Smoking Bans

Political Philosophy
1

After seeing the article on the front page, I’m curious about other’s ideas on smoking bans.

California banned smoking in bars and restaurants many years ago, and the list of banned places has (predictably) grown. I’ll admit I am more comfortable living without the smell and health risks of secondhand smoke. I’m not happy about how large the list has grown.

At the same time, the same argument could be made against cars. (I’m not suggesting we ban cars!) Car exhaust poses known health risks and probably inconveniences joggers and non-drivers.

I’d welcome some other Objectivist analysis. Do smoking grocery shoppers have the right to pollute my food? Does my potential health risk override their right to enjoy their habit/hobby?

2

I’d welcome some other Objectivist analysis. Do smoking grocery shoppers have the right to pollute my food? Does my potential health risk override their right to enjoy their habit/hobby?

If you don’t like your grocery store with smokers stop shopping there. If there is a large enough market of people like you there will be grocery stores that don’t allow it. Many stores banned smoking before the laws.

3

Exactly! Business owners should be able to decide whether or not to let people smoke on their property. You, as a consumer, can decide whether or not you want to do business there.

4

Smoking bans are quite interesting in that once theyre in place, most people end up supporting them and agreeing that theyre a good thing, yet they wouldnt ever have got started without government intervention. And this intervention is impossible to defend morally even though the results are good and wouldnt have happened without it.

Exactly! Business owners should be able to decide whether or not to let people smoke on their property. You, as a consumer, can decide whether or not you want to do business there.

This is a purely formal argument because in practice no restaurants/bars were operating no-smoking policies, even though a lot of people said they were in favour of them. Its also not as simple as you make out because people go to these places in groups, so the ‘individual choice’ is replaced by the decision of the group which will normally include both smokers and non-smokers.

5

Do smoking grocery shoppers have the right to pollute my food?

Absolutely not! Once you have bought the food and actually made it be “your food” and then taken it to the safe haven of your non-smoking home, they have absafuckinlutely no right to invade your property against your will and breathe smoke on your food. A man’s castle is his home (or vice-versa). This is so obscene: I can’t believe that California smokers are actually willing to break into houses to pollute the food of other people. Have they no respect for basic property rights?

Now, of course, if you permit them to smoke in your house, that is a whole nother matter. And if Jack Kroger, Fred Eisner or Frank Safeway (I forgot Mr. Pigglywiggly’s first name) allows customers to smoke in their establishments, then that to is their right. BTW, given that fact, you should decide whether you want to buy Mr. Kroger’s $1.99/lb lettuce or Mr. Hipifrik’s $3.99 Certified smoke-free lettuce.

6

After seeing the article on the front page, I’m curious about other’s ideas on smoking bans.

I’d like to ban fanatical non-smokers. They have gone too far.

Look, I understand banning smoking in airplanes and even restaurants (although it naturally should be the owners’ choice, but that’s a different matter). But banning smoking in large, well ventilated places like airports is just asserting a prejudice.

In Mexico City a ban was ennacted recently that forbids smoking in any closed spaces accessible to the public (meaning banks, offices, restaurants, bars, buses, etc), but smoking is allowed in open spaces. Therefore lots fo restaurants, bars and even gambling parlors ahve been putting up terraces or gardens for their smoking customers. The only restriction is that minors are not allowed in smoking areas.

There’s one restaurant in particular called “Meridien del Lago” which sits by the side of Chapultepec Lake (an artificial pond, actually). It’s all open spaces, and it’s a very popular spot on sunny weekends. It set up a huge smoking area, and a small non-smoking area. Business boomed to the point that I heard it was crowded on rainy weekends.

The problem? Non-smokers, especially those with children, are complaining they have to wait too long at Meridien for a table, and are demanding a more restrictive law.

California banned smoking in bars and restaurants many years ago, and the list of banned places has (predictably) grown.

When the first moves were made against smoking in aircraft it was for flights of less than two hours. Now it’s all flights.

I’d welcome some other Objectivist analysis. Do smoking grocery shoppers have the right to pollute my food?

Isn’t that just a tad bit fanatical? I mean, how much “pollution” can a few cigarettes cause in a grocery store? Canned and packaged goods wouldn’t be affected at all, and even fresh produce wouldn’t suffer anything that washing wouldn’t take care of (and you do wash fresh produce, don’t you?)

Does my potential health risk override their right to enjoy their habit/hobby?

Just how potential? I’ve heard mostly contradictory claims about second-hand smoke.

Eddited to add:

Smoking, and open flames and matches, can and should be banned in places where they pose a real physical threat. Gas stations, for instance, fuel depots, oil refineries, high oxygen environments (like some hospital wards), explosive storage sites, etc. But usually such bans are ennacted by the owners of such places without the need for government intervention.

7

This is a purely formal argument because in practice no restaurants/bars were operating no-smoking policies

Then that was the business owner’s choice…what’s wrong with that?!

Its also not as simple as you make out because people go to these places in groups, so the ‘individual choice’ is replaced by the decision of the group which will normally include both smokers and non-smokers.

It’s still your, individual, choice to go in with the group. If smoking is such a big deal to you, then the group can either decide some place else to go, or you don’t have to go with them. This argument IS as simple as I make it. Are you seriously saying that you think forcing a business owner and his clients to give up smoking on his own property is okay??

I hate smoking as much as the next guy, but I’m not going to let that smoke get in the way of my individual rights.

8

I’d like to ban fanatical non-smokers. They have gone too far.

Look, I understand banning smoking in airplanes and even restaurants (although it naturally should be the owners’ choice, but that’s a different matter). But banning smoking in large, well ventilated places like airports is just asserting a prejudice.

<snip>

I absolutely agree. For a while some people were pushing for smoking to be banned in public parks in California. According to wikipedia, there’s a ban on smoking in any public place in some CA cities. When people start talking about their “right” to breathe clean air, I shudder. (There’s an Ayn Rand reference about randomly invented rights I will have to look up later.)

I object to people smoking where I can’t get away from it. But in the open air, for goodness sake, it’s not impossible to get away from!

Ultimately, I’m glad the ban is in place for enclosed areas, but I’d rather it had come about via social controls rather than government action. (added a minute later:) So it seems morally there’s no problem with individual businesses banning smoking. The problem is with the government being the intermediary, as it increases the government’s power as a weapon between individuals. Is that a valid Objectivist analysis?

9

This is a purely formal argument because in practice no restaurants/bars were operating no-smoking policies, even though a lot of people said they were in favour of them. Its also not as simple as you make out because people go to these places in groups, so the ‘individual choice’ is replaced by the decision of the group which will normally include both smokers and non-smokers.

a. If that is the case, then people weren’t that “in favor” of them. Say what you like about what you’re in favor of, but if given the choice and all the other relevant contexts, if you are indifferent between going to A with smoking and B with non-smoking, you aren’t in favor of squat.

b. many restaurants did segregate smokers and non-smokers due to client preference against stronger odors, which is the same sort of example. The fact that they did this without downright banning smoking says that in reality most people prefered to avoid the odor, not the potential health risks. Given a more health conscious public, there is nothing saying that if you had a free market that such smoke free establishments wouldnt’ exists. But then we’re all regulated to hell so we can actually tell that.

c. Individual choice never goes away. It just may take different forms. If you’re alone the relative value of a social evening out doesn’t weigh into the decision. If you’re with friends it does. You still have a choice. There is no collective choice. If you’re friends were going skydiving would you be forced to go regardless of your risk preference for it?

10

It’s still your, individual, choice to go in with the group. If smoking is such a big deal to you, then the group can either decide some place else to go, or you don’t have to go with them. This argument IS as simple as I make it.

Again this is an abstract argument which has little relevance to how people actually make decisions in the real world. Obviously you have the choice to stop going out with your friends altogether if you dislike smoking, but realistically not many people are going to sacrifice their social life just to avoid being in an environment with smokers. Yeah, someone may really dislike smoke for both the health risks and the disgusting smell, but theyre unlikely to feel passionately enough about the issue to give up their friends.

Are you seriously saying that you think forcing a business owner and his clients to give up smoking on his own property is okay?

I think its morally indefensible, yet ends up producing a situation which most people would agree is superior, and which wouldnt have happened without illegitimate government intervention. Thats why its an interesting issue.

11

Again this is an abstract argument which has little relevance to how people actually make decisions in the real world.

Then maybe I operate in the unreal world.

Back some years ago some friends and I gathered for poker games a few times per month, usually at my place. One of them very much wanted to host the game, but his place was strictly non-smoking. I think there was a game or two there, but I never attended. I can’t play seriously (and we were serious even if the amounts bet were small) if I have tos neak out for a cigarette every hour or so.

I think its morally indefensible, yet ends up producing a situation which most people would agree is superior, and which wouldnt have happened without illegitimate government intervention. Thats why its an interesting issue.

Two points:

  1. As far as I know there are no laws at all banning smoking inside private dwellings. These days a polite guest more usually won’t ask to be allowed to smoke in someone else’s home, anymore than he would put up his feet on the dinner table. Yet not that long ago non-smokers kept cigarettes, ashtrays and matches for their smoking guests (I’ve a living room smoking set still). In those days a polite host wouldn’t dream of keeping a guest from smoking, any more than he would dream of not offering him a chair. Things have changed that much because smoking isn’t as acceptable socially as it used to be.

  2. Since the mid 80s some hotels began to offer non-smoking rooms (prior to that people could smoke in any room), in order to spare non-smokers even the smell of old smoke. That’s a good example of business catering to the demands of the customer.

As to the illegitimate government intervension, let me tell you about Pullman de Morelos. It’s a local bus line operating in Morelos state and Mexico City. It has a deluxe service with a sealed off area in the back that serves as a smoking section (there’s a bulkhead with a door). Ventialtion in the bus runs front to back, meaning not even the smell of cigarettes gets to the non-smoking section. Well and good rigth?

I thought so, as did many non-smokers. But the law now says “no smoking” in any buses, so while the section is still separate from the rest of the bus, the ashtrays have been removed and “no smoking” signs ahve been posted. I heard the company has an appeal pending, but likely it will loose.

What’s superior about that?

12

Again this is an abstract argument which has little relevance to how people actually make decisions in the real world. Obviously you have the choice to stop going out with your friends altogether if you dislike smoking, but realistically not many people are going to sacrifice their social life just to avoid being in an environment with smokers. Yeah, someone may really dislike smoke for both the health risks and the disgusting smell, but theyre unlikely to feel passionately enough about the issue to give up their friends.

I think its morally indefensible, yet ends up producing a situation which most people would agree is superior, and which wouldnt have happened without illegitimate government intervention. Thats why its an interesting issue.

Well if people showered daily that would arguably produce a superior situation, dosn’tmean the government should be imposing rules that everyone must take a shower once a day. Individual rights trump this argument however. Freedom means the freedom to make what most would consider bad choices. There are many examples of this.

Also the argument is pretty clear for me. You have to weigh up weather your friends are worth it despite their annoying habbits. Obviosuly you think they are. You could also try expalining to them that it is a big deal (assuming it is to you) when they smoke at dinner etc etc.

Plus smoke for me was easily avoidable before the smoking ban in the UK came into place. Since the 90s most places have been smoke free. No smoking on the plane, ferry, train, bus, in the mall, in the supermarket (I can’t remember ever seeing smoking in the supermarket) and in the cinema was all common before the ban.

13

Again this is an abstract argument which has little relevance to how people actually make decisions in the real world.

Just because people in your so-called “real world” make one decision, doesn’t make that the proper decision. If people are morally corrupt and cannot decide for themselves, that is not an excuse to take away another individual’s rights.

You’re forcing me to take a line from my parent’s play book :slight_smile: “Just because all your friends jump off a cliff, does that mean you will too?”

And for the record, I have left parties, bars/clubs, friend’s homes, etc., when there was too much smoke. Why stay if you’re not having a good time?

14

Eriatarka, your argument essentially boils down to

“I don’t like smoke but I want to associate with people that do - the government should block out reality so I don’t have to make this choice”

15

Obviously you have the choice to stop going out with your friends altogether if you dislike smoking, but realistically not many people are going to sacrifice their social life just to avoid being in an environment with smokers.

So whose fault is that? I would say with the hypocrit who claims to dislike smoking so intensively and yet not act on that dislike in a morally acceptable way. In fact, your grasp of the facts of social pressure, economics, and the willingness of businesses to value customers (“act to gain and keep”) would be reprehensible applied to the US context. Prior to the legislated bans on smoking, most businesses in the US had established appropriate segregations and restrictions simply based on consumer demand. A friend who opened a food & beer joint worked his ass off to design a place where the presence of smokers would not affect the non-smokers – this even without a separate smoking / non-smoking section. The basic flaw in your position is that you believe that a total smoking ban is necessary, which it is not. It is simply necessary that smokers and non-smokers be able to coexist under one roof. When that is impossible because of the nature of the facility, somebody has to decide just now intolerant they and whether their love of that pub outweighs their freaking intolerance. If it does, they can go to an establishment that caters to their beliefs. Or, they can convince the management that their side is in the spending majority and that it’s better to lose the die-hard smokers than the anti-smoke radicals.

Yeah, someone may really dislike smoke for both the health risks and the disgusting smell, but theyre unlikely to feel passionately enough about the issue to give up their friends.

If your friends are smokers, then you better get new friends or learn to tolerate smokers. If you are intolerant of farts and your friends fart, then you better get new friends or learn to tolerate farters. It is that simple.

16

Obviously you have the choice to stop going out with your friends altogether if you dislike smoking, but realistically not many people are going to sacrifice their social life just to avoid being in an environment with smokers. Yeah, someone may really dislike smoke for both the health risks and the disgusting smell, but theyre unlikely to feel passionately enough about the issue to give up their friends.

Then its actually a very real world argument. What people value is reflected in what they choose over other things.

You’re essentially saying that because people have values and act according to them that they don’t have choice. We’re saying that poeple’s choices tell you what their actual values are. So stop whining that you WANT something else, when you don’t actually act as if you do.

A night out with friends at a mutually agreed upon restaurant is more important to most people than the health risk posed by sitting in a smoking restaurant that same night. Business owners give you what you actually value. When you actually are willing to demand your friends go to a non-smoking establishment, then 10 to 1, you’ll see restaurants that cater to your desires.

But then that actually fits with reality since the actual added risk of getting lung cancer form 2nd hand smoke you get in restaurants is… well, pretty much 0.

The fact that you have the choice, but wouldn’t take it doesn’t negate the choice. It simply says that as much as you want to think it otherwise, most people think the choice irrelevant, given the way they want to live their lives.

17

But then that actually fits with reality since the actual added risk of getting lung cancer form 2nd hand smoke you get in restaurants is… well, pretty much 0.

Not true, according to the CDC, wikipedia, and many other sources. Secondhand smoke has real health effects. (But, as I mentioned above, so does car exhaust.)

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics…ndhandsmoke.htm

The fact that you have the choice, but wouldn’t take it doesn’t negate the choice. It simply says that as much as you want to think it otherwise, most people think the choice irrelevant, given the way they want to live their lives.

How much public support smoking bans have would reflect how relevant people thought the choice was, but the smoking bans I am aware of all started at the government level, so it’s tough to say how much popular support there was for them.

I will mention, all the smoking/non-smoking section restaurants I went to were ineffective. Your food was carried through smoke to get to you, and the smoke would be circulated in your section anyway.

Philosophically, I agree with the anti-smoking-ban arguments. We’re seeing government become a tool for enforcing what should be a socially-moderated (and often accepted) behavior.

18

Not true, according to the CDC, wikipedia, and many other sources. Secondhand smoke has real health effects. (But, as I mentioned above, so does car exhaust.)

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics…ndhandsmoke.htm

Yikes, someone always tries this. Do me a favor will you? Dig through that report and pull out the conclusions that you think would be relevant to a discussion here. I’ll be happy to continue to stand by my statement.

You’ll have to remember the context of course, and then dig through the study. Common traps:

a. expressing risk in relative terms. “increases your risk of X by 20%”. OK what’s the base risk of X?

b. dropping context. “studies show that exposure at work or at home increase…” hmmm that will almost certainly mean an assumption of extended chronic exposure which is not what we’re talking about here.

c. “models” that make wildly unrealistic assumptions or which have a very specific context or are extrapolated. Look under “modeling techniques” to start to dig there.

d. claims of “there is no dosage which does not carry risk”. Well, 1 that’s a lie or it’s highly contextual and 2 even if very low doses still carry effects, they are “essentially 0”.

many more. thanks for playing…

Philosophically, I agree with the anti-smoking-ban arguments. We’re seeing government become a tool for enforcing what should be a socially-moderated (and often accepted) behavior.

Well good. At least we agree on that.

19

I would just like to add that I don’t really like smoking except with alcohol. After a few beers, a cigarette is very pleasurable. After a couple of glasses of whisky a smoke is lovely. After a glass of wine, it should be a sin, but it can still be quite pleasurable. If one doesn’t drink a lot, then the risk is quite little. To take away this freedom from me, more than the pleasure of smoking, has really angered me and it will take years to get over, years because it opens up intellectually the degree of my “enslavement” in a big city I love. Don’t worry, the bar owners tend to feel the same way.

But I got a solution. I will share it in the future because it involves a fiction story that I may or may not write.

jose.

20

many more. thanks for playing…

Sorry, Micheal, that was a bit flip. The point is it was a very contextual statement and the biggest mistake we make is realizing that even proven risks many times have very limited contexts, and a general statement such as “2nd hand smoke is dangerous” just isn’t true.

This is especially true of chemical effect. The context of exposure is important, the context of dosage is critical, and there is no such thing as an intrinsically dangerous chemical.

I especially chuckle when I read things like: “Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.” Water (and everything else) falls into the first category, and an awful lot of things we see daily (and deal with safely) fall into the 2nd.’

By the way the lifetime risk of dying from water toxicity (also known as drowning) is about 1 in 1100, or 0.1% - the 9th leading cause, or “almost 0”. Which is incredibly stunning considering how much of the stuff is just lying around waiting to kill us and the fact that we haven’t banned water in public places yet. Lifetime cancer risk is much higher tho, 3rd leading cause and about 15%, but then we’re talking about lung cancer, and there are some 300 different kinds of cancer in that 15% so you might have to dig a little deeper before you’ll figure out that the added risk from 2nd hand smoke in restaurants, is less than drowning.

http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm