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