The Economics of Dress Codes… and Smoking Bans

Tim Harford, author of the hot-off-the-presses new book The Undercover Economist, has a interesting examination of why it might have been economically rational for D.C.'s metropolitan club to turn away our own leather jacket–clad Nick Gillespie last week—and why the same economic logic makes one-size-fits-all smoking laws a bad idea.

Comments

[Kahn]

Geez. And to think of all those local ordinances against nudity. Think of the restaraunts and night clubs that could have been.

Yup, the law is an ass.

[fyodor]

Misogyny is at the heart of leather jacket culture.

[Jason Ligon]

M1EK should be here to tell us about the obviousness of market failure any minute now. Clearly, regulators know the relevant markets better than entrepreneurs. A lack of non smoking bars surely couldn't be a reflection of actual balanced interests because everyone, EVERYONE wanted completely nonsmoking bars and the market wasn't providing.

[Rich Ard]

M1EK is truly the new joe; he's getting flamed before he even shows up!

[smalls]

Has anyone here read The Undercover Economist yet?

[Ruthless]

The law is an ass in the sense of stubborn too.
Law constantly poisons the environment in which blissful, happiness-inducing anarchy would otherwise flourish.

[John B.]

Everyone here will hate this post, but here goes:

Tim Harford needs to explain a few facts about non-smoking laws:

1) In Toronto at least, before the smoking bans, there were a few explicitly non-smoking bars, such as Smokeless Joe's. You couldn't even get into these places much of the time because they were so popular! Why didn't more of these bars pop up in response to demonstrated market demand?

2) Non-smoking laws here have become very popular, even among some smokers. This popularity is not explained by comparing non-smoking laws to mandatory dress codes.

My feeling, stated with zero non-anecdotal evidence, is that the market failed to create sufficient non-smoking venues because of the addiction-fuelled presumption of smokers that they had a right to smoke wherever and whenever they wanted. By claiming the "default" position, that non-smokers would have to justify their preferences rather than the other way around, smokers were able to make smoking a universal norm in bars, making non-smoking bars hard to find.

As a result, a bar that wished to be non-smoking would have to spend a large amount of money to promote this fact, while contending with addicted, angry smokers who would feel their God-given right to smoke was being denied by the bar owners. Meanwhile, non-smoking patrons would be slow in rewarding the entrepreneur: they generally do not behave like addicts, and will too often subordinate their preferences to those of their addicted buddies, especially if they think this is the normal thing to do. How often has anyone ever tried to tell a friend not to smoke in a bar? That sort of thing might have launched a culture war between individual non-smokers and smokers. This may have been desirable to non-smokers in the long term, but not when they just felt like getting a beer.

In other words, because non-smokers did not own the default state, non-smoking bars faced two formidable barriers to entry that were not faced by smoking bars. It was easier just to allow universal smoking, confident that the non-smokers would simply hold their breath.

But non-smokers did not just suck the smoke in. They sat by silently as legislators passed laws that regulated behavior, since this was preferable to telling their friends and family to butt out. Perversely, the "market response" to universal smoking was to create the bans.

Here's a thought experiment: At some point, non-smoking bars will become the accepted cultural norm. At this point, legislators could allow some bars to permit smoking. Those bars will, of course, now have to pay to promote this fact, and will have to contend with non-smokers who will feel their right to clean air is being violated.

Would the market return everything to where it was before the ban, with nearly all bars allowing smoking? This is what Harford implies will happen, but I doubt it.

I believe ownership of the normal, default state is the main predictor of how smoking and non-smoking bars are distributed.

I also believe that the popularilty of smoking bans reveals the repressed demand of non-smokers for clean air, thwarted by the desires of militant smokers. Which brings me to a conclusion everyone here will hate: that a smoking ban can actually increase total freedom.

Of course, smoking bans usually do not stop at simply giving ownership of normality to non-smokers. They also attempt to change behaviors through coercion, which is something I oppose. But I think smoking advocates forget the implied coercion of forcing your friends to breath in their smoke when they almost certainly do not wish to do so.

[Kebko]

Excellent post, John B.

And the idea that legislation in a republic could be a "market response" is a juicy one.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[fyodor]

Anyone know what the status of workers are in smoking versus non-smoking bars? I wonder if one reason non-smoking bars are less numerous than demand would seem to...uh...demand in lieu of coercion is that maybe it would be tough to hide the smoke of workers in the back and tougher still to hire non-smoking workers or smokers who would have to always go outside?

[R C Dean]

And the idea that legislation in a republic could be a "market response" is a juicy one.

Except that it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of markets and legislation.

Markets - voluntary transactions between individuals.

Legislation - coercion imposed on individuals by state authority.

Just because there is "popular demand" for legislation doesn't make it a market response.

John - is there the slightest support for your keystone assumption that angry, addicted militant smokers were holding the entire restaurant and bar industry hostage?

Which brings me to a conclusion everyone here will hate: that a smoking ban can actually increase total freedom.

Bans are freedom. War is peace. Government mandates are the market in action. Truly, we are living in the end times.

[Ruthless]

We shall never know what perfection anarchy could produce so long as laws hang over our heads like swords of Damocles.
Do this thought experiment: What would your sex life be like under the sword of Damocles?

[Johnny Clarke]

John B.
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought out objection. Overruled!

Let us all now return to yelling about how smoking bans are the work of the Devil and proof that the government kills puppies.

[fyodor]

The idea of legislation meeting market demand better than the actions of uncoerced actors is sure an iffy one. One possible reason for it would be if there are actors in the "market" whose behavior imitates or nearly imitates coercion. The shame of religion is one possibility. The wrath of actors who feel wronged (regardless of whether they really are) may be another. Whether smokers ever really exhibited such extreme wrath I don't know, but I'll concede the possibility.

All that said, even given such near-coercive behaviors, central authorities would still have to behave with much more wisdom than they are given to (due to lack of proper feedback loops) for their actions to increase freedom. I won't say that's impossible in any given situation, only that it's not a good bet. For example, if a pair of dice are being thrown, I'll always bet on a 7 rather than an 11. Now sometimes an 11 will get thrown, but that doesn't mean that betting on the 7 was wrong or that I should switch my bets to 11. Maybe we have a case here of government intervention hitting on an 11. Or maybe there's some subtler issues going on. I'm guessing the latter.

[friendofliberty]

Legislation is not a market response. Non-smokers are using state force to get thier smoking drinking buddies to go to non-smoking bars. If the smokers in the group refused to go to a non-smoking bar when it was voluntary, it is not a market failure but a disputew between friends about where to drink. Without government smoking bans, I would predict that a good percentage of bars (which would vary by location) would be smoke free by the end of this decade. Although at least half would keep smoking as those that drink in bars tend to be more likely to smoke than teetotalers and a lot more fun.
The main advantage I have found about the smoking ban in NYC is it allows me to visit a bar at lunch for a quick pop without smelling like smoke when I go back to work.

[Jason Ligon]

Shorter John B:

Smokers are interested in drinking and smoking. Non smokers are interested in drinking.

Smokers care more about the combination of drinking and smoking than non smokers care about drinking in the absence of smoke. We know this because smokers and non smokers both went to bars.

Smokers are more commited drinkers. Anyone who has ever worked as a server in a restaurant knows that. The tradeoff for most businesses is to kill your best customers in the hopes that some unknown amount of new customers will walk in the door, knowing that many non smokers are still going to your establishment. You definitely lose good customers and you have no reason to believe nonsmokers aren't going to your bar anyway.

[fyodor]

To be the devil's advocate...

friendofliberty,

Smoking ban advocates will claim, probably rightfully, that smoking ban opponents have been predicting for many years that more smoke-free bars would pop up under a free market, but the predcition has never come true.

Jason Ligon,

Smoking ban advocates would say you are making their point, that bar owners are too timid to take the chance to meet the demand of non-smokers and that's one reason why coercive legislation (although most smoking ban advocates lack the brains or integrity to acknowledge that their bans are coercive) is helpful for market efficienty.

[Wintermute]

Restaurants and bars belong to their owners, who should have the right to run them as they see fit, subject to the economics of surviving in the marketplace.

These anti-smoking laws came in on the back of Commerce Clause-"grounded" laws prohibiting racial discrimination in "places of public accomodation." Accepting laws like this to kill the "monster that wouldn't die" opened a very wide door to criminalizing smoking in public, which is really more of a nuisance than a health threat to others.

A pet semantic peeve I have is calling restaurants "public places." I use that term to mean only places that belong to the government. Hence the use in civil rights legislation of the broader definition.

I have watched as my society moved from one tolerant of tobacco to one where many people ultimately imposed tyranny of the majority smoking bans not just on public property but on private property as well, where non-smokers are not required to go, all ostensibly based on allegations of passive smoke harm, in turn based on dubious use of statistics and very small risks. It just seems to juice a lot of non-smokers to push smokers out of "their" restaurants, bars, and public buildings, wherein smokers are not even allowed to have separately ventilated spaces; and if smokers get pneumonia outside, well hell they deserve it.

I just think this urge to get together and kick smokers' asses has reduced American liberty by encouraging many people to get ugly in an insidiously dangerous way.

[jeffiek]

John B.

Explain the move to outdoor bans. You know, the places where no one ever goes home smelling of smoke and there is no health risk. All your arguements go up in smoke. The truth is beginning to show its ugly head. All those arguements are just a smoke screen for the militant anit-smokers.

The ones that have actual names. Like John Banzhaf and Stanton Glantz. They earn their living from it. They file lawsuits and get government grants.

Militant smokers? Name one.

Jeff

[Serafina]

It's been interesting watching over the past decade as more and more restaurants went smoke-free but places that were primarily bars didn't follow suit. When I started waiting tables in 1984, the typical nonsmoking section was very small, but by the time I left, most of the places I'd worked had gone smoke-free in the restaurant.

Coffee shops, likewise, tended to be either smoke-friendly or smoke-free. Shops and customers seemed to sort themselves out amicably.

It didn't work quite that way with the bars, perhaps because smoking and drinking are culturally so tied together. And even as a nonsmoker, I accepted or even enjoyed the smokey atmosphere of a late-night bar. I hated the smell when I got home, but that was the price I was willing to pay.

I've been reading some anecdotal reports lately, that smoking may actually be increasing among bar patrons in some areas of the country after the bans went into effect. Bar owners have created cozy outdoor smoking lounges with warming lamps in the cold weather, and they can be convivial places for people to mingle, somewhat more so than in the bar itself.

[Eric the .5b]

Do this thought experiment: What would your sex life be like under the sword of Damocles?

Kinky.

[jeffiek]

fyodor

Look up the number of non-smoking bars and restauants in DC. It's large. Don't have time to check again for exact numbers.

That's totally non-smoking. Then add on the ones with separate sections.

[M1EK]

"John - is there the slightest support for your keystone assumption that angry, addicted militant smokers were holding the entire restaurant and bar industry hostage?"

How many restaurants voluntarily went non-smoking before it was banned in places which now have such bans? In the two locations I've lived where bans went into place, nearly zero went voluntarily. There's your support right there, since even most SMOKERS will now admit that they prefer not having to breathe smoke while they eat.

[M1EK]

"Look up the number of non-smoking bars and restauants in DC. It's large. Don't have time to check again for exact numbers."

Jeffiek,

I'll bet you it's the same baloney pulled here in Austin - the non-smoking bars were 100% contained in the following sets:

1. Connected to restaurant (and therefore covered by old restaurant ban)

2. Wanted to have under-18 shows (therefore covered by first attempt at bar ban)

3. On state property (i.e. UT).

Despite this, the handful of non-smoking bars was paraded about by anti-ban forces as proof that the market was providing non-smoking venues.

And the venues in #2 and #3 were ALWAYS PACKED.

As for restaurants, before the ban here in Austin and in South Florida, most of the non-smoking restaurants I saw were fast-food outlets which had banned it at a corporate level.

[Jason Ligon]

You haven't corrected a perceived market failure when you eliminate the preferred business model of bar owners. If my bar has 10 stools, you bet I want 10 smokers sitting there. They drink more and tip better. I'm in business to sell alcohol, not to make someone else's preferred customer happy.

[Jason Ligon]

"There's your support right there, since even most SMOKERS will now admit that they prefer not having to breathe smoke while they eat."

I'd like some support for that.

[Jason Ligon]

We have no ban in N KY. A new shopping center just opened that has some 7-8 nicer restaurants in it. 5 of them are non smoking.

[Jason Ligon]

If we get to argue that we can rely on attendance at the restaurant as a measure of their smoking policy's approval, smoking places win.

EVERY restaurant around here is always packed.

[M1EK]

You haven't corrected a perceived market failure when you eliminate the preferred business model of bar owners. If my bar has short ceilings, I'm selling to five-year-olds. They drink more and tip better than grownups who have to crawl in the door. I'm in business to sell alcohol, not to make someone else's preferred customer happy.

[M1EK]

You haven't corrected a perceived market failure when you eliminate the preferred business model of bar owners. If my bar has 100 stools, but the so-called 'fire code' says I can only serve 50, I'm still serving 100. I'm in business to sell alcohol, not to make someone else's preferred customer happy.

[fyodor]

Jason Ligon,

Again to be the devil's advocate (since the devil himself appears to be so foaming at the mouth that he can hardly represent himself very well), studies have supposedly shown that smoking bans have not hurt affected businesses. I don't know the details of these studies or their veracity, but until one addresses them, your argument about wanting smokers cause they're better for business will do little to sway those not already in the choir.

[jeffiek]

M1EK

Wrong. Look here -
http://www.smokefreedc.org/restaurants.htm

notice the name of the organization?

Notice this line -
"Wouldn't this be easier if ALL restaurants and bars in DC were smokefree? "

It's not about getting enough. It's about getting ALL.

[smalls]

Let's assume that the market would never create non-smoking bars. Is that really a reason for the government to step in? Does the bar owner not have a right to make that decision on his/her private property?
Is this really for the benefit of the employees? Since when are employees unable to make that decision for themselves? Should we make coal mining illegal because it causes health problems for the coal miners?

[fyodor]

M1EK,

Don't you already know what we would say to your objections? Five years old is below the age of consent, making those in that category subject to tyranny that adults have no right to impose on other adults. And adults should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of entertaining themselves at places that would not meet the state's approval for safety standards. So of course your arrows are meaningless to us and proved nothing other than a smoking ban is indeed consistent with other statist laws.

[jeffiek]

studies have supposedly shown that smoking bans have not hurt affected businesses

What was that old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Who funded the studies? What did they measure?
If half the bars business went up and half went down, then the average stayed the same.

Were they corrected for previously enacted local bans?
Were liquor sales sorted by home/bar? Or were the sales taxes from both lumped together?

Were they corrected for sales trends?

And I'm a rank amature at statistics. Imagine what the pros can do.

[jeffiek]

studies have supposedly shown that smoking bans have not hurt affected businesses

What was that old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Who funded the studies? What did they measure?
If half the bars business went up and half went down, then the average stayed the same.

Were they corrected for previously enacted local bans?
Were liquor sales sorted by home/bar? Or were the sales taxes from both lumped together?

Were they corrected for sales trends?

And I'm a rank amature at statistics. Imagine what the pros can do.

[jeffiek]

studies have supposedly shown that smoking bans have not hurt affected businesses

What was that old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Who funded the studies? What did they measure?
If half the bars business went up and half went down, then the average stayed the same.

Were they corrected for previously enacted local bans?
Were liquor sales sorted by home/bar? Or were the sales taxes from both lumped together?

Were they corrected for sales trends?

And I'm a rank amature at statistics. Imagine what the pros can do.

[fyodor]

smalls,

Most of us here would agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, for most of the people out there, that would not be enough.

More broadly speaking, good principles should generally have good results. Maybe they won't clearly or immediately reveal better results every single time, but if you can't tie the principles and some sort of desired results together at all, one might readily question the value of your principles.

[M1EK]

jeffiek,

How about the list of bars?

I actually agree that TODAY, we're probably far enough along that the market would provide some non-trivial non-smoking eating options in most areas even without the ban. However, ironically, I think it's the bans in many metropolitan areas and states which got us to the point where it's now considered the default NOT to smoke in a restaurant.

[Anon]

jeffiek's comments point out the difficulty of mentioning studies. Apparently, though he doesn't know much about statistics, he doesn't trust them if they are sponsored in any way by anyone who would, you know, actually have an interest in the phenomenon.

Since no one else has mentioned one, here's a Globe article on the effects of the smoking ban in Boston:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban?pg=full

and here's the associated study summary (I believe):

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/php/pri/tcrtp/Smoke-free_Workplace.pdf

I know the NYC Department of Health put out something; there's probably also some sort of restaurateur association out there somewhere. If anyone has links they'd be appreciated.

Anon

[fyodor]

jeffiek,

1. I hope you noticed the parts of my posts expressing my purpose of being a devil's advocate.

2. I think you've made the point that you don't believe these studies. 🙂 I also made the point that I was not vouching for their veracity.

3. Unfortunately, I have not heard of any studies to refute these findings; equally unfortunately, expressing one's skepticism over them does nothing to sway the minds of those for whom they are validation.

[fyodor]

However, ironically, I think it's the bans in many metropolitan areas and states which got us to the point where it's now considered the default NOT to smoke in a restaurant.

That, obviously, is speculation. But even if it is true, why impose further bans to simply spread the good word of the value of catering to non-smokers considering that you...

actually agree that TODAY, we're probably far enough along that the market would provide some non-trivial non-smoking eating options in most areas even without the ban?

[M1EK]

studies have supposedly shown that smoking bans have not hurt affected businesses

What was that old saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics?

Who funded the studies? What did they measure?

[blah, blah]

The problem is that the studies' results have been replicated in city after city. Either the same group is doing the studies in the same way each time, or the conclusion is probably valid. Occam's Razor suggests the answer.

It is mildly amusing to see the exact same arguments pop up in each city considering a ban, and in each case get swatted down by pointing to city N-1, whose bar industry did not, in fact, suffer the economic collapse assured by smokers.

[M1EK]

"That, obviously, is speculation. But even if it is true, why impose further bans to simply spread the good word of the value of catering to non-smokers considering that you..."

I was distinguishing between restaurant smoking (banned in LOTS of places) and bar smoking (banned in relatively few).

[smalls]

Regardless of whether or not people still go to the restaurants/bars, freedom has been stifled. If a law is passed banning cell phone use in restaurants, a lot of people would be pleased. Restaurant revenue would probably be largely unaffected. But it's just not a decision to be made by the government. My point is, if we fall into the trap of arguing whether or not it is economically feasible to ban smoking, then we run the risk of letting one small point distact us from the big picture.

[M1EK]

More important than the argument about the rights of the private property-owner, if you actually want to be able to smoke in a bar, is the argument you make to the voting public; and so far, the argument of ban-the-banners has been trite and brainless.

I wrote on the subject here:

http://mdahmus.thebaba.com/blog/archives/000191.html

I'm amazed at how few people want to talk about how and why the market is "failing" to meet the overwhelming consumer preference for non-smoking venues. (And if you claim there is no such preference, you disqualify yourself from the discussion, since you're obviously a damn lunatic). Whether it's a real "market failure" or not is irrelevant. If the VOTERS view it as such, you'd better be prepared to argue on those grounds.

Instead, you'd rather hold fast to principle, look like an idiot as you're forced to defend smoking in restaurants and on airlines (on the same private business grounds) and then get your ass whupped at the ballot box.

Shine on, I suppose.

[smalls]

M1EK,
Just because voters want a law doesn't mean it's constitutional. There are lots of things voters might want (slavery 150 years ago), but somethings just can't be decided that way. That's why we have a constitution telling our lawmakers what they can and can't do.

[M1EK]

smalls,

Until a smoking ban is ruled unconstitutional, you're on a very very very long limb. And I could just as easily (and with a much shorter limb) respond with the examples of fire codes, etc.

[Jason Ligon]

M1EK:

Did you really think the 5 year old and the fire code were meaningful comparisons?

A public safety argument is not the same as a market failure argument. If you want to argue public safety, more power to ya, but don't act like mentioning a drunk 5 year old has anything to do with the market failure you keep griping about.

[smalls]

M1EK,
I grant that you have the upper hand based on precedent. But the fact that it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't. Smoking is legal. How dare the government try to tell us that it's not legal in our own businesses! (I'm not a business owner, just making a point).

[John B]

Hi all,

I do believe that smoking is an inherently intrusive activity that should not be considered normal, which would wrongly require non-smokers to explain why the air should be clean. Remember that great libertarian line about fists and the end of one's nose? Same thing applies here, although most non-smoking noses seem to be too timid to say anything to the fist-throwers.

But I do believe that smoking bans are intrusive legislation, using coercion instead of cultural dialogue. And as many have pointed out, instead of simply placing a new cultural onus on smokers to justify their preferences to non-smokers rather than the other way around, governments are now using the law to force people to change behaviors which need not affect anyone other than themselves.

I believe this is bad. How did it come to this?

As I wrote earlier, I believe these bans are best understood as an attempt to increase total freedom. I would agree that this is perverse. But if smokers want to keep their freedoms, they had better understand why it is happening.

It is true that smoking's abnormality represents a new change in fashion, but it is not unprecedented. As I understand it, the popular acceptability of ubiquitous smoking did not arrive until smoking was finally considered respectable among women. Before then, men retired to the smoking room, and would never think of returning to their wives with smokey clothes - hence the smoking jacket.

In other words, smoking existed as a respectable, universal activity for maybe 75 years. That's a long time, but not long enough for smokers to claim that it is natural and normal, and that the non-smokers are the ones who need to justify their desire for clean air.

Not only that, non-smokers have outnumbered smokers for decades now. Why has it taken so long for smokers to realize that they probably ought to at least ask before firing up?

I believe addiction is the key here, creating intense short-term desires that prevent otherwise sensible people from seeing the discomfort they cause others by lighting up whenever they wish. At the same time, I think non-smokers would prefer to have short-term peace rather than fight addicts for their long-term comfort. And bar owners are happy to collect money either way, regardless of the unhappiness of their non-smoking patrons. And besides, it is too costly trying to develop the non-smoking market in an environment where smoking is practically considered a right, regardless of the desires of others. This is why the market has failed to create sufficient non-smoking bars, leaving government coercion as the preferred "market" approach by non-smokers.

Is this lazy and culturally irresponsible? You bet. Government legislation is a lousy way of enforcing good manners. And the fact that the city won't even allow smoking-only bars to operate shows that these bans are about more than shifting the ownership of normality to non-smokers.

But you can't simply blame Robespierre for the excesses of the French Revolution; you have to talk about Louis XIV too. If smokers want to keep their freedoms, they will have to respect the freedoms of non-smokers too.

[M1EK]

"A public safety argument is not the same as a market failure argument. If you want to argue public safety, more power to ya, but don't act like mentioning a drunk 5 year old has anything to do with the market failure you keep griping about."

Both are impositions on the right of the private business owner to run his business however he sees fit. As would be requiring that he serve black people if he serves white people.

[Jason Ligon]

Okay, can we all take a deep breath before we start talking about how market demand and 'perceived market failure' as measured by people at a ballot box is somehow a more 'real' guide for what the market should and should not be doing?

Let's be clear here. All of the cries to 'level the playing field' mean exactly that the ban doesn't fly until and unless no one has any choice in the matter over a very large geographical area. This is NOT a freedom increasing measure.

Second, there is a reason we don't poll people to find out how many loaves of bread to bake or what kind of food is to be offered in restaurants. Why allow steaks to be sold in restaurants at all? They are harmful to public health, they make people fat, and so forth.

Fat people on airplanes are another problem. Lets take that to the polls. I could explain how much gas could be saved, and every business traveller in America would be on board. The market is broken! It isn't serving the majority of flyers who would prefer to never sit "next to" a huge fat body. Fat people don't have a constitutional right to fly, after all.

[M1EK]

"This is NOT a freedom increasing measure."

Well, if you're somebody who can't stand smoke and yet you like to drink and see bands perform live music, it sure as hell increases your freedom, since the market didn't provide one (NOT EVEN ONE) instance of that type of club which went non-smoking among a hundred or so of that type here in Austin.

And the ones provided through evil state intervention always sell out; while many others that allow smoking go under for lack of patronage. Hmmm.

[fyodor]

M1EK,

Do you always argue that what the majority wants is inherently correct, or only on issues where the majority agrees with you?

And if you claim you didn't say that, well no, not in so many words, but you clearly implied it.

And it's a coward's argument.

[M1EK]

"Second, there is a reason we don't poll people to find out how many loaves of bread to bake or what kind of food is to be offered in restaurants. Why allow steaks to be sold in restaurants at all? They are harmful to public health, they make people fat, and so forth."

That's just stupid - and you know it. You eating a steak doesn't in any reasonable way prevent me from enjoying chicken or vegetables. You smoking, on the other hand, does prevent me from being able to breathe clean(er) air.

[M1EK]

"And it's a coward's argument."

Fuck off. You deserve to continue to get your ass whupped at the ballot box with an attitude like that.

[jeffiek]

You smoking, on the other hand, does prevent me from being able to breathe clean(er) air.

Only if you're in the restaurant. What you really want is for the state to force business owners to let you into places where you're not wanted.

I, on the other hand, am a peaceful person and would be perfectly happy to let you frequent a business that catered to your tastes. That way I could be sure never to be anywhere near you.

[M1EK]

"I, on the other hand, am a peaceful person and would be perfectly happy to let you frequent a business that catered to your tastes."

There weren't any. Until the evil government stepped in and made restaurants actually serve the 80% of the population that didn't smoke.

And trust me, the feeling is mutual. The closest I'd like to get to you is scraping you off the bottom of my shoe.

[mk]

Jason,
I was watching Airline just recently and there was a scene where the airline reps had to charge a large Samoan man for two tickets due to his girth.
He was very accepting of the charge which I found refreshing. He could have easily started a scene saying that the airlines were discriminating against Samoans (not that they are all large, but many of them are).
Anyway, I've already argued about this with M1ek some time ago. I just wanted to say that, since the first discussion on this topic, I have paid a visit to Richmond VA and there are non-smoking restaurants showing up there now as well.
If you think that there was any government coercion going on in Richmond towards non-smoking, well, you clearly have never set foot in Southern Virginia.

[R C Dean]

Amazing, isn't it, that for well over a century people in this country had enough in the way of tolerance and mutual respect that they could put up with each other's quirks, like smoking.

And then along comes the nanny state, and the victim culture, and now everything that puts you out the least bit is something for the nanny state to hammer down.

Something tells me it won't be long before M1EK gets to eat the majoritarian sentiments he expresses in this thread.

[jeffiek]

There weren't any. Until the evil government stepped in and made restaurants actually serve the 80% of the population that didn't smoke.

Amazing. In a country where the consumer is king, where you can by every gizmo and service imaginable. Food from all over the world. TV's in every size and shape, even in your car! You name it, someone's selling it.

And you couldn't find anyone to sell what you wanted? Could it be that it takes more than one patron to sustain a restaurant?

The closest I'd like to get to you is scraping you off the bottom of my shoe.

And now, thanks to those laws you support, I may very well be sitting next to you at dinner tonight.

[Johnny]

Economic Rationality.

Actually, this all brings up a good point. Considering the number of persons that would have preferred to eat in a non-smoking eatery, why weren't there more prior to the nanny-state stepping in?

I smoke, but not around my friends who might be bothered by it...

I don't recall seeing any significant papers concerning this, anyone know of any?

And just to be snide, aren't Feudalism and slavery economically rational?

My preference is for business catering to the customer, my deeper interest is how rarely it really does.

[Viking Moose]

"aren't Feudalism and slavery economically rational?"
no.

==========
Secondhand Smoke: Nuisance or Menace?
June 03 2003
Maia Szalavitz
Exaggerating the risks of secondhand smoke
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=457
======================
Fyodor: as usual, good comments. your intelligent, well-thought out posts are a breath of fresh air, as it were, on this site.

cheers!
VM

[Stevo Darkly]

Actually, this all brings up a good point. Considering the number of persons that would have preferred to eat in a non-smoking eatery, why weren't there more prior to the nanny-state stepping in?

I'm guessing it's because the preference of smokers for a place where they can smoke is much stronger than the preference of most nonsmokers for a place where nobody can smoke.

I.e., though the smokers were fewer in number, their addiction drove a their choices more powerfully than intolerance among nonsmokers drove theirs.

(Note: By "tolerance/intolerance" here I mean the ability and willingless to co-exist with certain circumstances. I'm not trying to imply a moral stance.)

Over time, the tolerance of nonsmokers for cigarette smoke has grown less, partly driven by growing health concerns. They looked for ways to express their preferences. Coercion through the political process is one of the less moral ways of doing so.

And just to be snide, aren't Feudalism and slavery economically rational?

No -- unless you consider serfs (unfree and bound to the land as part of the property) and slaves as less than human beings, so that their objectives, market preferences and personal utility don't have to be taken into account.

[Viking Moose]

here's why:

the hot chix smoke. so a guy on his deathbead with asthma (forgot his primitine mist - can work in as fast as 15 seconds -tick tock tick tock) would be awash in his own snot, but lighting the girl up.

lotsa times when there's a lone guy smoker, he's outside alone. get the girl outside, everybody pushes over themselves to get outside.

heh.

[M1EK]

"Actually, this all brings up a good point. Considering the number of persons that would have preferred to eat in a non-smoking eatery, why weren't there more prior to the nanny-state stepping in?"

I find it a fascinatic topic, but unfortunately the smoking neanderthals respond with

uhhhhh... market working by definition.... ughngh... must not be any demand for non-smoking restaurants

I'd be very happy with a market where there were non-trivial amounts of quality non-smoking and quality smoking venues. Unfortunately because of the intransigence of the pro-smoking forces (being unwilling to address this apparent market failure), we're left with a poor second choice - all-non-smoking.

[just another lurker]

Jason Lingon said:
Smokers are more commited drinkers. Anyone who has ever worked as a server in a restaurant knows that.

I agree.

Here in Seattle the indoor smoking ban will go into effect on Dec 11th. It has the draconian ?25-foot away from any door, window or ventilation shaft? rule which will make those California or Vancouver style outdoor areas practically impossible as well. (With very many of the urban bars and clubs you?d have to literally stand in the middle of the street to be in compliance.) So not much compromise is going to be available.

This will have a great impact for me as a smoker. The goth/fetish clubs and bars that I hang out in have a large percentage of patrons that smoke. Interestingly, some reactions of pro-banners have been of the ?Great! I hate smoke. Now I?ll come down more often because I don?t smell of smoke,? etc. (I personally don?t believe this too much. I think these folks will show up in about the same frequency as before.)

But the main issue for the business will be where their revenue comes from. If it?s from the drink sales then I think you ARE going to see an impact. To be viable, club clientele (at least the kinds I go to) needs to have a certain fluctuating mix. First, you?ve got the ?cool? (whatever that means) people. These people wear outlandish outfits, or little at all, and are interesting to schmooze with. Unfortunately a percentage of them are pretty poor and lack drink money. Then you?ve got the ?straights? that are attracted by the ?cool? kids. Their advantage is that they DO have drink money. And smokers are a large percentage of both groups. So yes, I think that a sizeable percentage of the ones that drink heavy, or buy drinks for others, are smokers.

People go to clubs for more than just the drinks or the music: they go to mix with others in an atmosphere of freedom and, let?s be honest, varying levels of debauchery. You could also meet people at church socials or book signings but without the booze, and to be honest, the smoking it?s really not quite as fun, is it? My feeling is that the pro-ban people are saying ?Oh, I?d really like to hang out with those COOL people, if they?d only stop those NASTY HABITS of theirs. So let?s make a law.? Yeah, right.

Anyway, I predict:

The ban will have a depressing effect on attendance in general. Whether it?s critical or not is questionable.

It will kill some small mom-and-pop bars and alternative clubs. Whether enough new business comes in from the Red Lobster at the mall to offset that is debateable. The MSM will NOT report it if it?s negative. They?ll cook the statistics.

Some clubs will survive, but they may need to jack up the cover charges at the door to cover a decrease in booze sales. This is the ?Great that you?re here showing off your red velvet corset now that those nasty smokers are gone, but your single glass of red wine doesn?t cover our bills? issue.

We?ll see.

[jeffiek]

I.e., though the smokers were fewer in number, their addiction drove a their choices more powerfully than intolerance among nonsmokers drove theirs.

I think this is a good explanation for the rate of change of voluntary smoking restrictions.

Consider it in relation to the problem of maximizing business. Which color shirt do you produce? The red one that 25% of your customers refuse to buy, or the green on that 74% don't prefer (but will buy anyway)?

I left 1% out to account for the ones that won't buy the green ones.

Those 1% might be holler quite loudly about the market failure to produce red shirts. Of course in a free market there would be red shirts. Customers might have to travel to get them, and they might have to pay a premium, but they would be available. At least in most locations.

Of course because of the intransigence of those pro-green shirt people (being unwilling to address this apparent market failure), we're left with the government forcing the manufacturers to make only red shirts.

All the polls will support the legislation.

And the pro-green people will buy them. Eventually. When it gets cold out.

[Jason Ligon]

"There weren't any. Until the evil government stepped in and made restaurants actually serve the 80% of the population that didn't smoke."

Stop doing that. Restaurants WERE serving the 80% of people who didn't smoke. They weren't broadly serving whatever percent of people are so unwilling to be in the presence of smoke that they can't even tolerate a smoking section on the other side of a TGI Fridays. This isn't a binary issue where the two sides are everyone smokes or no one smokes. The compromise of a smoking section, as measured by the very frikkin large population of non smokers that eat in restaurants that have smoking sections, worked well enough.

What you are saying is that what those 80% of people REALLY wanted was no smoking whatsoever, regardless of how revealed preferences showed that they were perfectly willing to balance preferences with both smokers and restaurant owners by way of the smoking section. You are perfectly happy to remove the whole concept of balancing preferences from the picture so long as you have the majority opinion. Again, fat people on airplanes (which is a better example than fatty foods, I admit) should be outta here. I can't even get ONE flight that will guarantee me I won't be sitting next to a huge woman. I have an exclusive demand, and it isn't being met, so let's toss the whole notion of balanced interests by willingness to pay out the window. Give me what I want!

[fyodor]

Fuck off. You deserve to continue to get your ass whupped at the ballot box with an attitude like that.

M1EK, for once I agree with you. Your brand of hyper-ventilating emotionalism does seem to sway more votes than sober, reasoned argument.

But it's still a coward's argument to claim the majority's agreement makes you right. That's because you obviously would abandon that argument as soon as the majority is not on your side.

Viking Moose,

Why, thank you!!! You're not a beautiful, buxom 25 year old chick by any chance, are you? Oh well, alas, I'm spoken for anyway... 🙂

[M1EK]

"But it's still a coward's argument to claim the majority's agreement makes you right"

I never claimed to be right, you asshole, much less to be right because I agree with the majority. I claimed that if YOU want to KEEP SMOKING ANYWHERE, you'd be better off figuring out how to fix what the VOTERS view as a "market failure" rather than bitching and moaning about the rights of private businesses.

As I've stated explicitly, a total smoking ban makes me uncomfortable. But rolling my eyes and saying that the market obviously doesn't want non-smoking bars is an even worse solution.

[M1EK]

"Stop doing that. Restaurants WERE serving the 80% of people who didn't smoke."

Not by the definition of "serve" which those 80% of VOTERS consider to be true.

Again, do you want to keep smoking anywhere?

[M1EK]

Oh, and:

"The compromise of a smoking section, as measured by the very frikkin large population of non smokers that eat in restaurants that have smoking sections, worked well enough."

is ridiculous. Smoking sections just completely sucked. If there were any non-trivial number of smokers in the restaurant, sitting ten tables away versus two did very little to make dinner more tolerable.

[jeffiek]

I claimed that if YOU want to KEEP SMOKING ANYWHERE, you'd be better off figuring out how to fix what the VOTERS

Point taken. Not that I'm going to count on you at the voting booth.

"The compromise of a smoking section,...
is ridiculous

According to the gospel of M1EK

Not by the definition of "serve" which those 80% of VOTERS consider to be true.

Funny, but the few times its ever comes up for a vote the numbers don't turn out that way. They run between a close call and 60/40. Of those that actually show up at the booth. After huge expenses of government funds to promote the bans. Of course there's little to no funding for the anti-ban side. That would be politically incorrect.

[M1EK]

"Funny, but the few times its ever comes up for a vote the numbers don't turn out that way."

That's true. Of those 80% non-smokers, many don't care enough to go to the polls; and many are uncomfortable telling private businesses what they must do (AS, I KEEP MENTIONING, AM I). Some probably even fall into my camp - trying real hard to come up with a solution which provides some non-trivial number of truly non-smoking bars which aren't CRAP while still having plenty of good smoking bars, only to be thwarted by a bunch of absolutists like you who aren't interested in even discussing this apparent market failure.

And then they reluctantly vote in favor of all-non-smoking, since the alternative is all-smoking. Hooray.

[fyodor]

M1EK:

I never claimed to be right

Heh, GOOD THING!!

much less to be right because I agree with the majority

As I specifically stated already, I know you never said that in so many words, but you sure seemed to be implying that. If you really meant no such thing, my apology.

you'd be better off figuring out how to fix what the VOTERS view as a "market failure"

I hardly think it's my responsibility nor the responsibility of anyone else on this thread to fix what the voters view as a "market failure." I think the flat out unjustness to both smokers and businesses is reason enough to oppose such bans. And yes, I suspect they hurt economic efficiency, though if studies claim they don't, I shrug my shoulders and say maybe the studies don't study the right information, and maybe I'm wrong. But it's my experience that free markets are generally the best (as in most fair and efficient) means to settle who gets what. Now markets never give everyone they want (nothing can do that), and if they appear to not be satisfying a large potential demand, there's probably very good reason for that even if it's not evident on the surface. Maybe some researcher who makes his money researching such things and thus has much more time to devote to this will solve the apparent paradox someday. Meanwhile, if my reasons for opposing the ban do not convince the majority, I suppose that's life in a democracy. I lament the unjustness of it, but there's so much unjustness in the world that this bit won't cause me to lose sleep. Nor likely to lose my temper as you seem to in practically each and every one of your posts.

[just another lurker]

jeffiek9 said:
"Then you'll want the parks and the beaches."

Just this Saturday went to a public park in Lynnwood to drink my coffee, as usual. Noticed the nice new sign posted:

"This park is now tobacco-fee... for our children!"

[fyodor]

"Now markets never give everyone they want"

Should instead read:

"Now markets never give everyone all that they want"

[Jason Ligon]

M1EK:

I can only hope, REALLY hope that you get shafted by majoritarianism sometime soon so you can see how obnoxious the 'you'd better appeal to the VOTERS' argument is.

"Hey, fatass! You'd better appeal to the VOTERS if you want to be able to get on ANY form of transportation with another human being. My only choices were to pay for extra gas and have spillover in my seat or not fly at all. I am really concerned about freedom. I would be happy with any solution that gave me easy access to a flight without fat people on it, but you ABSOLUTISTS made me use the force of law to prohibit fatties from getting on airplanes. Don't you dare act like I like this outcome!"

[Hakluyt]

M1EK,

Your appeal to majoritarianism is at best hypocritical. Next week I am sure that you will be against a particular majoritarian viewpoint and I and others will be there to nail you for it.

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

Remember, M1EK is always bitching about the 2004 election and its outcome and screaming at libertarians for not voting for the Democrats. Heh.

[Hakluyt]

fyodor,

You can always tell when someone is getting their ass kicked when they start to tell you that they are kicking your ass.

The term "market failure" should be Godwinized.

[Sean Healy]

These debates are always insufficiently historicized, with both sides acting as if the available choices exist outside of decades of conventions, habits and other socially constructed forces that inhibit the operation of pure market forces, whatever they are. If it were as easy for private business to provide non-smoking bars in a market with long-established smoking bars and all the entrenched customer assumptions that have evolved as a result of said market context as it is to, say, provide a new flavor of chewing gum, I'd bet there would be no call for the state to intervene.

The fact is that markets often fail to provide sufficient choice where the provision of limited choice remains profitable. Housing is like that, for instance. I live in a house I don't particularly like in a location with a lot of shortcomings, but my preference was available in the marketplace because property developers can't afford to cater for all tastes in housing, so I settled for good enough. Non-smokers had done that for decades. Now in many places they don't have to.

[Sean Healy]

excuse me: "was NOT catered for"

[Hakluyt]

Sean Healy,

Even if for sake of argument we accept your contention, that hardly makes us leapfrog to the conclusion that the first or best choice is to adopt a government measure.

Its been argued by M1EK here that smoking bans came via government intervention first, yet according one law professor of mine (who is a raging liberal if there ever was one) it was the habit of businesses to stop smoking in restaurants and other locales long before there were many non-smoking laws on the books. He used it as a example of how people's attitudes are changed without the creation of a legal regime to do so. If indeed historical practices, etc. were such a inhibitor of change in bars, one wonders why they weren't so in other areas?

Of course your statement also presumes that large numbers of people are interested in no-smoking rules in bars, but that is not evidenced in your statement or anyone else's. It might just be that some elites are interested in getting rid of smoking and this is the way they've determined that they will do it. It certainly argues against the notion that M1EK and joe preach - that they believe in bodily autonomy.

[M1EK]

"Nor likely to lose my temper as you seem to in practically each and every one of your posts."

Here's what did it for me, you insufferable prick:

"Do you always argue that what the majority wants is inherently correct, or only on issues where the majority agrees with you?

And if you claim you didn't say that, well no, not in so many words, but you clearly implied it.

And it's a coward's argument."

I've made it very clear that I am NOT saying that I'm right, or that I'm right because the majority agrees with me; I'm pointing out to smokers the pragmatic justification for analyzing and attempting to correct the market 'failure' before the voters do it, much more bluntly.

And yet you called me a coward.

[VIking Moose]

What does "market failure" mean to you? That might help clear up some of the talking on by each other.
(this is an honest, well-intended question)
thanks.

cheers,
VM

[Hakluyt]

Viking Moose,

To me it means that there are endemic and global imperfections of such a serious matter that voluntary human exchanges (in goods, services, etc.) cannot address the issue even in an incomplete way. Obviously a high hurdle.

[M1EK]

'What does "market failure" mean to you?'

To me, it means something pretty unusual - a monopoly, for instance. A borderline case for me (might not call it a "failure" but certainly "suboptimal") would be a large metropolitan area where 80% of the population doesn't smoke, indications are that most of them severely dislike cigarette smoke, and yet exactly zero bars ban smoking.

[Viking Moose]

Thanks!

I'm sorry I cannot contribute any more - i'm late. dammit.

Thank you both for the defs.

now, enjoy some good debate.

Oh -

ftp://ftp.uic.edu/pub/depts/econ/wpaper/
hhstokes/hhs_79.pdf

it's a paper on "Tradable Environmental Polution Credits: A New Financial Asset"

by my advisor. I hope you enjoy!

cheers.
VM