Meddlesome
There is a point where legislation slips from being a useful, if sometimes cumbersome, tool for achieving an orderly, well-functioning society into a meddlesome mess of nanny statism and absurd zealotry. Most of us can sense it easily when it effects us and impedes our lives. It is a little harder to appreciate when the zealotry is something that benefits you; that you might agree with, at least in part. Such is the proposed piece of legislation banning smoking from Auckland’s public open-air places.
I approve of most of the current anti-smoking legislation. Stopping smoking in enclosed public places and restaurants has been a God-send to non-smokers. I well recall the days of being allocated a “non-smoking” table in a restaurant that was inches away from the “smoking area” – an area commonly in the place most likely to trap smoke in the building. I have had to sit a mere couple of feet away from a chain-smoker who alternated between his cigarettes and his asthma inhaler. But the enhancement of my restaurant pleasure is not the reason why I approve of this particular smoking ban – it is because there is ample evidence linking the inhalation of second-hand smoke, in enclosed spaces, with both lung cancer and emphysema.
Similarly, I have no problem with raising the price of tobacco to deter smokers. Again there is excellent evidence that tobacco is indeed price sensitive and thus a higher price will lead to less smoking. I accept that this will likely have a disproportionate effect on the poor, but this is not necessarily a bad thing as the poor are also disproportionally effected by the deleterious health effects of smoking. The government has thrown lashings of money into smoking cessation – there must be at least a dozen fully funded (i.e. free) ways to quit the habit – so one can only assume that those who still smoke choose to do so. I have no particular drive to question this choice – if someone wishes to get their jollies puffing away on smoldering tobacco so be it. Just so long as they do not claim “poverty” while burning through $200-$300 a month. Or worse, claim “child poverty”.
Both of these interventions are driven by reasonably good evidence. However, there is no evidence at all that the minimal amount of second hand smoke experienced by non-smokers in the open air is detrimental in any way whatsoever. One must therefore conclude that this proposed piece of legislation is therefore being propelled by zealotry rather than reason. One must also conclude that the legislation is social engineering rather than preventative health. It is popular with the non-smoking public not because outdoor smoking is a health issue, but because it is bad manners.
No non-smoker likes to have smoke blown at him in a bus queue or on a train platform. No-one like to wade through a miasma of spent smoke when trying to leave a building – through a crowd of desperate smokers clustered under the overhang. Sit down to picnic in a public park and it won’t be long before you catch the faint traces of stale smoke wafting on the breeze. Yet, as annoying as these things may be to us of pure lung and working sinuses, there is no evidence that this is an assault on our health like the non-smoking tables in restaurants.
It would be nice if our fellow humans who occasionally like to breath burning paper would show a little consideration and restrict their smoking to some remote island off our coast or, preferably, quit, but people are entitled to strange habits as long as they are not inflicting harm. Indeed, it is likely that if we restrict their smoking to their domicile, it is likely that the biggest suffers in health terms will be the children trapped in the houses and cars with the chimneys.
I am all for tightening the smoking screws if it can be shown that it is necessary for the public’s health, but just sweeping the smoker into an ever decreasing corner of his/her world is not helpful, merely meddlesome.
Related posts:
- Candy for Adults Remember those candy cigarettes we could buy as kids (now...
- Don’t Admit Them to Hospital, Then It has been interesting reading the various responses to the...
- Spam Journalism #6 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add spice...
- Force Quit Force Quit is what you do on a Mac when...
- A Ban Too Far I support strong measures to persuade people to stop smoking....
Jan 20 12 11:36 pm
Nice little health-fascist rant there Doc. I hope you have the good grace to wear your swastika armband in public so the rest of us can avoid you.
” but people are entitled to strange habits as long as they are not inflicting harm.”
Wrong….its as long as they are not violating an non-consenting other’s rights…An action that violates the rights of others is always harmful…but a “harmful” action need not violate another’s rights….
If all the non smoking diners really hated smoking about them why weren’t smoke free restaurants booming?…And why did the state have to violate peoples property rights by banning smoking where the owner and the patrons wanted it?
Jan 21 12 12:59 am
Wow. A Godwin on the first try! I’m impressed.
Nice libertarian rant, James. Unfortunately your argument is silly. Creating harm in someone without their consent is clearly and very, very obviously a violation of their rights. And don’t give me the “you don’t have to come here” spiel because it doesn’t wash either. Why should I have to abandon a restaurant just because someone refuses to desist in poisoning me? Surely that is an invasion of MY rights?
If all the non smoking diners really hated smoking about them why weren’t smoke free restaurants booming?.
Because restaurants would be hard pressed to initially abandon 25% of their customers.
Because left-wingers would all be banging on about discrimination, if they did
(Anecdotally, a restaurant in Invercargill went smoke-free, nearly went bankrupt in the first six months and had to take weekly complaints from smokers who wanted to light up, despite all the no smoking signs. Fortunately they were saved by the smoke-free legislation)
Jan 21 12 2:33 am
You are ignorant about the difference between rights vs harm it seem’s Doc.
“Creating harm in someone without their consent is clearly and very, very obviously a violation of their rights.”
Not at all..because “harm” is subjective…and its occurrence does not necessarily violate the rights of another to their life,liberty,property and pursuit of happiness. If I set up a competing business next to yours and take your customers by offering them better service and you go under you are certainly “harmed”..but no rights were violated…you never had a “right” to those people’s custom or to be free from competition in a free market. Same as if I come along and sweep the girl you have been courting off her feet and she dumps you. You are “harmed” big time…but again…no rights have been violated. She was never yours as of “right”.
..”And don’t give me the “you don’t have to come here” spiel because it doesn’t wash either. Why should I have to abandon a restaurant just because someone refuses to desist in poisoning me? Surely that is an invasion of MY rights?”
No.. because the rights that matter in this context are those of the property owner. You,like everyone else, patronise his establishment on HIS terms..and if he wants smoking there then as a non smoker that’s tough for you. You have no right to dictate to him what may or may not happen in his place. Its his right and if you don’t like it then you go else where..which is YOUR right…..that’s what a moral person would do. Unless you are physically coercered to sit their and endure the smoke you have no moral leg to stand on. There has never been a right to “breath clean air”at the expense of someone else’s private property rights.
You would take umbrage at someone coming in and dictating to you what happens in your work or home…so how about respecting the rights of everyone else to their property and what happens on it..?
Jan 21 12 1:39 pm
“harm” is subjective
Nothing subjective about lung cancer, is there?
the rights that matter in this context are those of the property owner.
This is simplistic. The matter is far more complex than this because there is established evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful – in the lung-cancer sense, not the “oh, it smells yucky” sense. The restaurant owner does not have the right to lower his food standards so he can make more profit. I fail to see how this can be judged in any way different.
Jan 23 12 12:25 am
MacDoctor
Jan 21 12 1:39 pm
Irrelevant…we are taking about property rights…cancers neither here nor there, The risk daily from vehicular emmisions outweighs any spurious risk from a bit of second-hand smoke. If a person chooses to remain in a smoking environment then that’s their right….leave them alone.
“This is simplistic. The matter is far more complex than this because there is established evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful – in the lung-cancer sense, not the “oh, it smells yucky” sense. The restaurant owner does not have the right to lower his food standards so he can make more profit. I fail to see how this can be judged in any way different.”
He most certainly DOES have the right to lower his standards…and to suffer the consequences in a free market by losing business. He has the right to serve cold snot on cardboard if he wishes…and everyone else has the same right to eat it…or not. Same rule apply’s in choosing to patronize a smoking establishment. ..or not. Acting like a cry baby about other patrons smoking when its clearly ok with the owner is pathetic. What next..? Boohoo-ing at the homosexual overtones of a gay bar? Complaining at the heat inside a blast furnace…? give me strength.
Jan 23 12 7:27 pm
we are taking about property rights
Actually we were talking about harm, but let’s focus on property rights, if you like. Clearly you are talking about the idealised version of libertarian property rights where the owner can do whatever he wants, more or less. These rights do not exist. Currently, if your restaurant owner attempts to serve snot on cardboard, he will find his restaurant closed down faster than a speeding bureaucrat, no matter how many customers are insane enough to want to eat it. His rights are curtailed by laws.
I fully understand that many of these laws are nonsensical and contribute nothing towards the business of the owner or the experience of the customer. The point I was trying to make in the original post is that laws that are based around reasonable evidence tend to be useful, laws that are merely social engineering tend to be harmful. As we are never likely to be regulation-free, it makes sense to have regulations that produce recognisable and beneficial results.
BTW, your gay bar analogy is silly. If I walk into a gay bar, I expect to find gays. That is what the bar is for. If I walk into a foundry, I expect it to be hot. A foundry is to melt steel. If I walk into a restaurant I expect to have a nice meal and not to need a respirator when I’m done. I should also point out that, in the absence of non-smoking restaurants, all restaurants default to smoking ones, regardless of the owners intention.
Oh, and I have yet to meet a restaurant owner who does not approve of the ban on smoking…
Jan 21 12 2:41 am
Setting up a smoke free restaurant is no guarantee you will be successful. There’s no “right” to succeed. If people choose not to patronise it and make it succeed then they have no right to bleat about having to put up with smokers in smoker friendly Bars.
How about manning up a bit and accept that the world doesn’t owe you a life on your terms at the expense of everyone else…?
Jan 21 12 2:50 am
PPS….The “Godwin” wasn’t gratuitous…..
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html
The Nazi War on Cancer
Robert N. Proctor
Jan 21 12 2:00 pm
Read the book. Interesting, but it makes the usual mistake about the Nazis, namely that everything they did was bad (it wasn’t) and that anyone who does something that bears similarities to what they did must be a Nazi (also not true). Also Proctor tends to use hyperbole more than I do, which is saying something.
Jan 21 12 1:48 pm
Of course there is no right to succeed. This is obfuscation. The point was that restaurant owners did not set up smoke-free restaurants because it was risky, not because there was no demand. There are plenty of areas in business where there is demand but the initial risk is too great – believe me, I’ve been there.
For the record, I was originally in favour of smoking in restaurants as long as the restaurant maintained adequate ventilation in the smoking area so the those at non-smoking tables were not being exposed to dangerous levels of smoke. Restaurant owners preferred an outright ban as the cheaper option.
Jan 21 12 8:06 am
The number of times I have been about to transport an asthma case (SaO2 way down) and they want to have a quick gasper before getting into the ambulance…
Jan 21 12 1:49 pm
Presumably why they are called “gaspers”…
Jan 21 12 4:36 pm
As a non smoker I think further pressure on smokers is a waste of time. Passing laws which are unenforceable or which th authorities have no intention of enforcing only bring the law in general into disrepute. Now if only some of the zealotry could be transferred to enforcement of anti-noise laws, I would be much more interested. The effects of excessive noise on health are well documented, and the “boom, boom, boom” of a stereo travels a lot further than cigarette smoke, and through walls as well.
Jan 22 12 7:01 pm
I’m interested in your comment that ”there is ample evidence linking the inhalation of second-hand smoke, in enclosed spaces, with both lung cancer and emphysema”, as I don’t see a logical connection, although you do qualify the link as relating to enclosed spaces. Do you have some references please? Later in the comments you say “there is established evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful – in the lung-cancer sense” but without the qualifier.
I’m not debating the issue as you’re a medical professional and I’m a layman, but there would need to be pretty strong evidence that the risks associated with a few sniffs of smoke are statistically significant vis a vis regular heavy smoking. I’m not a smoker, and appreciate being able to eat a restaurant meal without whiffs of smoke annoying me. And I agree with Rod about noise – drunken laughter in restaurants should definitely be banned.
I recall a Penn & Teller programme rubbishing the claims on passive smoking, one of their Bullshit series. I know, not the most reliable source, but they did point out how statistics can be manipulated for political reasons to overstate the risk.
Jan 22 12 10:38 pm
Here are a few recent articles. I have deliberately chosen ones you can access for free. There are plenty of others but you need subscriptions:
useful 2008 review on the association between second-hand smoke (SHS) and lung cancer
SHS and Heart attacks and Asthma. And another on heart attacks.
SHS and Bronchiolitis in Infants.
SHS and Pancreatic Cancer (adios Steve Jobs).
Pen and Teller both need a good smacking
Jan 22 12 11:13 pm
Thanks for the references, I’ll work my way through them. Apart from the first one (which doesn’t seem to show a clear positive correlation) they cover AMI, asthma, bronchiolitis & pancreatic cancer, rather than lung cancer (not that those other conditions are unimportant). I’m a strong supporter of well-constructed epidemiological studies – my personal experience has been with EMF health effects starting with Wertheimer & Leeper’s wire code hypothesis – but confounding factors and causality vs correlation are significant issues in many studies.
Jan 23 12 7:38 pm
Read the first paper again. The causal link between lung cancer and second-hand smoke is well proven, what is uncertain is the significance in the real world i.e. the level of risk posed by say, visiting a smoking restaurant (to use James’ argument) once a week, is unclear but very unlikely to be zero.
It is also clear that cumulative exposure is important. If you work in a smokers paradise and eat out in a smoking bar and life with a smoking spouse, your cumulative exposure is vastly greater than someone walking through the park every day past a bunch of smokers. Again, the quantitative effects are not clear – we don’t know how much smoke is acceptable.
The evidence for heart attacks is quite a bit better than for lung cancer. That is because it is more common and develops faster the lung cancer.
Jan 25 12 3:37 am
Laws that are “useful” and make sense will be adopted anyway by the market…they will be ones that protect the rights of the individual…including the right to smoke and to allow smoking on ones property., no guns required. Its only the stupid and nonsensical ones that need the states gun backing them up as they would never be implemented or survive long if voluntarily adopted by the market. A Bar originally was a place for both alcohol consumption and smoking…that’s their history…If bar owners are glad for the ban (yeah right) then it was never really needed in the first place…they always had the power and right to make the choice for their own premises before the goons waded in.
And what about a new bar owner who wants to re-allow smoking on his premises…? Oh sorry but because some authoritarian bed-wetters in power can’t handle other peoples freedom and choice they ALL are banned.
That is Nico Nazi bullshit and my original point stands… please don’t soil ANZAC day this year with your presence at commemorations….
Feb 8 12 3:33 pm
I’ve recently switched from smoking to vaporising. That is – electronic cigarettes that dispense a puff of vaporised nicotine instead of tobacco smoke. I had smoked for 25 years and previous attempts to stop weren’t successful, but within a day of receiving my electronic ‘cigarette’ kit I stopped actual smoking. It’s been a week and I have no desire for an actual cigarette – in fact I prefer these electronic versions. More convenient, less smelly, and about a quarter of the cost.
The point is – I think there is about to be a paradigm shift regarding smoking.