Smoking Bans

I've been thinking a lot about the prohibition on public smoking today. What got me thinking was this piece in The American Spectator on how Christopher Hitchens thinks smoking bans are un-American.

Now I expect to rant on for a bit so I will do you the courtesy of providing a summary of my thoughts up front.

1. I haven't made up my mind whether smoking bans are good or bad things.
2. Smoking bans are at their core anti-market force and I don't believe that behavior should be legislated.
3. The "science" behind the threats of second-hand smoke don't pass the smell test.
4. All work environments have hazards to some degree or another. If a person doesn't want to work in a bar where there is smoke - they should get a job elsewhere.
5. Smoke is an assault upon the non-smoker but the non-smoker has the free will to not go to an estabishment that allows smoking

Smoking cigarettes is not a basic civil liberty like the right to free speech, freedom of religion or the right to vote but neither is it a threat to society that needs to be stamped out. It's basically a private vice (but as one writer pointed out - so is masturbation but you're not allowed to publicly whack off in a bar or restaurant either).

I like the fact that the bans have been either local ordinances or state laws. I would completely be against any federal attempt to ban smoking (and yes I know that smoking is banned in federal buildings but that's not the same as a federal law banning smoking throughout the land).

I like eating at a restaurant without smoke "ruining" my meal. Recently I had lunch up in New Hampshire and the presence of smokers really did take away from my eating experience. I also like the idea of leaving a bar without my clothes reeking of smoke (I'm a non-smoker).

I don't like the idea of legislating something that a free market should have been able to handle. If there was a demand for smoke free restaurants - wouldn't the market have provided them? A year ago it would be tough to find Atkins friendly menus but today they are everywhere. Nobody had to pass a law for this to happen. Simple demand was all it took. The smoking bans have hurt business significantly at a number of bars that I know about. I haven't seen any data to suggest that smoking bans have increased business anywhere. Laws that are bad for business are in general bad laws. I also agree with the article that "smoking bans undermine the personal liberty of both patron and proprietor" but I'm not sure to what degree.

The main reason for smoking bans is supposedly the danger of second hand smoke which everyone knows is true (emphasis mine). What studies exist that prove the existence of second-hand smoke? Proponents of smoking bans argue that the dangers of second hand smoke create hazardous working conditions. Hitchens rightly skewers this notion.

"Nobody can be compelled to take a job in a restaurant that allows smoking. I'm not an uncritical fan of market forces, but I'm sure they're good enough to sort this out without any help. The idea that there's a worker whose only skill is being a barman or a waiter who can only find a job in a place where he has to inhale others' smoke... I don't believe in the existence of this person. And if he does exist, he shouldn't be able to change my behavior."

I would argue that the person working the fryolator at a fast food restaurant works in a much more hazardous environment than a bartender in a smokey bar. The kid at the fryolator has to deal with getting splashed with hot grease and getting exposed skin and their clothes covered in a film of fat. I bet more studies exist to support the permanent scarring from acne cause by working a fryolator than do studies supporting the existence of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Yet do you think any law banning french fries would ever see the light of day? And I haven't even brought up the dangers of second-hand grease stains or the dangers of slipping on greasy floors.

The argument about hazardous work environments is a slippery slope.

Some people simply didn't want smoking in bars and restaurants but market forces that created a limited number of smoke free environments wasn't enough for them. These people wrongly established laws based upon things that may or may not be true and were able to foist their belief system upon others. This way of doing things is no better than activist judges in my book.

I think a better argument for smoking bans would be the idea that smoke is in itself an assault upon the non-smoking patron. Imagine sitting in a bar when suddenly someone comes in and sprays everyone in the bar with a fine mist of perfume whose smell gets into your hair and clothes and stays with you for the rest of the day. That person would not be tolerated in the bar and may even face arrest. Yet that's exactly what the smoke from a cigarette does.

The problem for people who want to ban public smoking is that what if people knowingly agreed to go into bars where they knew that they'd be sprayed with a fine mist of perfume or more commonly be subjected to cigarette smoke. Wouldn't this negate the assault argument?

Smoking bans were enacted via bad-science and legislative back doors. I like eating in smoke free restaurants but I'm not willing to trade that in exchange for bad laws.