Going down the pub...

[Malpass93]

That's two thought-provoking comments in one article. Step forward Messrs. Q and cdd.

To say no-one asked for the smoking ban would be untrue. Some may say that not letting over-30's smoke in pubs is unfair. But what about those who'd rather not breathe in second-hand smoke. That's unfair. Not only are the smokers ruining their own lives, but the lives of the so-called "passive smokers".

[cdd]

Some may say that not letting over-30's smoke in pubs is unfair.

...Or those under 30, of course. I was just highlighting a demographic, in case that comment gets misconstrued!

[Malpass93]

Some may say that not letting over-30's smoke in pubs is unfair.

...Or those under 30, of course. I was just highlighting a demographic, in case that comment gets misconstrued!

Fair enough. I just used that as an example.

[Mr Q]

As always, Q, you present interesting and compelling points. A few responses:

Smoking doesn't automatically cause harm to others. It has a potential to cause harm to others. But so do plenty of things we do in life. Driving has the potential to harm others through its emissions of carbon monoxide. We don't ban people from operating cars though.

But this is because driving has a social/public benefit. The benefits of the automobile industry are plain for everyone to see. And even though car accidents kills 3360 people every year*(1), society has deemed the benefits to outweigh the costs. By contrast, smoking offers no public benefit - only a private benefit, yet kills an estimated 106,000 people per year in the UK*(2). So I don't consider that to be a fair comparison.

I don't get why cars are a 'social benefit'? The benefit accrues to the driver and his/her passengers. I get absolutely no benefit from the fact that you or anyone else here might drive a car. It is a private benefit, not a social one. But, like smoking, there are costs imposed on society from driving. Pollution is the obvious one in this discussion, but there is also the issue of congestion as well.

I agree recent governments have used cigarettes as an excuse to garner cash. But of course the truth is that I'm not of a mind to complain about a voluntary tax I don't have to contribute to. After all, were the cash not taken from cigarettes, it would have to come from somewhere, probably my pocket.

Sure, but then we're no longer discussing things at a social level - that's entirely a judgment of your self-interests.

This would be more accurately stated I think as "many individuals over 30 would prefer to be able to smoke in pubs". Now I'm not saying that people over 30 don't matter, but ultimately we should operate in a way that benefits the future, not the present. Allowing smoking is directly conflicted with the need to educate the population that smoking is bad - and surely being around smokers makes people more likely to smoke themselves.

Well, I'm not inclined to target a demographic like that. I suspect there are plenty under 30 who would prefer to be able to smoke in pubs as well. But that's a side issue - in fact, this whole paragraph is. The question of whether permitting smoking in pubs encourages smoking is irrelevant. Policymakers shouldn't necessarily be adopting positions of encouraging or discouraging behaviour - that's not an objective, it's a mechanism designed to achieve an objective. So long as the external costs associated with the consumption of a good are borne by the consumer (ie. you tax it at the optimal level), then the market is capable of reaching the socially-desirable outcome. But that's not what we do. We tax cigarettes at a very high level, then impose a whole bunch of restrictions in addition. That's good for people who don't like cigarette smoke, yes - but it comes at a significant cost to others (ie. smokers). Perhaps you don't have much sympathy for smokers, and that's fine, but then you're getting into the territory of imposing your views and values on others in the community.

That's correct, but pubs are business and as such operate in accordance with the rules of economics. Logic dictates that if a) most customers smoke and b) few customers appear to be put off the idea of going to pubs as a result, allowing smoking will maximise revenue. That may be so, but I consider this issue to be a good example of where allowing the free market model leads to a bad decision - for all the other reasons outlined. This, also, is what pleases me so much about this law: it is a rare example of legislation that is not a concession to interest groups, and is as staple in my opinion as other laws governing theft or fraud.

Of course it's a concession to interest groups! Anti-smoking lobby groups are very strong organisations with great political clout. Are they acting in a selfish and malicious fashion? Probably not - I'm sure that they're acting in a way that they believe is best for society. But their way of doing that is to pressure legislators into enacting laws which restrict the rights of smokers - they wish to impose their values and opinions over those of smokers: "we know better than they do". That is no different to churches wanting laws 'protecting' marriage or family groups that want porn outlawed. It's a value judgment.

That comment implies that I view smoking as a civil liberty that is being eroded - which is not what I am saying at all. To present smoking as a civil liberties issue is misleading. Smoking in pubilc shares none of the traits of other civil liberties which, crucially, don't harm other people. Freedom of thought and speech, for example, harms nobody: hearing views you dislike is part of life. The same goes for many other examples, and I think it is very true to say that private smoking is a victimless crime and as such as a civil liberties issue. But public smoking damages the lives of others: at the very least, because many non-smokers find the smell to be unpleasant, and furthermore documented by large quantities of medical research all pointing the same way.

And again, there are plenty of other things which impose costs on others. Factories pollute in the process of producing stuff - it's unintentional, but that pollution harms the environment and can cause harm to people living nearby. If we simply banned everything that could potentially cause harm to others, we would in fact have the right to do very little in life. What we should be doing is working to take the costs individuals and firms might impose on others and 'internalise' them within the market mechanism - that is, make those who generate the cost pay for it (most obviously in the context of this issue through a tax).

Remember, the external cost is reciprocal here. Yes, someone smoking a cigarette could cause inconvenience to a nearby non-smoker who cannot stand the smell. But equally banning smoking for the sake of the non-smoker also imposes a cost on the smoker. Again, you might have no problem with that. But no policy solution is going to lead to the socially-optimal outcome if it doesn't account for the external cost.

So alcohol should be on prescription too then? Caffeine as well?

The effects of those drugs transpire more in behavioral changes (although I would dispute that the latter has any negative effects, public or private). Alcohol does have significant public costs, and I believe that people who are drunk and disorderly should be treated the same as someone behaving in that way without intoxication - but that's a topic for a whole 'nother day.

Last time I checked, consuming 'excessive' amounts of alcohol can cause liver damage. I understand people have suffered heart damage through excessive consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks as well. Even drugs like paracetamol, for which you don't need a prescription, can still cause health problems if misused. So to deny that there can be real negative impacts from those drugs is more than a bit misleading.

[cdd]

Why are cars a social benefit? BEcause the entire infrastructure you see around you, the fact you can get homogenous products, the fact you can communicate in a timely manner, the fact your trash can be collected, can all be traced back to the car industry. Personal driving of course is a different issue, but it provides benefits too: people who live far apart can see each other (benefits both parties). There can be a greater use of remote sites like industrial parks because people can drive to them which lowers prices.

On the topic of taxation, maybe I didn't express this clearly enough: I completely agree that the current approach to cigarette taxation is wrong. But no non-smoker can deny it's in their interests.

As for the objective of banning smoking, this is that "fewer people should smoke". I may be missing something obvious here, in which case I'd be grateful for your correction.

I do have sympathy for smokers, but I have more sympathy for those who are adversely affected by smoke against their will.

As for the idea of interest groups, anti-Smoking supporters have little to gain financially by stopping smoking (except very dilutedly). The pro-smoking lobby, on the othhand, is far more accurate a definition of an interest group, for they stand to gain if smoking is allowed. Saying that those against smoking is an interest group is as absurd as saying those against criminal theft is an interest group.

To the statement that being against smoking is a 'value judgment' this, like many points in defence of smoking (and the previous point about interest groups), overlooks the fact that it is harmful to others. Just like PUBLIC pornography is widely accepted to be detrimental to society and thus banned.

As to the idea of internalising the cost, this makes the flawed assumption that you can put a price on the health damage of smoking. To an extent you can, but prevention is better than cure. And to reiterate, I am completely against the over-zealous taxation of tobacco.

Finally, in response to the evidence of harm from alcohol and caffeine, two points. Firstly, (and I don't think I expressed this clearly enough earlier) they don't harm others. Smoking does. Secondly, these substances don't cause private damage when consumed moderately. Tobacco, on the other hand, causes damage even when consumed at average quantities.

To portray a ban on smoking as an erosion of civil liberties is a huge misrepresentation. Smokers are more than free to smoke as many cigarettes as they desire in privacy. A smoking ban is strictly focussed on the effects of smoking to others, and so we should be looking at the externalities of smoking, many of which cannot be fixed with cash. Perhaps you don't believe passive smoking is damaging to health - that is the only explanation I can think of that is consistent with your stated views. Otherwise, your argument could be just as easily extended to cover, say, the erosion of civil liberties from not being able to mug people (That derives private benefit at social cosţright?)

(Sorry for the lack of interlined quoting - it's annoying to do on a mobile.)

[Gavin Scott]

Cutting this down to brass tacks, has there been any evidence to suggest that the ban on smoking in public places (like pubs), has seen ANY reduction in the cases of "passive smoking related illness"?

This legislation was sold firmly on that footing, and I would say that 2 years into the exercise (in Scotland anyway), there should be some useful data to prove or disprove the notion.

By the way - hello all. Haven't had much to say for a few days, but I've been reading along.

[rdobbie]

Great thread. Some really interesting arguments here.

There's another point to consider, which I feel is often overlooked. Smoking hasn't gone away since the ban - it's just moved from pubs to private homes (although the growing disparity between pub and supermarket booze prices has played a part in this too). So there's an argument to say that the exposure of children to (a) passive smoking and (b) their likelihood of taking up the habit caused by the influence of seeing family members smoking around them, has been increased.

And that, in essence, is why the ban is so ludicrous. If tobacco is going to continue to be smoked, what better place for it to happen than in a a pub - a self-contained designated building where all the bystanders are adults who've made a free and informed decision to be there?

[iSon]

Can I brutally honest and say that I've read very little of this thread due to my short attenti...

Anyway, my thoughts anyway.

My parents local has seen a drop in the pub (alcohol) trade. You ask the landlord and it's nothing to do with the smoking ban. It's the fact they do really good cheap food in the restaurant next door and will have a pint or two with their meal but that's it. "Regulars" are becoming a bit of a dying breed.

But as Gavin would say, that's like comparing apples with oranges because of course it's not to say that some people will no longer go down the pub because of the smoking ban. However most smokers I know only ever go to the pub for a sociable drink and whilst before they had the option of have a cigarette with their pint, they now go outside. Yes it's cold and a very nasty thing to have to do at this time of year but it doesn't stop any of them. I don't think I've spoken to any smoker that's refused to go down the pub because they can't have a smoke indoors. It's their choice and they happy to take the rough with the smooth.

The bigger problem for the industry will be over the next few months as people ignore advice to carry on spending and start saving their money instead because the so called credit crunch (don't get me started) will make crops fail, livestock perish and newborns die. Pubs that aren't Wetherspoons aren't seen as affordable. I agree. £3 for a pint of average lager is hardly a killer no, but when you can get that same pint for a lot cheaper down the road it's a no brainer. The pub industry is now starting to go through the same revolution we went through with supermarkets a few years ago. Some chains are living it up with their loss leading "credit crunch lunches" in the hope of filling the tills on their alcohol sales whilst others are doing nothing. It's not hard to see who will be here in a few months time (even if it is by the skin of their teeth).

Curses, I've now posted more than I wanted to. This is a good subject isn't it?

[Mr Q]

Why are cars a social benefit? BEcause the entire infrastructure you see around you, the fact you can get homogenous products, the fact you can communicate in a timely manner, the fact your trash can be collected, can all be traced back to the car industry. Personal driving of course is a different issue, but it provides benefits too: people who live far apart can see each other (benefits both parties). There can be a greater use of remote sites like industrial parks because people can drive to them which lowers prices.

And again, those things deliver a private benefit. The fact that I can buy goods from a store is a benefit to me. I've paid for that benefit, because I've contributed to the cost of transporting that good. Communication is a slightly different matter - the benefit would ordinarily accrue to all parties involved, but when it comes to driving, only one party might have faced the cost. In saying that of course there are the cases where you end up communicating with someone that you actually have no desire to communicate with.

At any rate, the social benefit aspect of driving is in fact quite low relative to the private benefit associated with it. People don't choose to buy a car because they believe they'll be contributing to society's well being (in fact, I would argue it is more likely that people would choose not to buy a car because of their concern for the environment), they do so because it makes them personally better off. In this a car is absolutely no different to most other products, including cigarettes. We consume goods because they deliver a personal benefit to us. Again I come back to the point I've been making all along: the issue is whether that consumption imposes an external cost. If it does, then we should devise ways to 'internalise' that cost in the market price paid by the consumer - ie. a tax.

As for the objective of banning smoking, this is that "fewer people should smoke". I may be missing something obvious here, in which case I'd be grateful for your correction.

Yes, but why? Ensuring "fewer people should smoke" is not an end in itself. What is the reason for pursuing that policy?

As for the idea of interest groups, anti-Smoking supporters have little to gain financially by stopping smoking (except very dilutedly). The pro-smoking lobby, on the othhand, is far more accurate a definition of an interest group, for they stand to gain if smoking is allowed. Saying that those against smoking is an interest group is as absurd as saying those against criminal theft is an interest group.

Strictly speaking, 'those against criminal theft' would be an interest group. If you're a pharmaceutical company, for instance, you're going to want strong intellectual property rights to protect your research and development efforts. If you're a film or TV studio, you're going to want to stop such things as BitTorrent and pirate DVDs. They have a vested interest in those outcomes. Just because they are an interest group does not necessarily mean they are wrong or that their views should be opposed - but it's important to identify those interests wherever they exist. Anti-smoking groups exist with the sole purpose of ending smoking. They do so on the basis that they believe smoking is bad and they don't believe anyone should do it. That means they are imposing their views on others: chiefly those who happen to enjoy smoking and believe they should be allowed to do it.

To the statement that being against smoking is a 'value judgment' this, like many points in defence of smoking (and the previous point about interest groups), overlooks the fact that it is harmful to others. Just like PUBLIC pornography is widely accepted to be detrimental to society and thus banned.

Well, I can't say I know what "PUBLIC" pornography is - has there been some proposal to air XXX-rated content in open town squares? But as to your broader point, I'm not arguing there is no external cost from cigarette smoke - but again I make the point there are a whole range of things which could be harmful to others, but we still allow them anyway. So long as that external cost - which is reflective of the harm that might be imposed - is accounted for by those generating the cost, then there's no issue.

As to the idea of internalising the cost, this makes the flawed assumption that you can put a price on the health damage of smoking. To an extent you can, but prevention is better than cure. And to reiterate, I am completely against the over-zealous taxation of tobacco.

Of course you can put a price on it. There's no problem there at all. Whether we like it or not, we place values on life all the time. If we weren't capable of valuing life (and hence, it registered an infinite value) then we would ban anything and everything that might possibly contribute to a lessening of one's life. So yes, smoking would be banned. So too would cars, alcohol, bath tubs, electricity - in fact, you could make a case for banning anything that has contributed to anyone's death.

Finally, in response to the evidence of harm from alcohol and caffeine, two points. Firstly, (and I don't think I expressed this clearly enough earlier) they don't harm others. Smoking does. Secondly, these substances don't cause private damage when consumed moderately. Tobacco, on the other hand, causes damage even when consumed at average quantities.

So if I drink five shots of tequila in quick succession and then proceed to drive a car, that won't harm others? The alcohol impairs my judgment, which results in me crashing, and hence I kill someone. I suspect - though I don't have any figures handy on this issue - that the death toll for alcohol-related deaths (in terms of those who have died because somebody else was drinking) is almost certainly higher than those who have died from passive smoking.

To portray a ban on smoking as an erosion of civil liberties is a huge misrepresentation. Smokers are more than free to smoke as many cigarettes as they desire in privacy. A smoking ban is strictly focussed on the effects of smoking to others, and so we should be looking at the externalities of smoking, many of which cannot be fixed with cash. Perhaps you don't believe passive smoking is damaging to health - that is the only explanation I can think of that is consistent with your stated views. Otherwise, your argument could be just as easily extended to cover, say, the erosion of civil liberties from not being able to mug people (That derives private benefit at social cosţright?)

I'm not denying the presence of an externality at all. I think the externality can be overstated, but I'm not at at all denying its existence. But when we deal with externalities, our goal is not to eliminate the external cost imposed on others. What we are trying to do is ensure that society's wellbeing is maximised - and society includes smokers just as much as it does non-smokers. Yes, smoking imposes a cost on some non-smokers. Banning smoking for the sake of non-smokers though imposes a cost on smokers though. To take a hypothetical example, how is a society benefitted by a pub where almost everyone smokes being banned from allowing smoking inside. Yes, the occasional non-smoker who drifts in can enjoy clean air - that's a good thing. But there's a large cost imposed on all the smokers - and that private cost, in terms of inconvenience which represents diminished utility, will exceed the 'social' benefit which accrues to the non-smoker. So society is made worse off. Of course, you can frame that example differently to get different outcomes - my point is that simply banning something does not get you to a socially-optimal point (unless of course the social optimum happens to be prohibition - though that seldom works effectively anyway).

The following is a technical exposition of the externality problem, so forgive me. But what you need to do is value the cost imposed on non-smokers from each cigarette being consumed, apply that as a tax to cigarettes so smokers are made to consider that cost in their decision making. They will still smoke - there will still be an external cost imposed on other parties - but there will be less smoking, but at that level of smoking, the marginal private benefit to smokers of consuming that last cigarette will be equal to the marginal social cost (which is the private cost to the smoker in terms of what they've paid for the cigarette and the external cost which accrues to others in society - ie. non-smokers) that consumption imposes. That is our socially optimal point - higher levels of cigarette consumption will reduce social welfare, because the cost imposed on society is greater than the benefit to the smoker; lower levels of cigarette consumption would also reduce social welfare, because smokers would be deprived of some of their private benefits from smoking, even though at those marginal units of consumption, those benefits are greater than the costs they impose.

The difference between theft and smoking is that the act of theft is designed to deprive someone else of their right to property. That is the definition of theft. Smoking, by contrast, does not deny someone else the right to live. Through our day-to-day lives we inhale all sorts of particulates in the air that might be bad for our health. We don't instantly ban those things. There is an external cost, and so long as that external cost is 'internalised', then we reach the socially-optimal level. You can think about theft in the same way. The private benefit from theft accrues to the thief. But the cost is almost entirely an external one. Aside from negligible costs of equipment and transportation, a thief faces very little direct cost - it is imposed entirely on the party they are stealing from. Now, hypothetically, we could tax the proceeds of theft - which would mean making the thief pay the value of the goods they've stolen, as well as any additional costs (emotional trauma, property damage etc) that they've imposed on the victim. In other words, they'd be better off just going to shop and buying the goods legitimately. In essence, the rate of tax would be prohibitive. For that reason, a tax on theft isn't going to work - after all, we're talking about criminals. I suspect they're not overly concerned about paying their taxes either. In that case, we are better off banning theft.

This legislation was sold firmly on that footing, and I would say that 2 years into the exercise (in Scotland anyway), there should be some useful data to prove or disprove the notion.

Gavin, I think you'd need way more than 2 years to establish any change. After all, smokers aren't likely to develop lung cancer themselves after smoking for just two years (unless I've missed a whole wave of students just dropping dead), so I don't see why passive smokers would. You probably won't be able to safely draw any conclusions for at least 50 years.

[cdd]

I feel both sides of this debate have been more than adequately represented, so forgive me for not responding point by point. Instead, I shall simply state:

Aspects of your argument I disagree with

• The view that any cost can be internalised with a tax - primarily because those affected haven't consented to this method of internalising the externality.
• The view that smoking in public is basically harmless and on a par with other forms of pollution - primarily because smoking only benefits the smoker.
• The analogy of alcohol related deaths vs passive smoking deaths - drinking five shots of tequila and then behaving irresponsibly is not moderate. By contrast, it is possibly to behave completely responsibly while smoking and still cause harm.

Aspects of your argument I agree with

• That imposing a ban on private smoking would be a 'values' issue and as such wrong.
• That it is unfair that there is nowhere smokers can go and smoke with other smokers and be aware of the risks.
• That the statistics in this field vary wildly, discrediting the extent of the damage of passive smoking.
• That a pub where "almost everyone smokes being banned from allowing smoking inside" would be a bad thing for soceity. However, I disagree in the long-run, for I view this as a necessary first step toward societal change. It will be interesting to see how this situation looks once people who have grown up with smoking being banned become adults - I suspect the depletion will only be temporary.

[Mr Q]

The view that any cost can be internalised with a tax - primarily because those affected haven't consented to this method of internalising the externality.

I agree to the extent that taxes aren't always appropriate tools - for instance, the theft example is gave in my last post establishes a tax there wouldn't work, because it's illegal conduct in the first place. One of the problems with taxation can be the desire to avoid paying tax. Black markets can emerge for goods and services where individuals perceive the taxes they are paying as being too high. But aside from these practical difficulties, in principle any external cost can (and should) be internalised - whether through a direct effect on price which results in changes in quantity traded (ie. a tax), or a restriction on quantity which in turn affects prices.

The view that smoking in public is basically harmless and on a par with other forms of pollution - primarily because smoking only benefits the smoker.

I find that to be a particularly spurious distinction to make. You've determined that driving a car is socially beneficial, despite the benefits accruing primarily to the driver. The reason the driver drives his car is not because he believes it benefits society - it is because it benefits him. But there are clear costs which the driver would not ordinarily bear himself in the absence of intervention, such as the impact on the environment or his contribution to congestion. That is where the negative externality (and hence the problem) arises - it has nothing at all to do with the benefits in this context.

For what it's worth, if the point were actually a relevant one, I could equally argue that there are social benefits associated with smoking. If you deny a smoker their cigarettes, they might become cranky and irritable. That imposes a cost on others who must deal with that individual. Were they allowed to smoke, they would be much calmer and more pleasant to interact with, presenting benefits to others in society. That is no flimsier a justification for social benefits than yours associated with cars.

The analogy of alcohol related deaths vs passive smoking deaths - drinking five shots of tequila and then behaving irresponsibly is not moderate. By contrast, it is possibly to behave completely responsibly while smoking and still cause harm.

Only to the same extent that the pollution from somebody driving can 'still cause harm'. If you stand next to a person smoking one cigarette, what is the chance of you contracting a smoking-related disease? Absolutely miniscule - so vanishingly small as to be irrelevant. The risks associated with passive smoking accrue over extended periods of time and with prolonged exposure. Obviously it's a different matter for people who are allergic to cigarette smoke - but then the effect there is much the same as with any allergy. My neighbour cuts his lawn and I get hayfever. That doesn't entitle me to stop him from cutting his lawn.

That a pub where "almost everyone smokes being banned from allowing smoking inside" would be a bad thing for soceity. However, I disagree in the long-run, for I view this as a necessary first step toward societal change.

Which gets us back to value judgments territory. Why do we need "societal change"?