JUNE’S Billet report on banning the display of tobacco products contains just eight pages of argument from Health and Social Services.

In that space it crams in a summary of the report, the history behind it, the results of a consultation exercise and HSSD’s recommendations to the States.

There then follows an appendix which – at three times the length – contains detailed representations from a selection of tobacco manufacturers, importers and a retailer.

The difference between the two sides is stark. HSSD is happy simply to state that smoking is bad and part of the solution is a ban on advertising displays.

Beyond generalities, it declines to engage in argument or make any real attempt to convince the reader of its case.

By contrast the tobacco industry presents statistic after statistic, argument after argument, case study after case study.

HSSD does not try to knock down any of the arguments. It relies instead entirely on the raw numbers from a survey containing just four basic questions and backed up by no information.

These show that of 466 respondents three-quarters wanted cigarette vending machines accessible only to over-18s and 70% favoured a ban on the display of tobacco products.

If this is consultation, it is a sham. When government has a fixed view and no intention of listening to the other side, why bother consulting? It is not enough just to ask the question, you have to listen to the answer.

The danger of such thinly-backed policy making became clear in the States three months ago when deputies backed an amendment which went even further than HSSD’s original position.

Suddenly, from nowhere, and with zero idea of the consequences, the States made policy.

As today’s requete states, it was bad governance. It may have been with the best of intentions (and this newspaper is keen to back attempts to limit smoking wherever possible) but government cannot leap into the dark and hope for a safe landing.

It must be a considered, logical, reasoned, argued process. This was none of those.