Asymmetrical Information

A better analogy would be:

I know smoking isn't good for my health, but neither is jumping off a cliff, eating rat poison, or sucking the exhaust pipe of a car.

We all choose how much we expose ourselves to situations or products which are detrimental to our health. And we shouldn't use bad rationalisations to excuse ourselves or make our activities seem less bad. When you do something, you have to accept the consequences and deal with them, or not do it at all.

I smoke, and I definitely hope I'll be able to quit once I graduate or have children (which is my current plan). But if I don't, it'll be my own damn fault and I'll likely die of cancer, and I won't shrug it away by saying that it doesn't matter because this world is so dangerous anyway.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but is he saying that antismoking laws are totalitarian? Those laws are only necessary because it became obvious that expecting people to behave courteously and unselfishly regarding their smoking habits wasn't working. The best thing the Democrats have done in 60 years was the passage of laws prohibiting smoking in the work place. Imagine being stuck in the same office as a manager who smoked like a chimney and had the attitude that her position gave her the right to make her employees breath her poisons. No, I couldn't just find another job, and why should I. She was the one with the problem.

"nor is living"

Indeed, the mortality rate is 100%.

is he saying that antismoking laws are totalitarian? Those laws are only necessary because it became obvious that expecting people to behave courteously and unselfishly regarding their smoking habits wasn't working.

"Wasn't working" ?

It was working quite well - it was just the case that there was not a 100% ban on smoking. In that sense, there was a "market failure", because one side didn't get absolutely everything they wanted for free.

All in all I'm happier with the smoking bans today, but that doesn't mean that they were anything other than unjust, unwarranted, and an imposition on the rights of private property owners.

I cough like heck around most smokers, but I'm on their side. Get rid of the 100% ban. It's stupid. A company can make "no smoking" rules inside, if they'd like, but get the bloody government out of it!

We're turning into a bunch of grannys. "Ooh, I have to deal with this, it's not faaaaaiiiiir...." Very few things are fair. I aim to presume on the side of liberty when it comes to trying to make them fair, if I just can't resist meddling.

Why do too many libertarians go down the road arguing that cigarette smoke should be the one workplace hazard that is exempt from regulation. Shouldn't smoking should be as regulated as noise, benzene exposure, asbestos, or anything else in the workplace.

Why do too many libertarians go down the road arguing that cigarette smoke should be the one workplace hazard that is exempt from regulation.

What makes you think we want regulation of all those other things?

jordan,

Those laws are only necessary because it became obvious that expecting people to behave courteously and unselfishly regarding their smoking habits wasn't working. [ . . .] No, I couldn't just find another job, and why should I. She was the one with the problem.

Well, to be precise, she was the one with the behavior that irritated you. I hope you aren't planning to extend this vision of banning annoyances from workplaces to everything irritating, or we're going to have laws against everything from nail-biting to cooking anything other than vegetarian food in the company microwave to singing Gilbert & Sullivan tunes under your breath.

I know, I know, not offenses of the same order, not life- or health-threatening, &c. But there are people who react very badly to perfumes, people who react even more badly (we're talking anaphylaxis here) to peanuts. Do we ban scent from workplaces next? I assure you I've sat in a classroom next to a girl who drenched herself in scent and in the office of a professor who constantly smoked cigars there, and I know damn well which was the more annoying to me. Only, you see, the people who wrote the laws and regulations you admire didn't ask me. That's why women (and men) dripping with perfume are everywhere, while the professor can no longer smoke in his office.

Contrary to popular critical belief, many libertarians understand externalities quite well.

"....refuses to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol."

Ummmm......and the (maybe) 0.5 degree C rise avoided if it, and several other countries, did sign on makes what less dangerous to your health? Or are you saying that the dangers of "second-hand smoke" are as similiarly hyped? There we would have an agreement.

Poor guy, somebody oxed his Gore..

I'm sure he draws great comfort from knowing that all those oh so concerned Euros signed on for Kyoto. Never mind that since they've signed they've ignored it as easily as they ignore most treaties.

Whence the "old notion" that only dictatorships can be totalitarian? Read your Federalist Papers, pal, that's a fairly new notion I never bought into.

Jordan, do you live in a tiny isolated town with only one employer? Otherwise, you can find other work. The only question is whether you are willing to put in the time to hunt for it, and to possibly take a lower-paying job. Your problem does not justify restricting everyone's freedom.

I am hypersensitive to smoke, whether it's from tobacco or city air pollution. Fifteen years ago I took a 50% paycut to move to an unpolluted rural location. I remember a time when smokers thought they had the right to light up just anywhere, and it was impossible to find a restaurant that wasn't filled with smoke, and about the only smoke-free job available was farm work - if you stayed upwind of the other workers...

But that time ended 30 years ago. Now most restaurants at least try to provide a smoke free environment for those customers that ask for it. Most workplaces are smoke free. Most of those that aren't, allow smoking because a large number of customers want to smoke there. Almost anyone can find smoke free work if they make that a priority. Of course, if you trained as a bartender, a tobacco store salesman, you might have to take a lower paying job that doesn't use your skills, but it was you that chose to specialize in working with smokers. If you're a waitress, there are restaurants that ban all smoking, but you might not make as much - you don't get tips working at McDonald's. So the question is, is the income difference worth breathing smoke?

"So the question is, is the income difference worth breathing smoke?"

Actually markm, the question is: Are the externalities associated with smoking so unpleasant to most people that a democratic society would ban smoking in public places?

And the answer appears to be: Yes.

I'm sure that's inconvenient and unpleasant for smokers. People who want to take a dump in the middle of a crowded office space rather than use the toilet find themselves inconvenienced in our society as well. In both cases, too bad.

"and the question is: Are the externalities associated with smoking so unpleasant to most people that a democratic society would ban smoking in public places?

And the answer appears to be: Yes."

Puh-leeze don't make assumptions. The answer where? In America, it is yes. In Spain, it is no. The ban was imposed by the current administration, not voted, and clearly does not reflect the way most Spaniards think, which is what drives our beloved Mr. Marias crazy- and rightfully so. The note was written in Spain by a Spaniard about a Spanish law. Don't assume the American viewpoint applies everywhere.

okay, I lived in Spain for 4 years, and I can assure you that everyone does *not* ask if it's okay if they smoke, almost everyone, in fact, lights up whenever they want. The only generally accorded courtesy was that one would not light up at a meal while others were still eating. And the ventilation in many places was so minimal that it really didn't matter whether anyone in your group smoked. I love Spain, but they have one of the highest smoking rates in Europe, so I can see the motivation for this law. It's a shame those proposing the law didn't try harder to use the wedge of lung cancer incidence in non-smoking servers. That worked well in California, and would appeal to the Spaniard sense of fairness to workers.

Well, that's the point, mateu: Spaniards have one of the highest smoking rates because, well, they like it. Yes, not everyone asks for permission to light up (I wouldn't say nobody does either), but then again it's not the US. I'm sure you noticed not too many non-smoking Spaniards complain when sharing a place with a smoker.

"Puh-leeze don't make assumptions. The answer where? In America, it is yes. In Spain, it is no... Don't assume the American viewpoint applies everywhere."

As should be clear from Jordan's initial comment that references Democrats passing anti-smoking laws, he was talking about the United States when talking about his workplace smoking situation. Markm responded to that, and I responded to markm. So, we were talking about the US. You are the one making the assumption that I was talking about Spain. Puh-leeze don't do that. Also puh-leeze take your knee-jerk accusations of American arrogance and stuff them. Thank you.

"living in a world where the United States refuses to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol."

Kyoto is not worth the paper it was written on.

IF anthropogenic warming can be proven, IF it is caused by CO2 (and not the other greenhouses gases like H2O) and IF everyone signs on, it will result in a total 0.5 degree change over many years, at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's a foreign exchange money grab that will ultimately benefit only the countries with CO2 credits to sell.

I spend hundreds of dollars annually to heat my home. I'm looking forward to warming.

Climate is in constant change. If you remember your Geography classes, all of North America was covered by ice, which receded multiple times. This period is no different.

We need research & facts, not conjecture & rhetoric.

In that sense, there was a "market failure", because one side didn't get absolutely everything they wanted for free.

Well, no. The problem is that smokers pollute a common resource, namely air. There's no practical way to assign ownership to air, so there isn't a good free-market solution to the problem. That's why government intervention is necessary.

"living in a world where the United States refuses to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol."

In addition to the points made above by EarlW, it's worth remembering that Bush explained his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol by pointing out that it gave China, India and other developing countries a blank check to pollute as much as they wanted. Those who consider this a productive and efficient approach should take a tour of Guangdong Province in southern China. Developing countries are capable of producing massive amounts of pollution as they try to 'catch up' the easy way.

If Europe really wants to solve this problem and get the US on board, perhaps they should respond to Bush's concerns (call his bluff?), but it's easier to simply demonize him.

Courtesy works two ways, and the most discourteous behavior of all is to expect to have one's way all the time, as many who dislike smoking do. That is why property rights should dictate the policy.

There is no reason to accomodate someone so selfish as to expect to dictate the terms on another person's property, especially those who seek to bludgeon those they disapprove of with government force. Don't expect respect, anti-smokers; your tyrannical disrespect for other people's prerogatives has long since disqualified you.

Brett,

I'm not aware of any significant movement that is trying to ban smoking in private residences or any place other than where large groups of people publicly gather. Smoking bans hit e.g. workplaces, public transportation, restaurants and theaters -- but not e.g. private cars, homes or neighborhoods. So feel free to keep smoking in your living room -- you can even take a dump on the middle of your living room floor, if that's what you want. Just don't do either one in a bar or restaurant, mmkay?

If you have evidence of a substantial movement to ban smoking anywhere other than places where large groups of people publicly gather, please let me know and I will join you in condemning it. Otherwise, I must say that the demonic non-smokers you are talking about are strawmen who exist nowhere but your imagination.

Businesses are private property.

mmkay, indeed. Twit

Brett -- the law and society in general have long recognized differences between private property in the form of a home or car and private property in the form of a business that serves large public groups. Among other things, that's why you can refuse to let black people into your house but can't refuse to let them into your restaurant. Private property or not, society has long had the right and the ability to intervene in businesses serving the public, and frequently does so.

I'm sorry that sticks in your craw, but that's the way it is, jackass.

Well, law and society are wrong, and have undermined the individual freedom on which this county was founded.

No, no okay. When your poor philosophy creates some law to bite you on your jackier ass, no complaints!

No one speaks for society, which is a collection of individuals. They can only speak for the interests of some individuals against the interests of others. I refuse to respect the pronouncements of any who claim to do so; it is a false and pretentious attempt to give their views a moral authority they do not possess. It is a failing of all who promote tyranny.

DRB,

I think you are confusing society’s right to recognize and correct a wrong against a specific class/race and an individual right. Our society is founded on equality, so a business that discriminates is not living up to that ideal. Our society has decided that that is wrong and has made laws to protect the under-privileged class/race.

Markm makes the point that he is hypersensitive to smoke. I am sympathetic, but would ask why his rights are more important than someone else’s rights. I am not saying the smoker’s rights trump the non-smoker’s rights, either, so bear with me.

When the anti-smoking folks started their big pushes to “crack down” on smoking, they first got legislation passed that required non-smoking sections. Many businesses did their best to comply, going so far as to installing separate ventilation systems. This seemed to be a reasonable accommodation to both sides of the issue.

That only worked for a very short while, then the push began for a total ban on all smoking in any public place. In many areas, that total ban is now law. Smokers pay a large amount in taxes, but have to go outside to exercise their (for now at least) legal right to smoke.

What happened to the smoker’s rights? Why are they not important? When did one person’s rights become more important than another’s?

The worst thing about it is the precedent that has been set. The anti-smoking campaigns led to a climate where one group had superior rights to another. That inevitably brings litigation. First the lawyers went after the tobacco companies since they were enabling a behavior the superior rights group found objectionable. The lawyers made obscene amounts of money for themselves. Now they have spent that money and need more. They are now going after soft drink makers and fast food.

What happens when they come after something YOU hold dear? What happens when you suddenly become a member of a new, legally manufactured underclass?

Just asking.

Gaius

"Well, law and society are wrong, and have undermined the individual freedom on which this county was founded... When your poor philosophy creates some law to bite you on your jackier ass, no complaints!"

Yes, I'm sure some poor individual way back in the mists of time who was no longer allowed to take a dump in the middle of a crowded restaurant said the same thing. And somewhere, no doubt, he's laughing at the smokers who supported the ban on restaurant-crapping and yelling "I told you so!" Nevertheless, I'm willing to take my chances with this particular slippery slope.

"Our society is founded on equality, so a business that discriminates is not living up to that ideal."

Our society is hardly founded on equality. It took a bloody civil war and then another 100+ years of civil rights struggles to reach the society of racial equality you're talking about. Our society was *not* founded on racial equality -- it evolved to that point over time. Our society's laws evolved at the same time. Our society and its laws continue to evolve, much to the dismay of smokers and the pleasure of non-smokers.

"What happens when they come after something YOU hold dear? What happens when you suddenly become a member of a new, legally manufactured underclass?"

They did -- it was called Prohibition. They also banned gambling for a long time. Most drugs are still illegal. And don't even get me started on the difficulties people used to have getting access to porn.

But eventually society altered and folks decided once again that drinking and gambling and porn were okay. And every now and then I have hopes for legalizing drugs.

But see, I'm not going to go around screaming about unjust tyranny just because I can't light up a joint whenever and wherever I choose, and just because there are still many states that won't allow me to gamble. It's a democracy; larger society is to a certain extent allowed to make rules about activities that carry externalities. No offense, but your rights aren't being infringed against just because you can't piss on the floor in the middle of a museum -- society can reasonably request that you use the goddamn toilet. Similarly, it may be an inconvenience to you that you have to go outside the restaurant or wait until you get home before you can light up a cancer-stick. But it's hardly the second coming of Hitler.

I support legalizing drugs -- but if our society ever does so, I will consider myself completely "untyrannized" if I'm asked to only smoke pot inside a private residence and not do it around people in a restaurant. For that matter, I consider myself "untyrannized" today even though drugs aren't legal at all -- I disagree with the decision but I don't deny that society has the right to make it.

Honestly, smoking is banned in public places frequented by large groups of people and you and Brett carry on like it's the Fourth Reich. Get some perspective.

"Just asking."

Just answering.

Good news! A huge new secondhand smoke study indicates that smoking bans may be as necessary for the protection of public health as once thought.

Press Release

For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005

Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?
December 5, 2005

Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers exposed to smoke at work.

This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers might be worthless.

While many making that claim may have believed their information to be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."

Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together, David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates. Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total smoking ban!

The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los Angeles? Now you know!"

On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.

He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo, were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"

At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass smoking bans.

Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the longstanding smokersclubinc.com newsletter, notes that while it's always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and friends for their illness.

Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up, smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence actually is.

References:

1) Article: A Preliminary Study

2) Mike Siegel's blog analysis and follow up comments:

3) BMJ Response: Helena 1000 Days

4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column: Hit and Run

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of SmokersClubInc.com
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Email: Cantiloper@aol.com

"It's a democracy"

No, it is not. This is the Big Lie of our political history. Democracy (majority rule) and individual freedom are antithetical.

"They did -- it was called Prohibition"

Which was also tyranny, with evil effects that persist to this day: a huge growth in organized crime and government.

"society altered"

You mean government. Society and government are not synonyms, though you wouldn't notice it to listen to the governing classes, who do most of the so-called educating these days.

"you and Brett carry on like it's the Fourth Reich"

No, but it's still tyranny, in the sense the Founders would understand. Here we observe one of the unfortunate result of the horrors of the twentieth century; the idea that any coercion short of mass murder is OK.

"I consider myself "untyrannized" today even though drugs aren't legal"

You can only speak for yourself.

Without any government coercion, with people exercising their individual property rights, non-smokers were enjoying non-smoking conditions in most places 15 years ago. Their selfishness could not abide that, and the focus shifted to trying to equate smoking with crapping on the floor, corrupting science, law and education in the process. Nice going!

"Just answering"

Just insulting my intelligence.

DRB,

Our nation was founded on the idea of equality. That is not to say it was perfect. It was also founded as a republic, the founders (rightly, I think) distrusted mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. To conflate the issue of problems this nation has had living up to it’s ideals as to race and the issue of anti-smoking is ridiculous.

Prohibition was tried; it led to quite a lot of unintended consequences, as social engineering by legal fiat always does. Your raising that particular subject actually illustrates the opposite of what (I think) you were trying to get across.

Yes, society can expect people to use a toilet. That would be a matter of hygiene and likely everyone can agree that is a good thing. That has no bearing on this discussion.

The problem as I see it is that the anti-smoking people have succeeded in creating a superior-rights situation. That is the point I made. I do not think I lost perspective. I repeat: What happens when they come after something you enjoy? What if I decide I cannot bear the smell of coffee and convince enough people to side with me to get the consumption of coffee banned indoors? Coffee, after all, does contain natural carcinogens. There is precedent for such a ban.

Note that I am asking about taking away something you already have, not granting you something you have never enjoyed.

That was my point.

Gaius

Frist of all....sorry because my English....it isn't my language

'remembering that Bush explained his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol by pointing out that it gave is the most China, India and other developing countries a blank check to pollute as much as they wanted'

Come on! Bush is a politician....all politicians lies!!! Spain is on Kyoto and you can be sure that all is changing around industries because medioambiental laws... yes, I live in Spain....

About smoking...all of you can be sure about the most of spaniars are trying to stop smoking, because Spain have one of the highest smoking rates because is cheaper than other countries....In Germany...for example, is most expensive....a packet costs 8� in front of 3� in Spain....do you understand? It likes more to spaniars because is cheaper....a lot of friends of mine has living now in Germany and they left tobacco about that reason....no other one...

Well...thank you for your attention.

Eva-

That extra expense is due to predatory and punitive taxation. The United States was the result of a tax revolution.

I look forward to our future Boston Smoke Party.

"the focus shifted to trying to equate smoking with crapping on the floor"

Actually Brett, equating smoking and crapping on the floor is unfair...to crapping on the floor. Being exposed to the feces of a rude restaurant patron is unpleasant but at least it doesn't increase the cancer risk of the restaurant patrons and staff.

"Prohibition was tried; it led to quite a lot of unintended consequences, as social engineering by legal fiat always does. Your raising that particular subject actually illustrates the opposite of what (I think) you were trying to get across."

Gaius, the only point I was looking to make is that society has long implemented these types of bans. This is no new, unprecedented tyranny. Now if, as you suggest, bans on smoking in restaurants and bars result in the catastrophic unintended consequences of e.g. Prohibition, I'm sure the bans will be lifted just like Prohibition was. So far, I see no indication that a modern-day Al Capone has taken over the streets of America thanks to his chain of illegal but lucrative smoking-friendly bars. But I suppose it could happen, perhaps in the same universe where you get a bunch of people together to ban coffee drinking.

I guess this is my point: that you and (less intelligently) Brett are taking a minor imposition of societal rules (i.e. no smoking in places frequented by large public groups) and trying to suggest it is something much bigger and much greater than it is. It's not. It's a perfectly reasonable attempt to eliminate the negative externalities of an unpleasant habit while still allowing addicts to enjoy that habit where it doesn't bother other people.

Slippery slope arguments are fun and frequently compelling -- but they tend to lead to absurdities when taken to extremes. And you and Brett are taking this particular slippery slope argument to extremes. Banning smoking in restaurants is not Prohibition and will not lead to the consequences of Prohibition. It certainly will not lead to a "Boston Smoke Party" like Brett is suggesting, although he may find it thrilling to fantasize about such a party.

"What if I decide I cannot bear the smell of coffee and convince enough people to side with me to get the consumption of coffee banned indoors?"

Let me know when that happens and I'll let you know. If, in this alternate universe you describe, a sufficiently large percentage of the population is repulsed by the smell of coffee, then a ban on coffee in indoor areas frequented by large groups of the public may be reasonable (just as a ban on crapping on the floor is). The trouble you may encounter is that coffee-drinking, unlike smoking, does not appear to have any negative health impacts on non-coffee drinkers. So I suspect it would be a harder ban to pass.

But again, let me know when we descend that far down the slippery slope and I'll let you know what I think.

"There is precedent for such a ban."

As I pointed out in this post and my previous one, there has long been precedent for such a ban. The ban on smoking in bars and restaurants is not a new or unusual form of regulation. It does not lay groundwork for a ban on e.g. coffee-drinking that did not already exist. And despite the existence of these precedents, we as a nation seem to have done fairly well in keeping our liberties intact.

Tyranny always has a precedent; in fact it is the rule of history, liberty the exception. That my benighted generation and those unfortunate enough to be schooled by it wish to return to the rule is a national disgrace.

Perhaps this article helps explain a few points.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012206D

It's easy to airily dismiss the question I asked by saying "it'll never happen". I'm sure smokers pretty much felt the same way in the early days of the anti-smoking campaign. The exact same group of lawyers that went after tobacco companies are now searching for their next payday by filing suit against soft-drink manufacturers and fast food outlets. Once they've pillaged through that group, who's next?

This kind of ban creates a superior rights vs., inferior rights problem, rather than reaching a tenable accommodation for both groups. The people who felt that smokers were oppressing them have become oppressors.

Have you put gasoline in your car lately? Did you smell the odor of gasoline while you were doing so? If so, you inhaled a well known, true class A carcinogen, benzene.

I point that out and leave it to you to see the connection.

Yes Brett, it's a terrible thing. Personally, I think you should gather together the smokers and the floor-crappers and lead a rebellion against this oppressive tyranny. Don't forget to bring along the coffee drinkers -- I hear that's getting banned next.

Hee hee!

I enjoyed the article, Gaius. Naturally, I'm one of the jaunty folk-Lockists.

Your blog is interesting, too. I don't leave comments where registration is required, so you've dodged that bullet!

Gaius,

I'd appreciate it if you'd put the points you believe the TCS article is making into your own words. I'm interested in hearing what you think is important on this issue. But if you simply point to an article and say, "Here's my argument", then clearly I'm wasting my time engaging with you -- I should be engaging with the author of the article.

"It's easy to airily dismiss the question I asked by saying 'it'll never happen'."

Indeed - it's just as easy to airily insist "it's gonna happen." That is the peril of slippery slope arguments. So rather than worry about whether you and your buddies are going to ban indoor coffee-drinking, it would be more useful to talk about what's actually going on.

But at any rate, I did answer your question. I'll reiterate: if a very large portion of the population considers the smell of coffee to be an obnoxious negative externality, than it would be reasonable to prohibit coffee-drinking in spaces used by large groups of the public.

Now, as for lawsuits, when did we start talking about that? We were talking about smoking bans in restaurants, bars and offices. That has nothing to do with whether a smoker can sue a tobacco company. On that issue, by the way, I completely agree with you. If someone is stupid enough to take up smoking, knowing the health risks it poses (and how could they not?), they have no one to blame but themselves if they get cancer.

So yes: a smoker should have to put up with the obnoxious consequences of their own habit. But that's a completely different question than whether the rest of the public should have to do the same.

"Have you put gasoline in your car lately? Did you smell the odor of gasoline while you were doing so? If so, you inhaled a well known, true class A carcinogen, benzene."

Uh, okay -- I'll take your word for it. But you're asking the wrong question, Gaius. The question is: While you were eating in a restaurant or drinking in a bar, did you inhale benzene and smell the odor of gasoline while I was filling my car?

No? Didn't think so.

"I point that out and leave it to you to see the connection."

Ditto.

Don't expect respect, anti-smokers; your tyrannical disrespect for other people's prerogatives has long since disqualified you.

We neither need not want your respect. You no longer have the "right" to foul the air wherever you go. If you don't like it, tough. Move to a country where smoking is allowed.

When it comes to rights, which are few (life, liberty,property), the opinion of the majority is irrelevant. Only individuals have rights. Groups don't possess them, whether they are majorities or minorities. If an individual wants to allow me to smoke in his bar, that's his right, just as it's his right to forbid me. Third party DRB's opinion has no standing here. If he convinces the government to step in and force his preference on the owner, yes, that is tyranny. The founders understood this; my vain and overschooled contemporaries do not, it appears.

Thanks for proving my point, sukin syn Ivan.

"spaces used by large groups of the public" Even if that space is privately owned? Even if the owner's right to freedom of association is taken away? Even if was your choice to go into the space? Even if you have a right to take your business to a place that does not allow smoking?

Your rights trump everyone else's?

That is the problem with the ban.

My very first comment here mentioned the lawyers, btw. I am not talking about smokers suing tobacco companies. The slippery slope is a lot more real and dangerous than you are willing to admit.

As to what constitutes a true class A carcinogen, that is where it can be shown in a laboratory that there is a direct causal relationship between the agent and cancer.

See:

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932

And see if you can tell the difference between benzene and tobacco smoke in the methodology. One is a direct causal factor, unequivocably. The other is inferred (and very weakly AND in a different context than casual contact).

I throw that last bit in not to defend smokers, but to point out that using bad science to dictate law is a very big step down the slippery slope.

" 'spaces used by large groups of the public'" Even if that space is privately owned?"

Yes. Owners of private property face restrictions on their rights regarding that property once they start to use it for commercial purposes that involve interaction with large groups of the public.

"Even if the owner's right to freedom of association is taken away?"

Yes. A business owner's freedom of association is restricted when it comes to engaging in a commercial business that serves the public.

"Even if was [the non-smoker's] choice to go into the space?"

Yes. A commercial business that serves the public is a different kind of private property than a home or car.

"Even if [the non-smoker] has a right to take [their] business to a place that does not allow smoking?"

Yes. A commercial business that serves the public is a different kind of private property than a home or car.

"Your [presumably non-smokers'] rights trump everybody else's?"

Yes, when it comes to commercial businesses serving the public. You have to serve black people too, even though the business is your private property and even though you feel it violates your right to free association. Sorry.

"That is the problem with the ban."

Yeah, you agree to a lot of infringements on your rights when you own and operate a commercial enterprise. You even have to serve black people. But I'm afraid serving black people, and stopping your smoking customers from bothering your non-smoking customers, are crosses you're just going to have to bear.

By the way, you can keep asking the question but it's not going to change law, precedent, or society's attitude toward the rights and responsibilities of commercial business owners. The answer will continue to be yes.

Maybe you can join Brett in that revolt against tyranny. Don't forget to invite the coffee drinkers!

Not only should we ban smoking; we should make smokers pick up every cigarette butt discarded in public areas. I can't wait to see what arguments the pro-smokers here come up with to defend the practice nearly every smoker engages in: littering.

What's saddest about this exchange is that you think you're enlightened and progressive because you're in favor of legalized gambling, legalized porn and legalized drugs.

But you cheerfully advocate the acceptability of taking away other's rights on something you personally are offended by.

And you cannot see the problem with that logic. That's terribly sad.

The difference in our stances is that I would still defend your rights even if they personally offended me.

Hear, hear! Gaius

Since when is smoking a right? Is it in the Constitution?

Goodness, Gaius, look at the smoke from all your burning strawmen!

"What's saddest about this exchange is that you think you're enlightened and progressive because you're in favor of legalized gambling, legalized porn and legalized drugs.

But you cheerfully advocate the acceptability of taking away other's rights on something you personally are offended by."

I am in favor of legalized drugs, drinking, gambling, porn...and, yes, smoking. If someone is a smoker, I am not in the least bit offended by that. People should be able to smoke, absolutely.

But unlike you, I recognize that my rights end where other people's rights begin -- and vice versa.

You have a right, Gaius, to masturbate to porn if you want. But that doesn't mean you have the right to spray your semen on someone in a restaurant nor do you have the right to start beating off on the city bus.

You have the right, Gaius, to take a dump on your living room floor if you want. You don't have the right to take a dump on the floor of the bar I'm drinking at.

You have the right, Gaius, to smoke. You don't have the right to spray your smoke in my clothes, hair and lungs while I'm eating at a restaurant.

Not letting you inflict the negative externalities of your habits on other people is in no way an infringement on your rights. What's saddest about this exchange is that you can't understand that.

"The difference in our stances is that I would still defend your rights even if they personally offended me."

Hardly. The only right I'm asking you to defend is my right to quietly enjoy a meal, a drink, or a movie in a public place without you spraying semen on me, taking a dump next to my chair, or blowing smoke in my clothes, hair and lungs. And you aren't doing a damn thing to defend that right.

The question betrays a failure of education.

Rights are innate. Governments cannot bestow rights; they can only protect them or violate them. These rights would exist had the Constitution never been written. The Constitution does not grant rights, but guarantees them; in fact the constitution limits the actions of the government itself, not the the rights of the people. Among these rights are liberty, which is freedom of action, not freedom from annoyance.

Smoking comes under liberty. The practice of liberty is so multitudinous and various that the Ninth amendment was required: "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed as to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is the short answer.

DRB is addicted to the last word, which he is welcome to. He doesn't understand that he nor his army may dictate the terms on private property, even if it's open to the public.

Patronize a restaurant whose owner forbids smoking, and leave the others alone. I'll do the opposite. In that situation, no one's rights are violated, and everyone's interests are served. That's fair.

Sorry you're so selfish you can't see that.

Whoo hoo! Last word!

Heh heh heh.

You just have to keep bringing in biological functions and getting more crude, don't you? I've maintained a reasonable tone in this discussion.

Brett is right. Let the market work without depriving someone else of their pursuit of happiness.

You're still maintaining that your right is superior to someone else's. You believe you should be able to go anywhere you wish and impose your standard of behavior on others. Also you appear to believe you have property rights to someone else's establishment.

That slippery slope will eventually catch up with you. When you tolerate tyranny you get back more of the same. When you tolerate the superior rights of some group over another, you are missing the point of the constitution (as amended, of course).

You also seem to be laboring under the assumption that I am a smoker.

I gave it up.

I still enjoy smoky bars, however.

Well, law and society are wrong, and have undermined the individual freedom on which this county was founded.

By that statement alone, your objective measure of individual freedom (and the antithesis thereof that defines "wrong") has no fulfillment other than a feudalized anarchy, or a private island. Otherwise, society only survives when it has a government, and government regulates the behavior of the individual in a public place. The individual, in turn, submits to these limitations because public, regulated interactions are sometimes more beneficial than a life of unrestrained isolation.

In that sense, your definitions of right and wrong ring a little hollow, bordering on tantrumish. You are, of course, welcome to protest what you don't like -- including public-place smoking bans -- but the emotional element is wearing thin.

Yes, society can expect people to use a toilet. That would be a matter of hygiene and likely everyone can agree that is a good thing. That has no bearing on this discussion.

Before people knew what good hygiene was, they crapped in a chamber pot situated a few feet behind the dinner table, then returned to eating without even wiping. When general interests turned to issues of privacy and hygiene, they put the chamber pot in its own closet (starting with Marie Antoinette, FWIW) and began working to minimize the associated odors. Once germ theory was better understood and public waterworks became common everywhere, flushed sewers and handwashing entered the picture.

Now, if you DO decide to take a crap in the midst of a public place, it doesn't matter if you use the floor or a coffee can, you can face legal consequences for it. This is entirely germaine to the discussion of public smoking. The fact that a lot of people do it does not make it healthier for others or any more pleasant. As for the coffee example...good luck, but the scent of coffee is its only known externality. No particulate emissions or known carcinogens emitted into a confined public area.

Maybe this runs contrawise to your views on personal rights and liberties, but if so, those views are better suited to caves and spears -- not a societal collective where a majority of individual rights must be regulated to prevent collisions. Or do you also suppose that your right to own a car and operate it in a public place negates the responsibility to traffic laws, even the ones you don't like?

Good luck explaining it to the cop. I hear the local/county constables sometimes have a sense of humor, but never the state police.

I'm preety sure smoking was not one of FDR's Four Freedoms.

Get. A. Grip.

Actually there is a movement to ban smoking in private homes.

http://ash.org/custody-and-smoking.html

Action on Smoking and Health would like to make it illegal for anyone to smoke in the residence of a minor child.

"You just have to keep bringing in biological functions and getting more crude, don't you? I've maintained a reasonable tone in this discussion."

A bit squeamish about that, are you? It struck me as the most effective possible way to make the point that there are many, many things that people have a right to do on their own time and in relative privacy that nevertheless are inappropriate in a public place where they are likely to bother others.

Smoking in public places doesn't seem quite so harmless once you understand that many people find a stranger's unwanted smoke to be about as unpleasant as a stranger's unwanted feces or semen. If anything, the smoke is worse -- since to my knowledge, feces and semen are not known to be carcinogenic.

At any rate, for the millionth time, Gaius -- just because you aren't allowed to impose the negative externalities of your habits on other people in public places, it does not mean that your rights are being infringed on.

"You believe you should be able to go anywhere you wish and impose your standard of behavior on others."

Not me personally, Gaius, so drop that strawman. What I believe is that our larger society does have some ability (not complete, but some) to impose standards of behavior in public places.

"Also you appear to believe you have property rights to someone else's establishment."

Again, not me personally, so please stop debating strawmen and debate me instead. And it's not a matter of belief -- our larger society does have some control over an individual's commercial establishment, property rights or no.

"That slippery slope will eventually catch up with you. When you tolerate tyranny you get back more of the same. "

Uh-huh. Sure. No doubt the storm troops of the anti-coffee drinking Gestapo are preparing to lock me up in a concentration camp as we speak. Well, I can't say you didn't warn me. Again, Gaius -- perspective.

"You also seem to be laboring under the assumption that I am a smoker."

I was actually pretty sure you weren't a smoker. I assume you don't take dumps on the floor either. But I don't deny your right to do either one if that's your thing. Just not around me in a bar or restaurant, hey?

He doesn't understand that he nor his army may dictate the terms on private property, even if it's open to the public.

We can, and we will. Ha, ha! You lose.

Ah, Roosevelt, one of the most banefully influential Presidents, was an avid smoker and would disagree with RMc. The four freedoms was politcal rhetoric, not the law of the land.

Those who distrust freedom always resort to the anarchy canard. Dismissed. Defending the Rights of Man is not anarchy; the promotion of ever-increasing government control usually leads to just that.

If you can't defend the liberties of those you disapprove, you don't deserve defense yourselves. See you after American Hiroshima.

Every fan of government force here demonstrates the decline of liberty in the U.S. I imagine they would have been Royalists in 1776, bitching about the tantrums of the Revolutionaries.

A strawman is a weak argument set up to be easily confuted (Merriam-Webster definition).

I have not been using strawmen.

I'm not a fan of big government in general, if you hadn't noticed. I certainly have a problem with creating a superior-rights situation. Apparently, you do not see it as such or simply are in favor of it if it regulates a behavior you find objectionable. I tend to be a little less situational. As has been pointed out, what started as a push to provide non-smoking areas expanded to a total ban and is already now threatening a complete ban even in people's homes. That is the slope in action. When will it stop, and what comes next? If you tolerate it, you encourage it the next time. You keep disparging the coffee question, but it can be anything - that was the point.

If it makes any difference, I have held exactly the same opinion of this particularly nanny-statish bit of social engineering from it's earliest incarnation.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not squeamish, I just try not to intentionally treat people rudely as a routine matter. I can (and do) take the occassional shot at folks, but don't find being intentionally offensive to be a really effective debating technique. Even on the internet.

Can anybody direct me to a real/verifible/based-on-something-other-than-the "accepted wisdon" study that says second hand smoke is actually issue at all? I can't find one. Just sweeping statements. I can find a number of studies that reach the opposite conclusion...i.e. there doesn't seem to be a statistically relevant connection between second hand smoke and increased disease statistics.

There isn't one, Eric.

This is what the sweeping statements are based off.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932

As I pointed out above, look at benzene, then look at the basis for the conclusion for second hand smoke. See the difference?

Speaking of totalitarianism, the Labour government of Britain -- where a public smoking ban has now been instituted in the face of serious protests -- is seeking not only to introduce identity cards but to have an inspectorate with the right to raid pri vate homes and check that you have one. They haven't a hope in hell of achieving this, but you have to despair of a country that stood up to the Nazis ending up trying to outdo them.

As I pointed out above, look at benzene, then look at the basis for the conclusion for second hand smoke. See the difference?

If you can't defend the liberties of those you disapprove, you don't deserve defense yourselves. See you after American Hiroshima.

Inability to pursue a filthy, disgusting, cancer-causing habit in public = nuclear destruction. Ah, ha. Got it.

What an idiot.

Idiocy includes fiddling with unnecessary domestic policy while Rome burns.

I also includes handing the governing classes the tools to suppres the liberties of those you disapprove and thinking they will stop there.

Smoking is not a liberty or a right. It is just stupid. Maybe if all you smokers pick up every single discarded cigarette butt, we will let you keep smoking outdoors.

In Washington State, we've passed a law banning smoking in all public places or within 25 feet of entrances to those places or intake ducts to those places. The reason we did so is because second hand smoke kills people. The rights of potential victims of second hand smoke trump the rights of smokers.

Eric P: They can't get valid results on the health effects of second hand smoke on the population at large because:
1) People's tolerance to smoke varies widely.
2) People can control their exposure.

If you study nonsmokers working in smoky environments versus those that don't, you are comparing two self-selected groups. Nearly all of those who might be harmed by smoke at those levels have put themselves into the no second-hand smoke group. So, no surprise, the studies show no significant health effect. I certainly don't advocate picking people at random and forcing them to work in smoky or nonsmoking restaurants as assigned, but something like that is the only way to get a valid statistical study of the effect of second hand smoke on adult humans.

Another possibility is to study children whose parents smoke in the house versus those who don't, since children don't often get to pick their parents. This might be hard to do on a large enough scale for statistical significance, it would not definitely settle the question for adults, and if it came out with a definite correlation as I expect it would, all it really proves is that the children of people who put their addiction above their children's welfare don't do as well as the children of non-addicts. That's no surprise to anyone familiar with the effects of alcoholism, heroin, or cocaine addiction on families, but those children are harmed by abuse, neglect, and parental bad example, not directly by the drugs.

You could try to measure the effect of second-hand smoke on rats. However, if I remember correctly, researchers trying to prove the smoking/cancer link had to use dogs because they couldn't get enough smoke into a rat to cause cancer without suffocating it, so I doubt you'll find any effect from low levels of smoke - which proves nothing about humans.

So, the bottom line is that I know second-hand smoke harms me, but it would take Nazi methods to provide definite proof that it kills humans. Nor would such proof justify banning all smoking in restaurants, etc. The people who are harmed by smoke can find smoke-free restaurants and employment. There's no reason to restrict the freedom of everyone else to keep a tiny minority from having to be aware of what's around them!

As for the person with the biological functions obsession: It wasn't laws that kept people from crapping on the floor in bars and restaurants. Until the 20th century most countries did not have enough police to enforce such a law, and definitely England and the US didn't. The enforcers were the owners, using their right to control what went on in their own property, and motivated by the desire to keep their paying customers, if not by their own tastes. To be precise, if you crapped on the floor in a typical 19th century establishment, the owner would thunk you over the head with a cudgel, and all the other patrons would help him drag your unconscious body out.

Similarly, it doesn't take laws against smoking to provide smoke free restaurants. Many owners will see that catering to the majority of non-smokers will bring in more customers than catering to the minority, but in a free market there will also be places that specialize in serving the minority of smokers. It helps to have laws that back up owners against smokers and others who don't respect the owner's right to make the rules for his establishment, especially since we no longer encourage the owners to enforce the rules themselves with a club - but calling the cops to deal with a difficult customer is a whole different matter than having the cops tell you what you can do in your own place.

If there's anyone out there who is as sensitive to smoke as I am, and has locked himself or herself into a job in a smoke-filled room by taking on financial responsibilities that prevent switching jobs: I'm sorry for you, but Darwin wins again.

Second hand smoke kills people.

Comments are Closed.