England : Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs

[bandecoot]

Yeah? And what happens when they decide that drinking in pubs is a health hazard?

It is, and a risk to many other people. A study I read in England while I was over there said that 33% of males under 25 and 21% of females under 25 regularly drive after having consumed 3-5 pints of beer. Thats 6-10 standard drinks that are used to determine if you are safe to drive a vehicle. But that's on the roads not in a pub. How safe would you feel on the roads knowing that the highest accident risk groups are also 1 in 3 drunk?

Luckily most pubs are in walking distance from home. No matter where you live.

But drinking in a pub does not cause OTHER people to get sick. I have never heard of any case where a non drinker got cirrosis from someone elses drinking habits. But you can get lung problems from other peoples smoke.

[Alien]

Care to list the mental benefits? Cuz I smoked like a chimney and was like a hamster running on a wheel, here- trying to relieve stress with a substance that actually causes more stress. Maybe I was doing it wrong?

No you weren't doing it wrong.

Something I discovered after I had given up smoking for a while: I had no need that the cigarettes were fulfilling. I didn't have to replace it with anything. The addiction (and it is a very strong addiction) was creating its own need.

[C. D. Ward]

By the way CD, as you are a libertarian, I'd be interested to see what you think of the following argument:

If Forest were arguing a consistent libertarian case, it would come up with a comparable scheme for compensating those who suffer from pollution caused by cigarette smoke.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...804378,00.html

I'd put a tax on cigarettes and use the funds to pay for the detriments it causes to 3d parties.

Interestingly, the extent of the harm produced by second-hand smoke is not as cut-and-dried as it seems. Yes it's disgusting, but long-term health effects are not as well understood as many anti-smoking proponents want us to believe.

At any rate Steve, I fail to see how a "sizable majority" can favor banning smoking and yet still be unable to convince restaurateurs and bar owners that it's in their best interest. A couple days of organized boycotts of such establishments should be more than enough to do the trick. That is, if the majority is really there.

From your other post:

I'm asserting that both smokers and non-smokers like to go out. What it ultimately boils down to is; we can have a situation in which one group carries on performing an unnecessary activity that harms the other group. Or we can have a situation in which they don't. I pick the one in which they don't. How is that unreasonable? If the government is required to bring about such a reasonable situation then thats fine by me.

But the "harm" that comes to the second group only comes by choice: the choice to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Your line of reasoning would also allow me to argue that stripping should be banned from strip joints because I want to go there and drink and all that nudity causes me mental anguish. In fact, that argument IS used to ban such establishments from existence on the grounds that the activities that take place INSIDE harm those on the outside (laws that ban strip joints, bars, etc. from being within X feet or miles of a church or school).

And Mentalist: The problem with most of your examples is that those regulations are designed to curb HIDDEN evils. I can see the hordes of people smoking in a bar and can therefore easily make an informed choice. I can't tell if the restaurant left my chicken salad sitting on the counter overnight and therefore cannot.

As I see it, the prime question for a libertarian is generally going to come down to information. Do individuals have the information needed to make an informed choice? If so, they have every right to either disregard that information, or use it to make a good or even a poor choice. That's freedom. The responsibility of the state is to level the playing field insofar as the dissemination of information is concerned, not to constrain people from making poor choices. Given what we know about tobacco use and even the possibility of the danger of second-hand smoke, do you want to spend your evenings in a smoke-filled bar? That's your lookout. Why should the government get involved and force some people to curtail their leisure activities so others can partake? If there aren't enough people to make it worthwhile for the bar owner to ban smoking, then too bad. Open your own bar for non-smokers.

[Sparko]

But drinking in a pub does not cause OTHER people to get sick. I have never heard of any case where a non drinker got cirrosis from someone elses drinking habits. But you can get lung problems from other peoples smoke.

Never seen a drunk get into a fight in a bar? Or beating on his girlfriend or wife or child? Never seen a drunk trip and knock someone over and hurt them?

Yep, Drunks are just harmless fun, rrriiigghhht. I grew up with an alcoholic father. Drinking harms everyone around the drunk. Mentally and Physically.

[Conductor42]

Here is an idea Hobbit, dont go to England! That way your sensibilities will not be hurt.

I have this idea that the English will not be too disturbed by your lack of a visit to complain about how they run their country.

Relatives in my family own a pub in Scotland, so I would like to visit it.


However, I don't plan on visiting anytime soon - but the same idiots who are pressuring this sort of legislation in the UK are also pressuring it in America.

[Conductor42]

Care to list the mental benefits? Cuz I smoked like a chimney and was like a hamster running on a wheel, here- trying to relieve stress with a substance that actually causes more stress. Maybe I was doing it wrong?

As the saying goes "your mileage may vary". For some people it may do nothing, for others it may cause more stress, for others it may reduce stress. When I'm extremely stressed I will go buy a pack of cigarettes, smoke one, and give the rest to a smoker I know. For me, it can help. I don't know about you, and I don't presume to say that it'll work for everyone.

That causes everybody to pay more in insurance because others smoke and get sick.

Most smokers actually pay more than non-smokers. But, in any case, if enough people get irked over paying more because of them then apply market pressure! Switch to insurance companies that won't carry smokers, complain to your current insurance company, or whichever!

If you want to use your black and white scenario then you are left with legalizing all drugs, having no regulation as to their manufacture and allowing their consumption in all public places.

Exactly. Leave it to the private sector to decide whether they do or don't want to allow such things.

[SteveF]

Interestingly, the extent of the harm produced by second-hand smoke is not as cut-and-dried as it seems. Yes it's disgusting, but long-term health effects are not as well understood as many anti-smoking proponents want us to believe.

I'm not sure. I've seen a considerable number of papers suggesting otherwise, though I'm not a medical expert. The British Medical Association argue that it will promote health and thats good enough for me.

At any rate Steve, I fail to see how a "sizable majority" can favor banning smoking and yet still be unable to convince restaurateurs and bar owners that it's in their best interest. A couple days of organized boycotts of such establishments should be more than enough to do the trick. That is, if the majority is really there.

Well, a number of polls suggest that a sizeable majority do favour banning. That appears to be cut and dried. You are dealing with a seperate issue and one to which I have no particular answer. I'd suggest general political apathy and the peculiarities of the British psyche as being a possible answer.

But the "harm" that comes to the second group only comes by choice: the choice to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Your line of reasoning would also allow me to argue that stripping should be banned from strip joints because I want to go there and drink and all that nudity causes me mental anguish. In fact, that argument IS used to ban such establishments from existence on the grounds that the activities that take place INSIDE harm those on the outside (laws that ban strip joints, bars, etc. from being within X feet or miles of a church or school).

It is indeed a 'choice' to enter the establishment. However, given the lack of non-smoking alternatives it isn't much of a choice. To avoid such places would severely limit a persons social life in modern Britain.

A strip club is a different issue - going to a strip club is unlikely to cause people genuine, measurable harm and potentially a painful death. In addition, the strip club is there for a singular purpose, for people who want to look at naked ladies. It is unlikely to appeal to anyone else, bar the odd sociologist and human geographer. On the other hand, a pub serves a number of purposes beyond simply being a place where people can enjoy a smoke. It occupies a notable place within the fabric of the UK and is a place where people of all sorts go to socialise. It is hardly equivalent to a strip club.

Again, I come back to the simple point of my argument. Two sets of people in the same place. One causes harm to another. We can have a situation in which this group harms the other or a situation in which they don't. I don't see government intervention here as being unreasonable and I certainly don't see it as an extension of a nanny state.

[Jimmy Higgins]

As the saying goes "your mileage may vary". For some people it may do nothing, for others it may cause more stress, for others it may reduce stress. When I'm extremely stressed I will go buy a pack of cigarettes, smoke one, and give the rest to a smoker I know. For me, it can help. I don't know about you, and I don't presume to say that it'll work for everyone.

And if you drink in the morning when you are hungover, you feel a little better. That isn't a benefit, it's called addiction!

And the benefit you speak of... it's merely psychological seeing that cigarettes are a stimulant. You feel better because you think the cigarette is making the stress go away. That's called addiction, not a benefit.

Most smokers actually pay more than non-smokers. But, in any case, if enough people get irked over paying more because of them then apply market pressure! Switch to insurance companies that won't carry smokers, complain to your current insurance company, or whichever!

You are kidding right? We typically don't have a choice of who our insurance company is. It's too expensive to get it on your own.

[Alien]

As I see it, the prime question for a libertarian is generally going to come down to information. Do individuals have the information needed to make an informed choice? If so, they have every right to either disregard that information, or use it to make a good or even a poor choice. That's freedom. The responsibility of the state is to level the playing field insofar as the dissemination of information is concerned, not to constrain people from making poor choices. Given what we know about tobacco use and even the possibility of the danger of second-hand smoke, do you want to spend your evenings in a smoke-filled bar? That's your lookout. Why should the government get involved and force some people to curtail their leisure activities so others can partake? If there aren't enough people to make it worthwhile for the bar owner to ban smoking, then too bad. Open your own bar for non-smokers.

CD, as the discussion seems to have gotten to the point where everyone is simply repeating their arguments, I'm going to broaden it a little, if you don't mind.

What has always concerned me about the libertarian approach is that it seems to leave the weak at the mercy of the strong. I don't know if you go back that far, but I remember when smoking was allowed pretty much everywhere and smokers significantly outnumbered non smokers. I worked in an office, and really had no option to do anything else. I was forced to put up with the stink, and health hazard, of smoke all day long. One day, I got so fed up with it that I brought in a can of strong smelling air freshener, and squirted it around every time someone lit up. It wasn't long before all the smokers were loudly protesting about the smell! I felt my point was made, and explained to them that that was how I felt about their smoke. Interestingly, they didn't get it. As far as they were concerned, it was perfectly OK for them to inflict their stink on me, but totally unacceptable when the tables were turned.

Personally, I don't care who is in the majority. If some people are doing something bad to other people, then it should be stopped (or restricted). The mechanism of leaving it to "the market" works, if it works, to support the wishes of the majority. The minority tends to get the rough end of the deal.

[Sparko]

:cig:

[C. D. Ward]

CD, as the discussion seems to have gotten to the point where everyone is simply repeating their arguments, I'm going to broaden it a little, if you don't mind.

Mind? Why should I mind? You'll still be wrong...

What has always concerned me about the libertarian approach is that it seems to leave the weak at the mercy of the strong.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. Libertarianism is certainly not concerned with ensuring that everyone gets an equal share of the pie, at least in the sense that leftists seem to advocate. Libertarianism is concerned primarily with ensuring that individuals are treated equally under the law. It realizes that individuals are NOT "created" equal in terms of abilities and propensities, but makes no attempt to rectify these "states of nature" as any such attempts would be necessarily arbitrary and unjust.

I don't know if you go back that far, but I remember when smoking was allowed pretty much everywhere and smokers significantly outnumbered non smokers. I worked in an office, and really had no option to do anything else. I was forced to put up with the stink, and health hazard, of smoke all day long. One day, I got so fed up with it that I brought in a can of strong smelling air freshener, and squirted it around every time someone lit up. It wasn't long before all the smokers were loudly protesting about the smell! I felt my point was made, and explained to them that that was how I felt about their smoke. Interestingly, they didn't get it. As far as they were concerned, it was perfectly OK for them to inflict their stink on me, but totally unacceptable when the tables were turned.

I remember the "tail end" of those days, but was lucky enough to work for a company that had voluntarily (!) decided to restrict smoking to a selected areas in the building. I would personally be more understanding of attempts to regulate behavior in the workplace due to the actual restricted availability of alternative choices (what are you going to do, quit?). I still would prefer to allow the market to handle these types of situations (and I think it can). If I owned a business, I would be very cautious in even hiring smokers. There's plenty of research available that demonstrates that they are, on average, less productive and have higher health costs. Unfortunately, such an approach would likely be illegal due to its "discriminatory" nature.

Personally, I don't care who is in the majority. If some people are doing something bad to other people, then it should be stopped (or restricted). The mechanism of leaving it to "the market" works, if it works, to support the wishes of the majority. The minority tends to get the rough end of the deal.

I must confess, this line of reasoning leaves me completely baffled. Why should the majority be forced to suffer just because they're in the majority? I agree, of course, that individuals should not be allowed to knowingly put other individuals in harm's way without their knowledge & consent, but how does that translate to legislating behavior as we're discussing it here? Why must the strong suffer so that the weak don't?

To me, this appears to be the same flawed reasoning used to support redistribution of wealth: the assumption that if I've got something and someone else doesn't, the only way to even the score is to take part of it away from me and give it to them. But I don't believe that life is such a zero-sum game.

Back to the example at hand, I can freely choose to patronize these establishments or not. No one is forcing me to go out to eat or spend time in a bar. If I don't like a particular establishment or feel that the environment is harmful to me, I don't have to go there. Why should I look to the state to force others to give up a behavior they prefer so I can do something I wouldn't otherwise be able to do? How are "some people doing something bad to other people" except by the consent of these "other people"? Should we only be allowed to make choices when someone else can determine beforehand that our choices won't be harmful?

Let's imagine for a moment that you were violently allergic to peanuts. So allergic that the presence of even the smallest hint of peanut aroma could send you into fits. Unfortunately for you, most of the other inhabitants of your town love peanuts, and virtually every restaurant in town serves peanut dishes. Is it okay to have a law passed to outlaw peanut dishes so that you're able to eat out more often? If not, why not?

[Sparko]

Why not legislate what music can be played in clubs? I mean some of the racket produced by these so called "bands" is nothing more than hearing-destroying static and screeches. I think they should make clubs safer for everyone and make them all play nice quiet easy listening rock at normal decibel levels.

[bandecoot]

Never seen a drunk get into a fight in a bar? Or beating on his girlfriend or wife or child? Never seen a drunk trip and knock someone over and hurt them?

Yep, Drunks are just harmless fun, rrriiigghhht. I grew up with an alcoholic father. Drinking harms everyone around the drunk. Mentally and Physically.

Nice herring fling. I said sick, like cancer. Not abusive idiots. Ill see your abusive families and raise you 5% of a driving population driving with 10 beers under their belts.

Your are the one who was saying that banning drinking in pubs was the next big human rights violation on a nice slippery-slope. Now you are bemoning the ills of drinking. Find a consistant stance please Sparko. I may think you are not taking your position seriously.

[Sparko]

Nice herring fling. I said sick, like cancer. Not abusive idiots. Ill see your abusive families and raise you 5% of a driving population driving with 10 beers under their belts.

Your are the one who was saying that banning drinking in pubs was the next big human rights violation on a nice slippery-slope. Now you are bemoning the ills of drinking. Find a consistant stance please Sparko. I may think you are not taking your position seriously.

I wasn't being serious, bandecoot. nice of you to notice. I was pointing out the absurdity of someone legislating a habit like smoking. Smoking harms yourself and those around you, so does drinking. You are the one who is limiting it to health issues. I said "harm"

I would much rather put up with second hand smoke than an abusive alcoholic in a bar. How about you?

[Mentalist]

I wasn't being serious, bandecoot. nice of you to notice. I was pointing out the absurdity of someone legislating a habit like smoking. Smoking harms yourself and those around you, so does drinking. You are the one who is limiting it to health issues. I said "harm"

I would much rather put up with second hand smoke than an abusive alcoholic in a bar. How about you?

You think it's absurd to legislate on smoking, do you extend this to legislation on all drug use? If not, where do you draw the line?