Anti-Smoking Laws : "Good" / "Bad" / Libertarian Perspective?

[TripleB]

In the US, there are anti-smoking laws in many places that ban cigarette smoking from public places. When I grew up, these laws did not exist in restaurants. Instead, many restaurants had a smoking and a non-smoking section.

I was so disgusted from breathing in smoke from the smoking section (which is really just a few feet away) that I almost never went to restaurants or bars. It's only within the last decade when more and more states enacted anti-smoking laws in restaurants that I actually started going out.

I personally find Las Vegas intolerable due to the heavy smoking that occurs everywhere. One cannot walk onto the sidewalk in "The Strip" without being covered in smoke.

I haven't found a specific Harry Browne radio show where he deals with the issue, however he alludes to anti-smoking laws as being another government intrusion into your life and I believe he is fervently against them.

From a strict Libertarian perspective, I can see the concept of "we don't need the government enacting those laws. Let the free market decide. If a restaurant doesn't want to go to non-smoking then simply choose to avoid that restaurant"

In fact, recently I was in Kentucky, and didn't realize they still allowed smoking in restaurants. I went to a Waffle House for breakfast and 20 seconds after I sat down, felt nauseous from second hand smoke, realized people were smoking in there, and left. I wound up eating McDonalds for breakfast that was next door (*cringe*).

From my Libertarian interpretation, I do believe smoking should be banned in "public" or "public-private" establishments because it does impose negative impact on people.

It's illegal to pull off your pants and start masturbating in the middle of a restaurant. One could strictly argue "the person is not physically touching anyone and is not hurting anyone."

I see smoking in the same vein, if not worse. I could simply choose not to look at the man vigorously masturbating while standing on top of his table in the restaurant. I cannot, however, simply choose not to breathe in the second-hand smoke that is polluting the air.

I will likely be referred to as a radical when I say I believe smoking should be banned from sidewalks and everywhere outside as well. Society doesn't allow men to masturbate on the sidewalk because it's considered an infringement on others' rights.

I dislike walking through NYC because, while they ban smoking inside buildings, it pushes the smokers outside on the sidewalks. It's physically impossible to walk through NYC without breathing in second hand smoke of others.

My interpretation of Libertarianism is that one should not cause harm to another person. The right for another person to throw a punch ends at the top of my nose. Further, the right for another person to kill themselves with cigarettes and pollute their air around them should end at the air around my nose.

With respect to second hand smoke, I am not referring to a vague, small chance of cancer in 30 years. I'm referring to violent headaches that I get within 15 to 20 minutes of being in a smoke-filled area and having my eyes water up. Perhaps I am more sensitive than others.

I'm writing this post to engage others in friendly discourse. I feel that most Libertarians would say that I'm crazy or oppressive to suggest completely banning smoking in all public places, even outdoors. I'd like to hear why you oppose my viewpoint if you do or why you support it.

[Pointedstick]

My interpretation of Libertarianism is that one should not cause harm to another person. The right for another person to throw a punch ends at the top of my nose. Further, the right for another person to kill themselves with cigarettes and pollute their air around them should end at the air around my nose.

That opens up a bit of a can of worms. If I put my junky old car on cinder blocks on my front lawn, that lowers the property values of my neighbors' houses due to the eyesore. Have I harmed them?

Still, I get what you mean. Secondhand smoke is a challenging case because of the externalities it imposes. I would imagine restaurants themselves should be free to ban smoking on their premises, as I would imagine they would ban "vigorous masturbation" in the absence of government laws. One wonders why in the days of smoking/non-smoking sections, restaurants didn't do a better job of isolating the sections to prevent secondhand smoke from wafting around.

[hoost]

I think the argument for banning smoking in truly publicly-owned areas is stronger than the argument for imposing a smoking ban on someone's private property (i.e. in their restaurant), if arguing from a Libertarian perspective.

While I do enjoy being able to go out and not breathe smoke in bars/restaurants, smoking bans have probably been bad for my health overall, because I now eat out and go out drinking a lot more often than I would if smoking were allowed.  I guess that's an unintended consequence of smoking bans.

At the end of the day, I think restaurant owners should be free to allow smoking in their restaurant if they so choose.  I can choose not to patronize their establishment if I'm not happy with the atmosphere.

In public buildings, I can definitely support a smoking ban; or at least limiting smoking to a sealed-off/well-ventilated room for those who choose to partake.

Regarding smoking outdoors, how are industrial pollution lawsuits won/lost?  I would imagine similar studies/methods could be employed.  I have a hard time going along with an outdoor smoking ban; best to impose a Singapore style gum chewing and spitting ban as well.  Or maybe ban coughing?  If someone with a cold is coughing outdoors, they are emitting germs which could also get me sick.  I can't articulate the over-arching principle that would defend this line of logic right now, but I'm sure it could be stated in a much more succinct manner.

[MediumTex]

I would struggle with banning smoking outside, although I fully appreciate your concerns about secondhand smoke.

I don't know the right answer.

Perhaps there would be a market for an exhaling device that you would blow the exhaled smoke through to clean it before it enters the air.  Sort of like a miniature version of the scrubbers they use at coal burning power plants.

[doodle]

TripleB....thanks for the laughs. I like the masturbating man analogy.

This issue in my mind is just another example of why strict libertarianism is such a ridiculous utopian philosophy.(no offense..just my opinion) I mean Dungeons and Dragons has more connection to reality than the libertarian fantasyland that I see some people describe.

The fundamental problem with libertarianism and why it has difficulties with questions like this is that it starts from the false premise that man is an individual entity unto himself. Show me this individual man please....where is he? Just floating out there in the ether? Humans are not only a social animal, but they live in a symbiotic relationship with their environment. This symbiosis is so closely knit in fact that you could make a strong argument that man and his environment are actually one organism if you go by the definition that an organism is "a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes."

The reason why libertarianism doesn't have great answers to these questions is because such questions undermine one of its core fantasies which is that "agents initially fully own themselves" (Strike that from the record...that is going to lead to a debate I don't have the energy to get into...and yet I know I won't be able to resist.)

[doodle]

i side with the libertarians on this one, in spite of the fact i get the same reaction as th OP, headache, runny eyes and nose from the scents in commercial laundry soap. when the apartment next door gets a couple machines running at once the vent pumps the crap onto my porch...  so i can feel for the non smokers, but it is as others have described..  "a can of worms " where do you start and stop with such bans?

These situations call for nuance which is a word that dogmatic ideologies of all stripes don't have much room for.

[Ad Orientem]

i suppose i am far from a purist when it comes to libertarian ideology, i tend to have my own take on most things, even if they are libertarian leaning. on this one i take a "live and let live"approach, yes it stinks and it bugs me, but not enough to move or get in confrontations or negotiations over, and certainly not enough to involve government and passing laws, its hard for me not to view smokers and cigarette smoke as the same level of nuisance and hope that non smokers might take the same attitude.

i hear CA is pretty rabid in the anti smoking department, there is a strong lack of nuance on their side as well...

Having a "No Smoking" section in a public restaurant is like having a "No Peeing" section in a public swimming pool. It's idiotic. No one has a right to engage in behavior that endangers other people's health or safety. That said we need to be careful about how far we carry that. Some locals are banning smoking even within private residences. And while I concede that it is annoying to have to walk through a cloud of smoke on public streets we also need to remember that prohibition type laws always fail. All they end up doing is reducing respect for authority and creating a culture of defiance.

[TripleB]

10% of the US population smokes and 90% has to breath it in. Tyranny of the minority if ever there was one.

Then again, if the 90% pass laws to ban smoking, then we have tyranny of the majority.

I really do like the masturbating man analogy because in my mind it highlights the issue perfectly. Some may call it comical to compare masturbating in public to smoking in public, but both are acts that benefit only the person doing them and cause discontent to everyone else around them except those engaging in the same behavior. For example a smoker won't bother another smoker and one masturbator may not bother a second masturbator (in fact, the second masturbator may be masturbating to the "show" provided by the first). However everyone else is injured in the process.

I do feel businesses should be allowed to have smoking indoors because it's their business and I'll simply choose not to go there. However, I can't not choose to avoid walking on the sidewalk, and so smoking in public is my problem.

I've lived in apartments with outdoor balcony. Each time, there was one smoker in one of the adjacent 8 apartment balconies and I was forced to live with my windows closed 24/7 because the one person would smoke on their balcony and the wind would bring it into my apartment.

If my neighbor played music too loud, I could call the police and they would enforce a law that is designed to protect my neighbor from preventing the enjoyment of my apartment. But if I called the police because my neighbor goes onto the balcony to smoke every 45 minutes of every hour of every day, they can't prevent my neighbor from assaulting the air coming into my apartment.

This is actually one reason I refuse to buy a house in an urban area. If one person living in either of the adjacent neighbors' houses is a smoker, I'll never be able to enjoy my backyard. Or if one of the neighbors sells their house or rents it out to a smoker, then I'm screwed.

From my perspective, smoking in your own home should be OK. Smoking outside, even outside of your home, should be banned. There's an actual victim here. Look at all the ridiculous victimless laws the government enforces. Why shouldn't my air be protected?

[TripleB]

what about letting restaurant and building owners decide for themselves if they wish to be smoking or non smoking, and set strict rules for separation of air sources, flow and filtration for those owners that want to provide services for both, and who want to claim to have smoking and non smoking areas inside the same structure....  is that libertarian enough?  it seems a pretty fair and non discriminatory way to deal with it to me...

I'd rather the government not be involved in all. Let the businesses decide what level of filtration is necessary if they decide to offer this service. The free market, through the power of the internet and social networking, will allow consumers to decide which establishments they want to visit and which have clean enough air.

that could work.
maybe secondhand smoke has messed up my libertarian "spidey sense"... i am so used to the whole smokers have no rights... the non smokers have the ability to get any demand met mentality, it almost seemed natural that they could demand, and get a certain level of air quality in an area posted as being smoke free....

[doodle]

On a humorous note I found this funny song about libertarians online, and with the risk of getting off topic I'm gonna post it. Trying to find a melody that works with it...

When the Libertarians come to town
Everything will turn upside down
No one will wear a frown
When the Libertarians come to town

The government will shrink to naught
Your coffee will always be hot
And it will be the cheapest you've ever bought
When the Libertarians come to town

You won't have to pay income taxes
No need to worry about downsizers' axes
The best companies will send you faxes
When the Libertarians come to town

The invisible Hand of Nature will keep
Every business exec and veep
On the straight and narrow, and we all will reap
Peace and plenty when the Libertarians come to town

The free market will improve every school
Child geniuses will become the rule
Our learning will make every nation drool
When the Libertarians come to town

When the Libertarians to Washington come
The streets will clear of vandal and bum
Pimps and pushers will get to run
Safe and legal businesses for everyone
When the Libertarians come to town

Send in the Libertarians...
Send in the Libertarians...
Won't someone, please, send in the Libertarians...
Sob.

[WildAboutHarry]

The list of annoying things in life is almost endless - strangers speaking loudly to no one in particular (oh, wait, I see the bluetooth headset), leaf blowers, perfume, aftershave, 25 in a 40 mph zone, fellow shoppers waiting until the last - and I mean last - minute to pull out the debit card - or worse the checkbook - to complete a transaction, one peanut allergy sufferer forgoes airline peanuts for all, dogs sh*tting on my lawn while the owner whistles and looks the other way, etc.

We have beaten the crap out of smokers.  I am not and never have been a smoker but I'm pretty sick and tired of the whole anti-smoking thing.  Probably from living in California (if I see one more commercial featuring a tracheotomy I will likely suffer a stroke - another victim of smoking!). 

We all must put up with stuff we do not like, must be occasionally inconvenienced, and yes, must occasionally face discomfort caused by our fellow humans. 

We are way too thin-skinned as a society and need to get over ourselves.

[KevinW]

IMO: the general rule for vices is that objectors should be able to go about their lives without being exposed to them, but individuals should also be able to partake if they so choose. A tried and true compromise is to have an understanding that, by default, most places are vice-free, but allow people to create private clearly-advertised vice-enjoyment spaces.

So I would say that nonsmokers should generally be able to expect to move about public spaces free of secondhand smoke. Private businesses should be able to choose whatever smoking policy they want. If a business is not following the smoking policy they advertised, as in the case of the nonsmoking section that still smells like smoke, that's fraud and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Kind of like how you can expect to go about your life without being exposed to public sex acts, but if you're into that kind of thing you're welcome to go to a strip bar, sex club, or swinger party.

I remember a brief window when smoking had become unpopular but hadn't been thoroughly banned by law yet, when bars positioned themselves as pro-smoking, anti-smoking, or smoking-indifferent. Once you learned the lay of the land you could go to whichever environment you preferred. I thought that was a great compromise and wish it persisted.

In a libertopia all spaces would be private spaces, so the pure libertarian stance on smoking in public is undefined IMO.

Personally I think secondhand smoke is a dangerous pollutant, and inserting it into unwanted places is trespassing and/or battery. In the absence of a technological and legal mechanism for tracing smoke back to its source and extracting tort, it has to be banned in public spaces. Provided that private spaces can be designated as smoking-allowed.

[Pointedstick]

IMO: the general rule for vices is that objectors should be able to go about their lives without being exposed to them, but individuals should also be able to partake if they so choose. A tried and true compromise is to have an understanding that, by default, most places are vice-free, but allow people to create private clearly-advertised vice-enjoyment spaces.

So I would say that nonsmokers should generally be able to expect to move about public spaces free of secondhand smoke. Private businesses should be able to choose whatever smoking policy they want. If a business is not following the smoking policy they advertised, as in the case of the nonsmoking section that still smells like smoke, that's fraud and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Given this, it's sort of ironic that governments have taken the approach of banning smoking in private places but not public places, making those inhabiting the public places subject to more secondhand smoke than they would have otherwise been exposed to.

[TripleB]

IMO: the general rule for vices is that objectors should be able to go about their lives without being exposed to them, but individuals should also be able to partake if they so choose. A tried and true compromise is to have an understanding that, by default, most places are vice-free, but allow people to create private clearly-advertised vice-enjoyment spaces.

So I would say that nonsmokers should generally be able to expect to move about public spaces free of secondhand smoke. Private businesses should be able to choose whatever smoking policy they want. If a business is not following the smoking policy they advertised, as in the case of the nonsmoking section that still smells like smoke, that's fraud and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Given this, it's sort of ironic that governments have taken the approach of banning smoking in private places but not public places, making those inhabiting the public places subject to more secondhand smoke than they would have otherwise been exposed to.

It's not ironic at all. It's just government being government. Read Harry Browne's Why Government Doesn't Work to learn more

[WildAboutHarry]

Personally I think secondhand smoke is a dangerous pollutant

All pollutants are dangerous at certain concentrations.

My beef is that many scream bloody murder if they even smell cigarette smoke.  Thresholds are important, and zero tolerance is contrary to getting along in a free society.

Employing the force of law to deal with common behaviors one finds objectionable is the antithesis of a free society.  It reminds me of a news piece a while back about a lady who called 911 because Burger King had run out of Whoppers or some such thing. 

I know I can be annoying, but I tolerate minor annoyances in others and hope they do the same for me.  A sub-clinical dose of cigarette smoke on occasion is a small price to pay for some of my foibles and the freedom to be largely left alone.

If a neighbor's smoke bothers you say something.  If it doesn't, don't.  If they are indifferent to your concerns when you express them then move, buy a fan, etc.

[TripleB]

If a neighbor's smoke bothers you say something.  If it doesn't, don't.  If they are indifferent to your concerns when you express them then move, buy a fan, etc.

Unfortunately, if you live in an apartment with a balcony, then that means there's 8 apartments directly adjacent to yours (above, below, left, right, and 4 diagonals). If 1 in 8 of my neighbors is a smoker, then I'll never have use of my balcony or be able to keep the door open.

Since 10% to 15% of the US population are smokers, the chances that 1 in 8 of my adjacent neighbors is a smoker reaches near certainty levels. So even if I moved, I'll be moving to another apartment with neighbors who are smokers.

The only real solution is to buy a house with a lot of land in a rural area.

What if you had a neighbor who stood on his balcony masturbating? Would you argue: "simply look in a different direction or move to a different apartment."

It's a minor inconvenience to watch your neighbor masturbating on his balcony and it is his apartment after all. If he drops a load that lands on your balcony just ask him to come over and wipe it off or let the rain wash it away, right?

[WildAboutHarry]

Unfortunately, if you live in an apartment with a balcony, then that means there's 8 apartments directly adjacent to yours (above, below, left, right, and 4 diagonals). If 1 in 8 of my neighbors is a smoker, then I'll never have use of my balcony or be able to keep the door open.

That implies that the geometry, air currents, etc. direct smoke from all 8 apartments toward yours 24x7 

My point is that if the cigarette smoke really bothers you, and one of your neighbors is so insensitive that they refuse to take steps to keep their smoke away from you, then you probably do not want to be living in close proximity to that person anyway.  They might also masturbate

What if you had a neighbor who stood on his balcony masturbating?

I am amazed at the number of comparisons between smoking and masturbating.  What about good, old fashioned copulation on the old balcony?

What about a smokey BBQ?  A smokey fireplace/woodstove?  Too much pot smoke?  Smelly food from <fill in unpopular ethnic group here>?  What if smokers were 51% of the population?

Living around other people means you have to put up with some of their crap.  Civilized people minimize the amount of crap overlap, but the overlap remains to some degree, despite the best of intentions.  With the worst of intentions it can be brutal.

[Pointedstick]

If a neighbor's smoke bothers you say something.  If it doesn't, don't.  If they are indifferent to your concerns when you express them then move, buy a fan, etc.

Unfortunately, if you live in an apartment with a balcony, then that means there's 8 apartments directly adjacent to yours (above, below, left, right, and 4 diagonals). If 1 in 8 of my neighbors is a smoker, then I'll never have use of my balcony or be able to keep the door open.

Since 10% to 15% of the US population are smokers, the chances that 1 in 8 of my adjacent neighbors is a smoker reaches near certainty levels. So even if I moved, I'll be moving to another apartment with neighbors who are smokers.

You could, I don't know, try talking to your smoking neighbor. Tell him about your secondhand smoke sensitivity, and courteously ask that he smoke somewhere else. I actually had this very situation with my neighbor immediately below me rendering my balcony smoke-ridden. I politely asked him to stop and he did. Problem solved.

As libertarians, isn't that the kind of solution we should be favoring?[/quote]

i tend to agree with this.... but be very careful and emphasize the courteous part, i see the same situation come up at my apartment complex, and smokers are already feeling abused, classified as second class citizens and in general put out, he pays rent too and may have gone out of his way to pick an apartment with a private balcony just so he has a place he can smoke in peace...

[dualstow]

I find it hard to believe that secondhand smoke keeps getting compared here to things that are merely annoying but not damaging to health.
It *is* a dangerous pollutant.
When I was younger, I was the one smoking in my backyard, and I noticed my neighbor closing her windows on the second floor when I was out there lighting up. I apologized and said that I would stop. She never asked me to. In fact, she told me I had every right to smoke (but that she was allergic). I didn't need to be asked. I just stopped.

As for restaurants, I like the smoking ban in my city. It's a lot easier for smokers to just take a break from puffing when they spend time in a restaurant than it is for non-smokers to inhale that stuff while they eat. I've been in places without the ban, like outdoor restaurants in Bali, and had my breakfast ruined by all the smoke going up my nose. I can't just go to every Japanese tourist and ask them to put away their MildSevens. Not my country, not my restaurant, not my right. So I'm grateful there are places with the ban where I can go to breakfast places and actually smell my breakfast.

[ZedThou]

Since 10% to 15% of the US population are smokers, the chances that 1 in 8 of my adjacent neighbors is a smoker reaches near certainty levels. So even if I moved, I'll be moving to another apartment with neighbors who are smokers.

If your eight neighbors were randomly selected from a population having 15% smokers, then the probability that at least one of those eight neighbors is a smoker is 0.73.

(Sorry, can't help myself sometimes.)

[TripleB]

Since 10% to 15% of the US population are smokers, the chances that 1 in 8 of my adjacent neighbors is a smoker reaches near certainty levels. So even if I moved, I'll be moving to another apartment with neighbors who are smokers.

If your eight neighbors were randomly selected from a population having 15% smokers, then the probability that at least one of those eight neighbors is a smoker is 0.73.

(Sorry, can't help myself sometimes.)

Thanks for the statistics! I actually estimated it would be about 80% chance without doing the math since I forgot how and was too lazy to look it up. It's like a cortesian or bahamian statistics table or something like that.

[WildAboutHarry]

I find it hard to believe that secondhand smoke keeps getting compared here to things that are merely annoying but not damaging to health.

It *is* a dangerous pollutant.

Children's sandbox sand has a California Prop 65 warning, since silicosis is a remote possibility from sandbox abuse.  In fact, just about everything has a Prop 65 warning.

As I mentioned previously, thresholds are important.  The danger of things exists on a spectrum of time of exposure and concentration of exposure.  Exposure to cyanide is vastly different from exposure to cigarette smoke, for example.  Something that is very dangerous at high levels of exposure can be merely annoying at lower levels.

I get that smoking can cause significant and potentially fatal health problems.  Ma and Pa sitting in their recliners with Ma inhaling Pa's cigarette smoke for 40 years, though, is different from an occasional whiff of cigarette smoke.

[dualstow]

I find it hard to believe that secondhand smoke keeps getting compared here to things that are merely annoying but not damaging to health.

It *is* a dangerous pollutant.

Children's sandbox sand has a California Prop 65 warning, since silicosis is a remote possibility from sandbox abuse.  In fact, just about everything has a Prop 65 warning.

Yes, but sandbox users don't run around town throwing sand into the wind, and they certainly don't blow sand up your nose while you're trying to eat a meal at Denny's.

[WildAboutHarry]

Yes, but sandbox users don't run around town throwing sand into the wind, and they certainly don't blow sand up your nose while you're trying to eat a meal at Denny's.

There are no Denny's in CA (or other restaurants, bars, etc.) where that (smoking, not sand throwing) can happen anymore.  Not sure about the other 49.

You have either missed or chosen to ignore the main point of my post, which is that levels of exposure are relevant to environmental health hazards.  The degree to which we should be worked up as a society should be related to that level of exposure versus health risk.  The smoking section on airplanes was ludicrous, as were commingled smoking/non-smoking sections of restaurants.  But just because one can smell cigarette smoke doesn't mean that they are receiving a dose that will have clinical repercussions.

I smell BBQs in the summer, cologne on ladies, diesel exhaust from trucks, jet fuel exhaust on planes, smoke from fireplaces, etc.  All of these have health consequences in the appropriate dose or for sensitive individuals.

If we are really serious about this cigarette smoke thing, then we should stop subsidizing tobacco farmers and outlaw tobacco products.  But of course we are now embarking on legalizing yet another smoked product.

[dualstow]

Yes, but sandbox users don't run around town throwing sand into the wind, and they certainly don't blow sand up your nose while you're trying to eat a meal at Denny's.

There are no Denny's in CA (or other restaurants, bars, etc.) where that (smoking, not sand throwing) can happen anymore.  Not sure about the other 49.

You have either missed or chosen to ignore the main point of my post, which is that levels of exposure are relevant to environmental health hazards.  The degree to which we should be worked up as a society should be related to that level of exposure versus health risk.  The smoking section on airplanes was ludicrous, as were commingled smoking/non-smoking sections of restaurants.  But just because one can smell cigarette smoke doesn't mean that they are receiving a dose that will have clinical repercussions.
...

Denny's and similar restaurants are the same where I live (smoke-free) thanks to the wonderful ban!

I have not missed or ignored your point, which has been repeated over many, many posts. However, I was under the impression that I could post my own viewpoint, and maybe even disagree with yours. You're not usually this pushy, and I appreciate your passion, but I do disagree. I've seen enough studies on secondhand smoke that when you write the following,

But just because one can smell cigarette smoke doesn't mean that they are receiving a dose that will have clinical repercussions.

my response can only be that I support the smoking ban. In my opinion, it's a good thing. No lung cancer, I can taste my food, etc. I didn't write or enforce the ban, but I am glad I don't have to wait around for the day that skeptics say, oops, maybe just a whiff of cigarette smoke *is* harmful after all.

Nor am I ignoring your comment about perfume or fireplaces. I don't like strong perfume, but it's simply not in the same league as tobacco smoke.