordinary consumers who are not organised enough to defend their rights said Christopher Snowdon, author of a report published today.
:
He said: “Consumers are at a disadvantage when faced with professional, state-funded neo-prohibitionists. Ordinary people simply do not have the time or money to effectively defend their interests.
“This report offers some lessons from economics to anyone who wants to resist the encroaching nanny state. Give people direct incentives to take collective action and they will join the fight. Millions of consumers deserve to be heard.”
The study highlighted measures such as the levy charged on high-sugar soft drinks or the planned ban on smoking, and said that “paternalistic” lobby groups backing restrictions have often received funding or support from official bodies such as the British Medical Association.
They are opposed by businesses but usually win their battles because the public instinctively distrusts firms which are motivated by profit.
Don’t miss…
Dr Snowdon said the public could fight back by creating more grass-roots organisations similar to CAMRA, the campaign for real ale which backs pubs but is run by drinkers, not the pubs trade.
These could “mobilise drinkers, vapers and other groups of people who are threatened with greater regulation and taxation” and could work with industry to offer members discounts as an incentive to join, he said. For example, a Vapers’ Association could approach e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers, requesting that they give their members a discount.
Dr Snowdon warned: “Millions of people are disadvantaged, to a greater or lesser extent, by policies which make their lifestyle choices more expensive, less attractive and less convenient.”