The smoking ban, finally
The news isn't terribly cheery, but in one respect it is a great day. The smoking ban came into effect this morning, and I think the country is now a better place.
Norm and others have argued that it's illiberal: that the theoretical possibility of airtight rooms for smokers, which would ensure nobody else is affected, means that banning smoking is an infringement of a liberty that does no harm to others. I suppose that's true in theory, but is it really possible in practice? An obvious objection is that non-smoking staff would still have to enter the rooms, to which the response is the staff don't have to work there if they don't want to. This is weak, in my view. I'm supposed to avoid getting an otherwise good job because the environment might poison me? And this is my problem? Isn't this an infringement of the liberty to work without being physically harmed? What's the difference between this and direct violence? Should we allow hypothetical 'fight clubs' where the people are free to beat each other up, and the staff should be expected to take it too, or they can work elsewhere?
Plus, there are more than adequate public health reasons for the ban. Smoking causes 100,000 premature deaths a year, and 50% of smokers will be killed by the habit. Sure, people are free to risk bringing about their premature deaths if they want to, but I'd say there's a moral duty to make sure they know what they're doing. Taking measures to prevent people harming themselves isn't unreasonable: banning it completely may step into civil liberties territory (although I've yet to be convinced there's no case for banning it inside houses containing children), but a ban in public places is surely a mild, and blindingly obvious, step for any government with a duty to protect its citizens.
Even if you do the balancing acts and find it is illiberal, I don't care. The public health benefits and the ability to socialise without being surrounded by smoke far, far outweigh any possible downside, in my view. It's mildly disappointing that a Labour government implemented it despite themselves, rather than making a proper stand, but that's a minor thing. I am, as you might have gathered, very happy about it 
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- Andrew: Just added a link to Cristina Odone interpreting the sexuality/pleasure question as a direct query on Catholic doctrine (I...
on Flawed Theos survey claims Catholic values are common in the UK. - Andrew: You’d almost be tempted to think it’s deliberately opaque so as to give the impression of depth. Not that the...
on Flawed Theos survey claims Catholic values are common in the UK. - Andrew: Also, the full encyclical really is a massively dull, rambling stream of nonsense. It’s like the poetry of a...
on Flawed Theos survey claims Catholic values are common in the UK. - Andrew: Well, this saves me a job. I was moments away from writing about 90% of this post on my own blog.
on Flawed Theos survey claims Catholic values are common in the UK. - vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon.
July 2nd, 2007 - 10:12
I read somewhere that smoking with children in the room is being considered abuse. This ban is great and all – but unless an environmental health officer catches someone in the act the fine can’t be imposed.
July 2nd, 2007 - 22:25
I am also very happy I can now go out, relax over a quiet drink and not be made to feel sick, possibly have a migraine bought on and not come home having to put all my clothes straight in the wash and wash my hair! Nevermind the fact I no longer have to breathe in all those poisonous gases!
It’s so brilliant I celebrated yesterday with a lovely with pub Sunday roast!! LOL
July 2nd, 2007 - 22:43
It’s great news, that I will no longer have to smell like an ashtray. It means I can wear the same shirt out, Fridays and Saturdays, and then for the rest of the week, to work; I was getting sick of changing my clothes every two days….
July 14th, 2007 - 22:55
“I’m supposed to avoid getting an otherwise good job because the environment might poison me?”
Yes, unless you suggest forcing private individuals to pay you against their will. The “job” is an agreement between yourself and another consenting individual. If you dont wish to work under the conditions they offer then you are free to decline. Any attempt on your part to them to accept your services or to adapt their offer is clearly illiberal.
“And this is my problem?”
Yes. No-one owes you a living.
“Isn’t this an infringement of the liberty to work without being physically harmed?”
No. If you agree to work in a smoke-filled bar, you consent to being physically harmed. You are not forced to work in that smoke-filled bar so it appears your liberties remain intact. What you’re actually saying is, “Can’t I encroach on the liberties of others so that they be forced to employ me in an environment of my or the governments choosing?”
“Should we allow hypothetical ‘fight clubs’ where the people are free to beat each other up, and the staff should be expected to take it too, or they can work elsewhere?”
Yes.
Im always left amused by comments that begin “Should we allow…”. As if you have any right to tell other people what they can or cannot do to themselves or other consenting adults on private property.
No offense, but I’d suggest that quite a few people could do with at least learning the basics of libertarian theory before they try and critique it.
July 15th, 2007 - 01:58
I did and do know the ‘basics of libertarian theory’, I guess I just have a hard time believing anyone takes it seriously…I suppose that it’s completely and totally open for abuse is overruled by the freedom argument, right?
July 15th, 2007 - 22:52
“I did and do know the ‘basics of libertarian theory’, I guess I just have a hard time believing anyone takes it seriously”
I personally take human liberty very seriously, yes. Libertarian thought is at the heart of classical economic theory and common law (which is sadly being replaced with legislation such as the ban under discussion), so it has a distinguished pedigree that predates socialism and any other form of modern statist thinking.
I’m aware that millions of people stand to benefit from this smoking ban but, unlike yourself and Neil Harding, I’m not willing to trade away the rights and liberties of other human beings to see it enforced.
July 16th, 2007 - 12:41
So, from a libertarian perspective, the ‘right’ to do whatever you want overrides the ‘right’ to do whatever you want without being physically harmed? Sure I can go elsewhere, but I don’t want to.
July 16th, 2007 - 20:39
“So, from a libertarian perspective, the ‘right’ to do whatever you want overrides the ‘right’ to do whatever you want without being physically harmed? Sure I can go elsewhere, but I don’t want to.”
There is no “right to do whatever you want”
We have the right to be free from agression and coercion employed against our will, against person and justly acquired property. Libertarian theory is grounded in property rights. My home is my property. If you enter onto my property or interact with it physically without my consent then we consider it to be trespassing, just as agression against my person without my consent is considered assault. In both cases I may employ force to repel such agression.
In the case of the bar, we come to an agreement regarding your presence on my property. I agree to let you on my property. I hold the property rights, and thus decide how that space is to be employed. At no point do you acquire any property rights over my property. By entering onto my property you accept my right to employ that space as I see fit. Smokers on my property produce fumes on my property. If I consent, there is no trespass, there is no crime.
Your use of force on my property and against others is completely unjust whether it be a fist fight or a piece of government legislation. You dont want to go elsewhere, but if I decide I no longer wish to have you on my property, then you are a trespasser. You are the criminal.
July 16th, 2007 - 23:54
Huh, interesting – I apparently didn’t understand that as well as I thought. Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
July 17th, 2007 - 22:24
No problem. As a non-smoker I can “understand” the convenience of not having to put up with cigarette smoke, but of course, if the government now claims the right to rule over private property, where does it stop? (It should be noted that the government now refers to pubs and bars as being public space, when in reality they remain entirely private. A subtle use of wording that has massive implications).
At what point would you consider a piece of legislation as being in violation of your property rights as a private property or business owner?
July 18th, 2007 - 21:32
I think of the law as a necessary method of enforcing moral responsibility for people’s actions – I don’t see why being on my own property should make any difference.
July 25th, 2007 - 21:46
what an absolute load of rubbish,if the government and their one sided health advisors were right,tobacco products would be illeagle,we are all adults,free to choose,with the information given to us.
July 27th, 2007 - 00:44
Max – if there’s clearly a contradiction between the health and criminal policies, why does it have to be that way around? Isn’t it equally likely that it is bad for you, and should be illegal?
July 28th, 2007 - 17:23
If we are going to trust the government Andrew,then why havn’t they banned smoking and all tobacco products? Surely it cannot just be about money? The last figurs I saw were 1.5 billion spent on smoking related diseases and 8 billion raised. Ok that is a fair pocket in the treasury coffers but they can make that up in extra tax’s.
I am not a fan of Governments but I would take more notice of their health warnings if they were to ban smoking completely.
I trawl the internet,like anyone else can,and see spin and contradictions on both sides.
Also,i sympathise with non smokers regarding the smell on their clothes,hair, asthma sufferers etc.
But ultimately we are adults and make our own choices,and while smoking is legal, I personally would allow pubs to permit smoking in “sealed” rooms with adequate extraction,inspected and approved by councils if nessesary.
July 30th, 2007 - 12:29
If alcohol were discovered now, it’d be illegal. By every modern standard, given the number of deaths and amount of harm it causes, one way or another, it should be banned. But it’s obviously not, for historical and cultural reasons. Similarly, banning smoking outright would be political suicide, so nobody’s going to do it. I don’t think there’s any big conspiracy here.
I don’t see any contradictions in the evidence that smoking is bad for you and people around you – I think that’s unequivocal.
I’m just not convinced that such ‘sealed’ rooms are possible in practice, and I don’t think it’s right that staff should have to go in there, or work elsewhere – I don’t think any job should be able to force people to damage their health.
July 31st, 2007 - 21:37
I’m sure we wiil end up begging to differ….LOL
Brave statement to say the evidence is unequivocal though, I personall run that health risk,but into the melting pot are genetics,stress,employment (look at autopsy reports on miners and paint sprayers) and also environment (again autopsy reports on people who have lived in urban areas all their life).. the more I trawl,the more evidence I find of there not being the health risk we are being told.