Friday, June 24, 2005
Economics Friday – Sort of.
I’ve been unsure about this proposed smoking ban. I know that most non-smokers hate smoky bars, yet as a general rule I am an uneasy about government prohibition. That people should be able to socialise with their friends without inhaling someone else’s fumes seems reasonable; but smokers should surely be able to relax in company and with a cigarette too.
If a ban is so popular, if there are so many people who want smoke-free environments, then I am surprised that the market hasn’t solved the problem on its own. If there is the custom, if there is the money to be made, then why isn’t there a fair proportion of non-smoking restaurants and bars already - especially in a market the size of London which could easily support them? It leads me to think that either this is not a particularly popular issue, but one which has been pushed by pressure groups, or that institutional and cultural norms – smoke and alcohol tied together as reasonable – are preventing the market from functioning efficiently.
Giving the issue the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that the second of these is the case. If so, then why not license tobacco consumption in the same way as alcohol. The default setting of an establishment is that no alcohol may be consumed there. The proprietor may then apply for a license which allows alcohol to be drunk on the premises. Why not treat smoking in the same way? Pubs and cafes could apply for a smoking license, its staff would be made up of those who do not care about working in such an environment, and smokers would have somewhere to go. To protect non-smokers still further, all such places could be required by law to have a smoke-free, ventilated area: the squares would still be allowed to rub up beside the cool kids.
More and better stuff on this here.
|
I’ve been unsure about this proposed smoking ban. I know that most non-smokers hate smoky bars, yet as a general rule I am an uneasy about government prohibition. That people should be able to socialise with their friends without inhaling someone else’s fumes seems reasonable; but smokers should surely be able to relax in company and with a cigarette too.
If a ban is so popular, if there are so many people who want smoke-free environments, then I am surprised that the market hasn’t solved the problem on its own. If there is the custom, if there is the money to be made, then why isn’t there a fair proportion of non-smoking restaurants and bars already - especially in a market the size of London which could easily support them? It leads me to think that either this is not a particularly popular issue, but one which has been pushed by pressure groups, or that institutional and cultural norms – smoke and alcohol tied together as reasonable – are preventing the market from functioning efficiently.
Giving the issue the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that the second of these is the case. If so, then why not license tobacco consumption in the same way as alcohol. The default setting of an establishment is that no alcohol may be consumed there. The proprietor may then apply for a license which allows alcohol to be drunk on the premises. Why not treat smoking in the same way? Pubs and cafes could apply for a smoking license, its staff would be made up of those who do not care about working in such an environment, and smokers would have somewhere to go. To protect non-smokers still further, all such places could be required by law to have a smoke-free, ventilated area: the squares would still be allowed to rub up beside the cool kids.
More and better stuff on this here.
|
