A partial solution I have to the great anti-smoking debate

[Iamme]

On our local talk radio, on the way into town this morning, they are discussing how the City council is to vote on banning smoking in bars. No grace period. Restaurant owners, where smoking already IS banned, do not think it is fair that smokers can still smoke in bars.The bar owners and tavern league have offered some solutions to let it remain viable.

I got thinking that no matter what anybody says, or whose side they are on, the bottom line is smoking affects us all, health/health care costs wise. And the more one smokes, the more likely in due time, that person will have to be treated at the hospital for all those expensive diseases that will cost us ALL, in additional health care costs.

How about if we issue a card to smokers where they have to present that card when buying cigarettes, and they swipe the card through a scanner and it records at some computer data base how many packs they have purchased in a given time. And that there would be a quota that cannot be exceeded. If you do, you cannot buy any more smokes. I would place this quota at say about 1/2 pack a day, for smokers. They (gov't officials) could figure out if these quotas are monitored by the day, week or month.

This could go a long way in cutting down health costs and the too much smoking going on in bars. People would still be able to smoke. It would just be alot less of it.

BTW, it is said that if you cannot smoke in bars, that 30% of their (bar owners) revenue will be lost. Which is a figure that would put many bar owners over the top, putting them out of business. I can readily see this happening. I used to smoke. No way would I go out to bars if I could not smoke! People who smoke and drink like doing stuff with their hands. If you could not smoke, what are you going to do with yourself then...drink more (smoking is also cheaper)? And be ready to fall flat on yor face by 8 pm, as opposed to stringing out the drinking in amongst the smoking?

[Francesca R]

How about if we issue a card to smokers where they have to present that card when buying cigarettes, and they swipe the card through a scanner and it records at some computer data base how many packs they have purchased in a given time. And that there would be a quota that cannot be exceeded. If you do, you cannot buy any more smokes. I would place this quota at say about 1/2 pack a day, for smokers. They (gov't officials) could figure out if these quotas are monitored by the day, week or month.This is simple rationing, half of the "cap-and-trade" mechanism that is used in the Emissions Trading Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme) which attempts to regulate the external costs of industrial pollution.

This could go a long way in cutting down health costs and the too much smoking going on in bars. People would still be able to smoke. It would just be alot less of it.

I disagree. The part you have missing is the ability to trade these quotas. In your scheme I think there is a stong likelihood that a secondary market for cigarette quotas would arise anyway (and it would be a hassle to try to prevent). I could see light smokers selling their quota to heavy smokers; I could even see non-smokers taking up their quota and selling it to smokers who have run out their limit at a profit. And since your scheme allows every adult to buy 1/2 a pack (is that 10?) of cigarettes per day, whereas approx 25% of adults currently smoke, it seems unlikely that it has any scope as you have designed it to reduce consumption or health costs. (So tobacco firms probably wouldn't mind).

It doesn't seem to do anything to protect people unconnected with smoking transactions from ill effects either.

People who smoke and drink like doing stuff with their hands.Er, . . . not believable sorry. They do it because they enjoy the smoking and the drinking.

[sinclairmcevoy]

If smoking is banned in all the bars, the smokers will still go. Step outside for a smoke. Personally, I can't stand a smoke filled bar or restaurant. I am a smoker. I never smoke indoors. Haven't for years. Smoking is bad enough for your own health, subjecting others to your second hand smoke, even if they smoke, is just not right.

[Molinaro]

This idea could lead to non-smokers buying them to re-sell to smokers.

[skeptigator]

Fort Wayne, Indiana just implemented a 100% smoking ban (restaurants, bars, the whole thing). There was all kinds of doom and gloom about restaurants having to close up and bars being shutdown. Please. No such thing happened. The most you could say was that for about 2 weeks there was a dip from silent protesters. There was some recent data showing that restaurant sales tax collected over the first 6 months of the smoking ban showed an increase in sales over the same period the year before when smoking was allowed.

I think the restaurant owners in your area have a right to complain if bars are exempted because then it truly is unfair to them. Our city council took the approach, "if smoking is bad in a restaurant, it's bad in a bar, as well" which is consistent. You can argue with the policy but it is consistent.

As far as the quota idea, that would only create a "smoking quota" blackmarket

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

The restaurant people here were screaming bloody murder here too when smoking in public buildings was banned. They were certain that nobody would ever leave the house again. There was a period where business slowed a bit, but people came back. At the bars, folks just go outside and smoke. I don't think they drink any more alcohol than they did before.


It's nice to be able to go out for supper without getting a blinding headache.

[Kiosk]

Before the smoking ban was introduced in England, the news told us that in other places where a similar ban was in force, even smokers had welcomed it. "Pfah!" I thought.

Here we are, almost a year into the smoking ban, and as a smoker myself I'm perfectly happy with it. Stepping outside is OK - it breaks up the evening, you get to chat to other smokers in a a kind of community, and you end up smoking less, which means you spend less and do less damage to your own health, as well as other people's.

The only downside is that the lack of smoke has revealed what pubs actually smell of: hops, sweat and urine.

[Iamme]

If smoking is banned in all the bars, the smokers will still go. Step outside for a smoke.

Hey. That's a pretty good idea. I got a mental image of this. Nobody in the bar. Guys outside holding a longneck while puffing on a drag outside, with one guy pointing his finger in another's chest going,..."Hey DUDE...I catch you gawkin' at my chicks boobies again, and this is going down your throat!" An unsupervised setting. Other than that, not a bad idea, I suppose.

[Iamme]

This idea could lead to non-smokers buying them to re-sell to smokers.


Hmmm. Ya. I guess if you were caught pulling this stunt, it have to be punishable by death. :) My idea was nto too well thought out. Thought of it while eating my 'moo moo gai pan' dinner here at the computer.

[vexed]

Hey. That's a pretty good idea. I got a mental image of this. Nobody in the bar. Guys outside holding a longneck while puffing on a drag outside, with one guy pointing his finger in another's chest going,..."Hey DUDE...I catch you gawkin' at my chicks boobies again, and this is going down your throat!" An unsupervised setting. Other than that, not a bad idea, I suppose.

Although this scenario would be similar if inside the bar also. Bartenders aren't very good deterrents of patron fighting.

[Alt+F4]

BTW, it is said that if you cannot smoke in bars, that 30% of their (bar owners) revenue will be lost. Which is a figure that would put many bar owners over the top, putting them out of business.

This was the argument floating around during the debate to ban smoking in bars where I am, New York City. It didn't happen. Bars didn't close in mass, folks now just smoke outside. People adjust.

[Architect]

Same in Scotland, although the licenced trade like to claim otherwise.

I have wondered if incidents of pneuomina have increased as a result, though....

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Same in Scotland, although the licenced trade like to claim otherwise.

I have wondered if incidents of pneuomina have increased as a result, though....
:D Na, yee see, 'AT's 'wy 'ee got 'eer WELLIES! :D

[Alt+F4]

In the U.S. the main government anti-smoking plan is to keep raising the cigarette excise tax. While I'm sure a $7 pack keeps some kids from starting and convinces others to stop, I find the this tax disturbing.

Here in NYC, teens who want to smoke don't buy a full pack anymore, too expensive. Instead they buy "loosies", individual cigarettes for 50 cents each. Now not only does this make no sense economically, but who knows what someone could lace those cigarettes with.

Now that the government is pulling in big bucks from the cigarette tax, what incentive does it have to really get people to quit?

[skeptifem]

Before the smoking ban was introduced in England, the news told us that in other places where a similar ban was in force, even smokers had welcomed it. "Pfah!" I thought.

Here we are, almost a year into the smoking ban, and as a smoker myself I'm perfectly happy with it. Stepping outside is OK - it breaks up the evening, you get to chat to other smokers in a a kind of community, and you end up smoking less, which means you spend less and do less damage to your own health, as well as other people's.



good for you, but i think you might feel differently if you owned a bar and smoked. if you were told you cant smoke in your own business.

the best comparison for the smoking thing ive heard is loud music in clubs- it can damage hearing. i dont like loud music soooo i dont go to places that have it. I dont go and bitch about it (or about not being able to hear very well afterwards), how silly would that be?

[PAC]

Where will this end?

Will you be telling me not to drink...seems this was tried with disasterous results...

Will you tell me to stop eating the food I like? Seems like this is underway!

Will you tell me that TV can not show the programs I want to watch?
Seems this is under way too!

I request that "do gooders" do good for themselves...the best to you.... and leave the rest of us alone.

I am not a smoker but this is just the beginning. Again, where will it end?

Those who don't want to patronize smoke filled bars and restaurants should pick voluntary non-smoking facilities. If you don't like fatty foods stay out of Burger King. If you don't like TV or movies don't watch them.

Live your life to the fullest but stop telling me how to live mine!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Don't I WISH!! :rolleyes:

[Francesca R]

good for you, but i think you might feel differently if you owned a bar and smoked. if you were told you cant smoke in your own business. You might feel this is unjust but the logic is simple: If you don't want to open a bar where smoking is illegal, don't open a bar. There is a fundamental difference between "doing what you want on your private property" and "doing what you want in a place that you open for business".

[Francesca R]

Where will this end? [ . . . ] I request that "do gooders" do good for themselves...the best to you.... and leave the rest of us alone.I would agree that the argument of "doing good" is too weak to justify smoking bans. The stronger argument is that smoking in public infringes the rights of others. Slippery slope objections can be made to that, because many many private decisions have an adverse effect on others and are not restricted as a result. So which ones are selected out for legislative restriction comes down to good old-fashioned tyranny of the majority (public opinion).

[PAC]

My wife and I do not smoke. We do not allow smoking in our house or cars,
because they are ours. We do not go to restaurants that do not have well defined non-smoking areas. But we do not believe in forcing our will on others. Acuity accurately identifies the tyranny of the majority.

One thing puzzles me. Since I believe in the creativity of our economic system (especially when government keeps it's distance) would it not make sense that voluntary non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc. would be popping up everywhere. If they are I am unaware of them. Since so many people seem to want to stamp out smoking why is this the case?

In fairness, I should state that both my wife and I work in businesses primarily supported by smoking. We have an economic interest in the continuation of smoking.

[Beerina]

It's nice to be able to go out for supper without getting a blinding headache.

I suppose patronizing restaraunts with their own, 100% voluntary smoking ban is too much to ask?

The whole "health care" thing is a red herring. It has nothing to do with it. It's the same age-old political stance: stir up hatreds in the population against a smaller group, and authorize me the power to smash them over the head for you.

The emotion driving support is whiners not wanting to smell smoke. The health argument has nothing to do with this support.

[Francesca R]

Acuity accurately identifies the tyranny of the majority.However it should be noted that smoking bans do not discriminate against anyone.

I suppose patronizing restaraunts with their own, 100% voluntary smoking ban is too much to ask?Voluntary measures like this are not properly compensated. If it was feasible for the externalities associated with smoking to be brought into voluntary decisions then you would have a point. But it isn't.

The whole "health care" thing is a red herring. It has nothing to do with it. It's the same age-old political stance: stir up hatreds in the population against a smaller group, and authorize me the power to smash them over the head for you."Stir up hatred"? Are you calling this a conspiracy? I don't agree.

The emotion driving support is whiners not wanting to smell smoke. The health argument has nothing to do with this support.A stong argument for smoking bans can be based on rights and the infringements of others' rights alone. Libertarians should be in favour of smoking bans in public places.

[Zygar]

You might feel this is unjust but the logic is simple: If you don't want to open a bar where smoking is illegal, don't open a bar.

That makes no sense. How is that different from "If you want your business to allow smoking, don't open it."

There is a fundamental difference between "doing what you want on your private property" and "doing what you want in a place that you open for business".

No. Not really. There are very few laws that regulate what a business can and can't do that do not relate to public safety. In this case, public safety is not an issue, so why is there a law around it?

[mumblethrax]

One thing puzzles me. Since I believe in the creativity of our economic system (especially when government keeps it's distance) would it not make sense that voluntary non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc. would be popping up everywhere. If they are I am unaware of them. Since so many people seem to want to stamp out smoking why is this the case?
Lots of reasons. Imperfect competition in overlapping markets, lack of access to good research, strategic problems among customers. If ten people decide to go out drinking and one of them smokes, guess which bar they'll typically patronize, smoking or non-? The smoking bar, of course: the other nine people, by virtue of being bar patrons in the first place, will be acclimated to cigarette smoke under pre-ban conditions.

Government action strikes me as a good thing here, since it resolves the strategic problem in a way that benefits essentially everyone. People averse to cigarette smoke now have to option to go out drinking, revenue is up, smokers still get to smoke and drink--at the same time, even. It's a good example of a market failing to achieve an optimized state without regulation, but that won't be news to economists. Sometimes you need an external force to manage external costs.

[Francesca R]

That makes no sense. How is that different from "If you want your business to allow smoking, don't open it."Well it's the same. Under no-smoking laws you can't open one and allow smoking.

No. Not really. There are very few laws that regulate what a business can and can't do that do not relate to public safety. In this case, public safety is not an issue, so why is there a law around it?Misses the point. If your property is a commercial premises, it might be your property but it is regulated with the rights of those you admit for commercial purposes in mind, and not only their rights in relation to transactions they engage in with you, and not only in respect of safety for that matter.