Posted by Orin Kerr:
Dialogue on the Merits of Smoking Bans:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_12-2005_06_18.shtml#1118867604
Today's [1]Washington Post reports that a proposed smoking ban in DC
restaurants and bars is gaining ground. I have conflicting views on
the proposed smoking ban. The debate in my head goes something like
this:
CON: I can't believe DC wants to ban smoking in restaurants and
bars. Does the government need to regulate everything? Whay can't
they just let restaurants and people do what they want?
PRO: You're missing something important. Being around smoke is a
big annoyance for many non-smokers; the smell is very unpleasant,
and non-smokers often need to pay to get their clothes dry-cleaned
to get the smell out. The smoking ban is about avoiding those costs
and harms on innocent third parties.
CON: But we can let the market decide this. If some people want
to smoke, they can go to a smoking bar or restaurant. If some
people want to go to a place than bans smoking, some businesses
will ban smoking on their own volition to cater to that audience.
The market will adjust to have some smoking places and other
non-smoking places. It's a win-win.
PRO: That sounds good in theory. But you're missing the fact that
decisions to go to a particular restaurant or bar are usually group
decisions, in which the least offensive option for the group wins
out. Smokers usually are addicted to nicotine; if given the choice
between a smoking place and a non-smoking place, they will voice a
very strong preference for the non-smoking place. Non-smokers may
strongly prefer going to a non-smoking place, but they'll voice
less objection about going to a smoking place because it's not a
chemical addiction for them. This means that even if most
individual people prefer a non-smoking place, most groups will
choose smoking places, and most restaurants will permit smoking.
CON: I think you're basing that argument on a paternalistic value
judgment about the merits of smoking, though. If a group makes a
collective decision to go to Smoking Bar A instead of Non-smoking
Bar B, it presumably means that the members of that group on the
whole are happier at A than at B. Non-smokers may be a little bit
annoyed by being around smokers, but that annoyance is outweighed
by the pleasure the smokers get from smoking. It sounds like you're
valuing the views of non-smokers more than those of smokers; you
discount the latter because to you they are just "feeding an
addiction."
PRO: Maybe. But is that illegitimate? After all, an addiction
could be defined as something that a person feels compelled to do
repeatedly even if they realize it is against their best interests.
Given that, I'm not sure it's unfair to treat nicotine urges as a
less valued set of preferences than a non-smoker's preference to be
in a smoke-free environment.
CON: What's next? Are you going to ban smoking altogether, even
in private homes? I dont know where your principle stops.
PRO: There's a decent argument for limiting the ban to bars and
restaurants, actually. Bars and restaurants are enclosed spaces
where you are physically close to other people you don't know.
Smokers often ask their friends if their friends mind them smoking
before lighting up, as they realize that many non-smokers are
annoyed by the practice. The smoking ban would just extend the same
courtesy to others the smokers don't know.
CON: That's not quite right, though. The proposed ban wouldn't
just give non-smokers veto power. It imposes a ban that all smokers
must follow even if everyone in the bar or restaurant wants to
smoke. That interferes too much with personal choice for my taste.
So who has the stronger argument, PRO or CON? And what arguments are
they missing? I have enabled comments. As always, civil and respectful
comments only.
References
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400873.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
