Common Error No. 100

100. "Nobody should be free to smoke in public places."

There are many things which people do in "public places" – a concept which now includes private property open to members of the public – which others find unpleasant. The question is whether they do significant harm to others. It seems well established that many smokers harm themselves, and are at risk of incurring diseases thereby. This does not justify state intervention, any more than our consumption of unhealthy food and drink justifies it. The state can warn us, but the behavioural decision in the light of that knowledge is our own. Most smokers do not appear to engage in criminal activity in support of or in consequence of their habit.

There is less evidence that passive smoke harms third parties. People who share living space over the years with heavy smokers might incur greater risks, but there is little to suggest that non-smoking patrons of bars and clubs stand a significantly greater health risk if others smoke. The bus which spews diesel fumes onto a crowded pavement, especially at the level at which children breathe, might well prompt greater health risks. Those who cough and sneeze in public places undoubtedly pose health risks to others, while the thoughtless use of mobile phones on trains and in restaurants might raise the stress levels of those who have to suffer it to health-damaging levels. Society usually takes the view that there must be a significant risk to others before it intervenes.

Some of those who support smoking bans claim that most smokers welcome them because it helps them to give up. Very few cigar smokers, also banned in public places, want to quit, though. And although many people would like to lose weight, few would regard this as a justification for society to ban caloric foods in order to help them diet. The principle should be consistent, and not single out smokers to ban.

...
written by Antun Karlovac, April 24, 2008

I agree with your statement that "there is little to suggest that non-smoking patrons of bars and clubs stand a significantly greater health risk if others smoke." Patrons of bars and clubs (hopefully) don't spend a major portion of their lives in these places, so are not exposed to smoke

The no-smoking-in-bars movement was started in California (where I live), but its original intent was lost as it made its way across the Atlantic into Europe. California banned smoking in workplaces because employees are encouraged (i.e. paid) to spend a significant portion of their time working there. The employer is responsible for workplace hazards. The smoking ban in bars and clubs was no different to restrictions on, say, chemical fumes in factories.

European countries seem to have missed this point altogether. Smoking is bad, ergo the state bans it.

It's important to note that in California, it's perfectly legal to smoke in a bar manned solely by an owner-bartender. There are plenty of small neighborhood watering holes where it's OK to light up.

Smoking
written by David Blackie, April 25, 2008

There is, or ought to be, a clear distinction between those absolutists who say that smoking should be banned and those who prefer not to inhale smoke. I prefer it when people do not choose what they will add to my food, water or air, but I have no problem with people eating, drinking or breathing what they wish as long as it does not affect my choices. So the default position has to be no smoking, but I see no reason why similarly minded, consenting adults should not be able to enjoy tobacco in places - bars or whatever - which make that express choice. I think it is wrong headed to make this a simple for or against freedom issue.

Written by Dr Madsen Pirie
Thursday, 24 April 2008
100. "Nobody should be free to smoke in public places." There are many things which people do in "public places" – a concept which now includes private property open to members of the public – which others find unpleasant. The question is whether they do significant harm to others. It seems well established that many smokers harm themselves, and are at risk of incurring diseases thereby. This does not justify state intervention, any more than our consumption of unhealthy food and drink justifies it. The state can warn us, but the behavioural decision in the light of that knowledge is our own. Most smokers do not appear to engage in criminal activity in support of or in consequence of their habit. There is less evidence that passive smoke harms third parties. People who share living space over the years with heavy smokers might incur greater risks, but there is little to suggest that non-smoking patrons of bars and clubs stand a significantly greater health risk if others smoke. The bus which spews diesel fumes onto a crowded pavement, especially at the level at which children breathe, might well prompt greater health risks. Those who cough and sneeze in public places undoubtedly pose health risks to others, while the thoughtless use of mobile phones on trains and in restaurants might raise the stress levels of those who have to suffer it to health-damaging levels. Society usually takes the view that there must be a significant risk to others before it intervenes. Some of those who support smoking bans claim that most smokers welcome them because it helps them to give up. Very few cigar smokers, also banned in public places, want to quit, though. And although many people would like to lose weight, few would regard this as a justification for society to ban caloric foods in order to help them diet. The principle should be consistent, and not single out smokers to ban. Bookmark Comments (2) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Antun Karlovac, April 24, 2008 I agree with your statement that "there is little to suggest that non-smoking patrons of bars and clubs stand a significantly greater health risk if others smoke." Patrons of bars and clubs (hopefully) don't spend a major portion of their lives in these places, so are not exposed to smoke The no-smoking-in-bars movement was started in California (where I live), but its original intent was lost as it made its way across the Atlantic into Europe. California banned smoking in workplaces because employees are encouraged (i.e. paid) to spend a significant portion of their time working there. The employer is responsible for workplace hazards. The smoking ban in bars and clubs was no different to restrictions on, say, chemical fumes in factories. European countries seem to have missed this point altogether. Smoking is bad, ergo the state bans it. It's important to note that in California, it's perfectly legal to smoke in a bar manned solely by an owner-bartender. There are plenty of small neighborhood watering holes where it's OK to light up. Smoking written by David Blackie, April 25, 2008 There is, or ought to be, a clear distinction between those absolutists who say that smoking should be banned and those who prefer not to inhale smoke. I prefer it when people do not choose what they will add to my food, water or air, but I have no problem with people eating, drinking or breathing what they wish as long as it does not affect my choices. So the default position has to be no smoking, but I see no reason why similarly minded, consenting adults should not be able to enjoy tobacco in places - bars or whatever - which make that express choice. I think it is wrong headed to make this a simple for or against freedom issue. Write comment Name Email Website Title Comment smaller \| bigger Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!