The new, tougher smoking law that has gone into effect recently is completely justified. Not everyone seems to agree on this, though*.
The naysayers generally fall into two groups:
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.(clap, clap.) Good for you. (clap clap.)
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument? I mean, is that question supposed to conversely insinuate that by justifying the legality of food they've somehow proved it's OK to smoke in someone's face?? it makes me want to answer back with convenient, ridiculously over-simplistic analogies of my own: "Adolf Hitler was bad for a lot of people's health - I suppose you would've supported him!"
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
** not that it's a popularity contest. Even if there were a majority of smokers, it still wouldn't entitle them to inconvenience and possibly harm the health of others with no good purpose.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
a) wishful thinkers, i.e. those that see the problem with exposing non-smokers to smoke in public, but oppose the law on the grounds of harm to personal property rights, and
b) idiots, i.e. those that see no problem with the situation as it's been.
Let me start with the second group. These inconsiderate bozos will conveniently play blind to the reality of Israeli nightlife over the past 24 years (since the first anti-smoking laws were enacted in 1983), in which many if not most smokers didn't give a rat's ass about breaking the law, inconveniencing others to satisfy their own habit, and arguing back or giving a nasty look whenever politely asked to put out their cigarette. They describe a self-serving, imaginary "status quo" like it ever had any significant support from the three quarters of overage Israelis who don't smoke**. Their royal highnesses will sometimes be so kind as to claim that if it's so bothersome to non-smokers, they can "just ask" - like a non-smoker should ever have to.
To them, I say this:
When god created humans, and with them the innate desire to socialize in a dimly-lit space after a hard day's work, he/she didn't create said space full of cigarette smoke.
I feel the need to point this out because these people often talk like the whole point of a nightspot is to smoke in it. It isn't. Smokers enjoy smoking in those places, but everyone else doesn't. I'm sure some people would enjoy starting a sing-along, masturbating or loudly proselytizing the Word Of The Lord in there, but everyone else wouldn't. The only reason nightspots have become so synonymous with smoking is because it's been grudgingly put up with. And spare me the relativist BS: the "lots of people do it so it's ok" argument has been used to defend everything from the Israeli's chronic overdraft to cannibalism and slavery. It's not.
They will usually try to nitpick with that old red herring: "how is smoking different from drinking, or driving a car? They can also harm your health! And what about overeating? Why don't you just outlaw food?"
Well done.
Before I answer why cigarettes are different, can I just point out that I can't stand these lines of argument?
No, but seriously, their retort is that substances and acts such as drinking, driving, any kind of noise etc. can be harmful to others, yet are still allowed. What makes smoking different to the other oft-mentioned "legal drugs", is that smoking is simultaneously harmful to one's own health, physically addictive and an inconvenience to others even when used in moderation (the three strikes.) A single cigarette will bother most non-smokers, and quite likely harm their health - though I'll submit that the research findings have been contested.
So let me clarify: I am by no means a supporter of government intervention, especially if it can be circumvented by other means. The decision to curtail an individual freedom is a serious, potentially catastrophic one, not to be taken lightly. I oppose limiting a person's right to something that may harm himself or others if abused - e.g. drinking, driving, owning a knife etc. - because that would hurt the rights of responsible users. However, when something has all the detractions I've listed above, that's when I consider legally curtailing its use in public, if social norm doesn't take care of it first. It hasn't.
Which brings me to the first group. They seem to have garnered a fair bit of support. On the face of it, there's a certain neat logic to it: allow nightspot owners to choose for themselves what sort of business they'll have. Non-smokers will be able to choose to go to non-smoking venues, while smokers could still enjoy themselves in smoking establishments.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The problem? It doesn't work.
The fact is, the freedom for every owner to decide whether his business will allow smoking or not has existed effectively for, well, ever. In the past 24 years, it may have been technically illegal to have a smoking nightspot, but this law has never really been enforced; and on the flip side, every nightspot owner has always enjoyed the legal freedom to ban smoking on his property if he wished. But what happened? All the bars ended up being smoking bars. There have been only a handful of attempts to open non-smoking bars in Israel.
The bottom line is, this twisted situation has remained: a three-quarter (and growing) non-smoking majority, with virtually no options for attending a nightspot without being exposed to cigarette smoke. It's what's known in economics as a market failure - when the combined interests, preferences and tastes of people operating with free reign do not manage to bring about their desired result. The reasons for the failure in this case would be too long to write out here, but it does go to show the tremendous power of the norm, of habit, of what is.
The "classic" solution to market failures is government intervention. While this has been hotly contested by the more conservative end of the economic spectrum - also worthy of its own post - I feel this is largely as a reaction to a long tradition of uncalled-for or overused government intervention, rather than an actual preference of market failures over alternatives in every case. As I've written earlier, I'm no fan of interventionism per se, but the facts on the ground remain: given effective property rights, the non-smoker does not face a realistic non-smoking option. I think the pros outweigh the cons in this case.
There's a lot of semantics involved. If one paints this as a major Property Rights Issue, then it sounds like something that should be defended to the grave; but we're not talking about curtailing anyone's freedom of expression, freedom of employment (which has been curtailed under the present system) or any other basic freedom. We're not forbidding smoking - that would be a far more fundamental issue. We're only restricting smoking in areas where lots of non-smokers normally gather. Smokers can smoke at home or outside all they want.*** I don't see how the alternatives, in which non-smokers had no viable options, or even the "segregated nightspots" theory (which would hurt freedom of employment as well as drive a social wedge in Israeli nightlife), are so much better.
One day - when smokers become an even smaller segment of society, when the common social norm is that they never light up unless they know they won't be bothering anyone, and when plenty of non-smoking venues exist - this law won't be necessary. Right now, I think it absolutely is.
* for the sake of this post, I'm referring specifically to nightspots.
*** I've been asked what the distinction is between the home and a nightspot - since they're both private property, and people can choose whether to come to them. While they are both technically private, for this particular issue the answer is in the latter part of the question - people couldn't (until now) really choose not to come because they had no realistic non-smoking nightspot options.
2 comments:
Thanks for the detailed explanations. You raise a lot of points about something which I inherently agree with but otherwise wouldn't have been able to explain exactly why.
I totally agree with you.
Post a Comment