« 2005 Resolutions | Main | Feeding Frenzy »

January 04, 2005

Public Inhalation

On Monday, Toby posted an entry about smoking in public places where he proposed a free-market style alternative to a smoking ban. I fail to see how this proposal is noticeably different from the status quo, which suggests to me that, not only does it not work in theory (as I will demonstrate), but it also doesn't work in practice (as recently demonstrated in East Yorkshire).

The proposal doesn't work in theory because people are not divided neatly into social groupings of smokers and non-smokers. I don't smoke, but one of my housemates smokes regularly, and the others "occasionally". If there were a mixture of smoking and non-smoking pubs here in Beeston, I imagine when we went out we would invariably end up in the former type of pub, so I as a non-smoker would gain nothing at all from the existence of non-smoking pubs. Only pure non-smoking groups would be likely to frequent non-smoking venues, and I would be surprised if these groups are numerous enough to make running a non-smoking venue profitable. I can think of few social groupings I'm in that are exclusively made up of non-smokers, but perhaps I'm atypical — answers on a comment/trackback to that one, please!

So I don't know what to do about the problem of smoking in pubs, and other public places, to be honest. I do know I'm fed up of my clothes stinking of smoke, of my hair stinking of smoke, of coughing up crud after every night out, and of enduring the smell of smoke while I'm out. I also know I'm even sicker of these things happening to me at work1. But while I can't see a solution other than a ban, banning something because some people find it unpleasant doesn't appeal to my fluffy liberal values. Banning something because it's a danger to the health of people nearby seems more justified, but the people in the smoky pub (with the notable possible exception of the staff) are there entirely out of choice, so the number of relevant affected people is relatively low.

So if a ban isn't the right answer, and a purely free market system won't work either, what will work? Anybody?

1 You might choose to argue that I'm entirely free to find a job somewhere else, instead; this isn't entirely accurate, though. When I took on my current job, it was chosen because the hours would fit around my existing schedule, and with no relevant experience any other pub might have been less keen to take me on. I couldn't afford to factor smokiness into the decision as well.

Posted by James at 03:22
Tags for this entry:

You can now subscribe to RSS of comments on this entry or RSS of all comments on this site.

Comments

I think that any public venue should be forced to decide whether it is smoking or non-smoking. They then must make it clear, just as alcohol license information must be displayed.

Customers/workers are then free to choose their bar/restaurant on the basis of this.

This will result in venues that reflect customer wishes. If this means the iradication of pro-smoking bars, so be it. At least it's decided in a genuinely democratic way.

Posted by: Toby at January 4, 2005 07:15 AM

I don't associate regularly with anyone who smokes, so I'd benefit. This isn't a choice thing, I don't shun smokers, it's just since uni friends have mostly moved on I tend to hang around housemates and church people, none of whom smoke (or at least not any more).

So yes! Bring on the smokeless establishments! And howabout a compromise, you can take smokers to them, but they have to smoke outside.

Posted by: Rob G at January 4, 2005 11:34 AM

Toby, I still don't see how that makes it economically viable to be the first to run a non-smoking bar. I also still dispute that workers have as much free choice as you seem to think.

Rob, I'd be up for sending the smokers outside to smoke, but I suspect some of them might object, here in the frozen wastes of the East Midlands ;)

Posted by: Jimbo [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 4, 2005 03:23 PM

i think most public places would vote to stay smoking since most of them seem to think that without smoke they won't survive (like the scottish pub people), even though if you look at the places where they have banned smoking it doesn't seem the case. so i don't think anything would change (is this just what jimbo was saying?). i don't think they would bother too much with thinking about their non-smoking customers wishes either. they would prolly just take for granted that they wouldn't lose these customers because people are fond of their local pubs and don't like change, and they won't think that they might be the people to get cancer from passive smoking anyway.

also, smoking is everywhere. i don't think some pubs choosing to be smoke free is enough for people to be able to avoid it. if you are talking about a democratic thing, i'm fairly sure the smoking bit of the population is in the minority (i think i remember reading it somewhere at sometime).

Posted by: susie at January 5, 2005 10:27 AM

Susie, there does seem to be a link between stopping smoking and then having less business for pubs. The link Jimbo posted shows that and I think that's the Irish experience too but I can't find anything to back this up and news.bbc just died *sigh*

Posted by: huggie at January 5, 2005 12:24 PM

huggie: as far as I can find online, the drop in sales in Irish pubs has been, while non-zero, pretty small. Cigarette sales have fallen by 17% though. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4044605.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3854699.stm)

I think in the case of a widespread ban the pub trade would be pretty much unaffected; it's only in the case of lone pubs trying to go it alone that sales would slump, like that case in East Yorks.

Posted by: Jimbo [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2005 12:33 PM