I’ve had a series of somewhat exasperating discussions recently with various people about the UK’s proposed ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants.
There seem to be two things people are confused about. The first is the delusion that pubs in particular, or businesses in general are somehow public spaces. Because the public are allowed in the pub, the logic goes, that makes it okay for the government to use force to control what goes on in there. It’s not true: despite the name a pub is private property. The public may be allowed in, but they’re there by invitation at the discretion of the owner. The government has no more right telling people they can’t smoke there than it has guests at a house party.
The second thing people are confused about is what the law is for. It’s not a set of arbitrary rules designed to ensure your personal comfort. If you don’t like it that pubs are smoky, don’t go in pubs. If the market has failed to provide non-smoking pubs it’s only because people are loathe to solve problems themselves, preferring instead to whinge and moan about them to an obliging government. Remember that the law is only the law because of the threat of violence against those who would disobey it. (Or as Eric Raymond puts it, “the threat of lethal force is what makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt at any time.”) If you support a smoking ban because you prefer your pubs smoke-free, you are using force to threaten people into providing for your preference. Ask yourself: if you entered a room and found a group of consenting adults smoking, would you happily throw them in jail?
A discussion about the private-ness of pubs is to be found in response to an article on Samizdata about another bit of government meddling into what goes on between consenting adults on their private property. Robert Speirs hits the nail on the head:
And why, just because a premises is open to the public, does the owner therefore lose all right to control who enters? He still owns it, his money is still at risk, he still pays taxes. Why are his preferences and his judgment of no value whatever? Under what collectivist theory is this valid or good?
I can see two arguments here – the first is one you’ve failed to notice; pubs are LICENSED premises. The pub needs a LICENSE to run, therefore, if you choose to operate a business that needs a license, then you need to abide by that licence. To quote you:
If you don’t like it that pubs are smoky, don’t go in pubs.
It could be argued; If you don’t like it that pubs aren’t allowed to be riddled with cancerous toxins, don’t apply to run one. Of course, that’s a little bit faceteous, but you see my point?
But I think the government is slightly shooting itself in the foot; yes, smokers and the smoke generated are a HUGE burden on both the NHS and private enterprise, BUT the revenue generated from people’s desire to hack up bits of lung while breathing through holes in their neck DOES actually cover the costs of their addiction, with some to spare.
So once the revenue of the drugs addicts is taken away, then it’s going to need to be found somewhere else, and slap me with a kipper if taxes in the UK aren’t already high enough!
PS – as someone in the UK in the winter, I still query your “What colour is the sky?” question
Well Rob always argues that if people were taxed less they’d create more jobs becuase they’d be buying other things, so if they’re not buying cigarettes and paying the steep tax on them by Rob’s logic they’ll just buy other things and the government will get its revenue that way.
I don’t think I’m in favour of a total ban in pubs – personally I’d allow pubs to have death fume cabins (ok, smoking rooms) as long as the smoke isn’t allowed to drift into no smoking areas and non-smoking staff aren’t forced to go into the smoke filled areas.
Jon, the license is a daft idea too. If I need a license to sell beer, why not toothpicks? Why don’t I need a license to walk down the street? Oh wait, they’ve thought of that: it’s called an ID card.
Can you think of a question with an obvious answer that’s better than the blue sky one?
Because alcohol is an often addictive, high-tax, potentially damaging drug. Toothpicks are pointy bits of wood!
Other point: Question could be: What colour is a cloudless sky perceived to be in daytime – I had to retype a couple of comments when you first put the system in, because I put “grey”, and then “black”, thinking the answer was more obtuse than it actually was
How about “What is the colour of a London bus?”. As these are (world) famously red I’m sure tat would work