France, the land of Libertee Fraternitee, Egalitee is now the land of No Smoking in restaurants and cafes. Defense de fumer. No Smoking. Cafe owners will be fined 68 Euros for every ashtray found and smokers will similarly fined. So Frenchmen, put away your Galoises.


Ba'al Chatzaf

They banned smoking in public places in the UK on 1st July 2007. A few days later, a friend and I purposefully went to a pub, something I hadn't done in years because I couldn't stand the smoke, just to enjoy being in a smoke-free public place. It seems we weren't the only ones with the same idea, the pub was packed out. We asked one of the bar-tenders if this was normal for a Thursday night, but were told that no it was not, only since the smoking ban had come into force, had their patronage increased. I've heard the same from another pub too, since then. As nearly 3/4 of the UK population don't smoke, this isn't too surprising.

Although I don't have the stats to say whether pub and restaurant owners are gaining financially from the ban, it appears that they may be. What I can't understand is that in a country where almost 3/4 of the population don't smoke, why didn't restaurant owners twig about this beforehand, do some marketing and instigate their own smoking ban?

From a personal point of view, being a non-smoker, I do really love the ban. It's so wonderful being able to eat out anywhere without my meal being spoilt by someone chuffing away on a fag, worrying about the impact it's having on my long-term health and coming home stinking of smoke.

You liking it shouldn't equal them forcing it.

Nobody has a right to a smoke free pub....or a smoking only pub....or anything in between.

I think you're a bit cute though and I'd find you a non smoky place. Hehe. See? Problems solved. :-P

The state of Illinois is now smoke-free also as of January 1, 2008. I quit smoking a few years ago, several months before Chicago went smoke free. Cigarettes have gone up $2 a pack since I quit. It is an expensive and socially unacceptable habit so it is a good time to quit if you are a smoker. Michael helped me quit before I met him. He knows how to beat addiction and it wasn't that hard with his help. After all, he kicked crack. You have to want to quit, find something you value more that is incompatible with smoking and you need to give it about three weeks or so to stop the cravings. Talk to Michael if you are seriously thinking of quitting smoking, drinking or drugs. He understands addictions.

Personally, I think places like bars should have the option whether or not to be smoke free or have designated smoking areas and people should not be fined for it. Smokers are not criminals. Some people don't have someone like Mike helping them quit or they just don't want to quit. These nanny laws are a real buzz kill, even if they are for own good.

Kat

The owner does.

--Brant

Yes, which is exactly the point I just made.....

I'm not sure where I said: pub/restaurant owners should be forced to have smoke-free premises (all I said was that I love being able to go places without being subjected to other people's killer habit), but I guess my not clearly expressing this implied it. My main point was that if, revenue is up for restaurant/pub owners since the ban, why didn't they make this realization themselves and make their premises smoke-free long ago? I think non-smokers in the UK don't kick up a big enough stink about refusing to be in smoky places. Smoke-free zones are waste of time - the smoke just drifts over.

The people who work in the bars should have a right to a smoke-free workplace. People's health should not suffer because of conditions where they earn a living. If you tried to make someone do something dangerous to their health in an industrial setting the safety officers could shut the jobsite down. People who work in bars don't have the same clout as tradespeople.

Knock, knock! Hello???

Nobody forced anyone to work in smoky restaurants or bars. The people who work there, work there voluntarily.
They did not have a -right- to these jobs (the jobs were offered) nor were they ever forced to take these jobs.

The only rights you have are the right to think anything you damned please and the right to defend your life against force or hazard. Anything else is a social arrangement.

Ba'al Chatzaf

They have a right to seek employment elsewhere. No one has a right to force them to work in an environment they find distasteful or unhealthy. I'm not going to now explicate on "force." That's not even Objectivism 101.

--Brant

You people sound like you belong back in the middle ages. There are only so many jobs available, not everyone has a choice to work elsewhere. People are "forced" to work there by their bodies because they need to eat and have shelter. Is Objectivism really this anti-social?

GS,

When dealing with property rights of owners, yes. Proudly so.

Michael

The way you are using "social" means property owners are on a leash--or in Siberia.
--Brant

Yet again, The Zero Sum Fallacy. The number of jobs created goes up and it sometime goes down. But it is NOT a fixed stock.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You'll notice that that is what I'm not stating.

WHY WHY WHY ? Why should they have a right to this or that.....explain it

You can't simultaneaously have a right to a job and this sort of nonsense

I think the issue here is whether the owner of an establishment has the right to run his business and set his own rules. Whether he makes the rules or the rules are imposed upon him via political pressure is what irritates many libertarian and Objectivist types. It is the taking away of liberties. I have no problem with people not wanting to smoke, drink, eat or whatever where others are smoking. They have plenty of options because most places are smoke free anyway. If someone wants to allow smoking in their home or business, it should be their choice. A business owner should not have to police peoples' personal health habits if they don't want to.

As far as employment, people expect a smoky environment in bars. Smoking and drinking are what people do in bars. If you don't like smokers, don't become a bartender in a place that is not smoke-free. It seems like prohibition is inching closer and closer when it comes to cigarettes.

Kat

There was a time when the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke were not well established. In those days I would agree that smoking in restaurants, bars, and public places wasn't an issue but these days it definitely is an issue and as an employer you have a responsibility for the welfare of your employees.

Just what is the danger from second-hand smoke aside from an allergy?

--Brant

What is the danger from fist-hand smoke? Why would you expect it to be any different with 2nd hand smoke?

The dose makes the poison.

--Brant

"Force" refers to one person using physical violence or threats thereof to override the individual will of another person. Its an inherently interpersonal thing. Therefore you cannot consider being forced by one's body to be morally equivalent of being forced by someone else.

Classical Liberalism = banning force from human affairs (i.e. force between people)

Yes, I realized I was using 'forced' slightly differently which is why I put it in scare quotes. It's fine and dandy to go around saying "nobody forced you to work here" but one can only quit so many jobs before they must relent and accept one no matter how shitty it is.

Actually the jobs in the avaliable job pool change constantly. New jobs appear, people leave old jobs, people get new jobs, etc. Its very very dynamic (ESPECIALLY if an economy has few or no barriers to market entry or exit). This dynamism means people can find a job that fits them.

Very true, but I still say that if there is significant evidence that a work environment is harmful to the health of employees then we should be trying to clean it up. It's no different than cleaning up air pollution in our cities. If, in the course of our existence we make our habitat uninhabitable we are not being very rational are we?

Rand wrote an article called "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made."

Anyone who thinks the conditions of nature are the same thing (or even similar) as human generated force used against other human beings has a serious problem in understanding a basic division in reality. So to clarify the underpinning of this, let's do a basic overview of the fundamental concepts with quotes from the article.

To start, what is the fundamental observable and essential difference between the metaphysically given and the human-generated? In cause and effect, we are talking about the cause.


Notice that the metaphysical part has no cause. It just is. We can choose to learn about it or not, but it is, was and will be. Human action and the results of such actions do have a cause. First there must be a human being, but then that same person has to want to do it.

That is the cause—a person who wants to do it and is able to choose to do so.

What is the formal name of the power that allows man-made actions a special status of being able to be different? Volition. The following is only a brief overview, but covers the essentials:


This same power to rearrange the metaphysically given into new shapes and structures—because one wants to—can be used to perform other actions, too. For instance, smashing another person with a club. One can choose to beat on another person or choose not to. It doesn't have to be, like the metaphysically given has to be.

Now here is where I think the confusion slips in. After a man-made act is performed, it becomes a fact. Then the person making the confusion does a little time-deletion (I sometimes call this time-travel) and pretends that since the result of a man-made action NOW has to be accepted as a fact, it was a fact BEFORE it even existed.


There is another element to volition and force: sovereign ownership. Other men can force a person to obey with a small limit of immediate action (like going here, sticking out his arms to be cuffed there, etc.), but they cannot force him to engage his mind to go beyond those actions. He has to choose to do that.


I will not speculate on why a person wants to make a mishmash of "natural force" and "human generated force" (volitional action) and condemn all such mishmashers as evil monsters and whatnot, but I do think the fundamentals need to be given prominence in discussions where the issue comes up.

If you repeat good ideas within a civil environment, this is like strewing an area with all kinds of good things to eat. They are there for anyone who want to pick them up and eat them. This also holds true for the warning signs: "This is poison" with an arrow pointing to the idea and a rational description of the causes and effects. Those who want the poison are free to eat that, too. But at least they are warned with proper explanations.

I hold the premise that most people are good inside and will choose the good things to eat on their own. They don't need to be "forced" (unless they are children who will not eat broccoli .) And they will avoid the poison if they understand what it is and what it does. I don't mean cognitive understanding alone, either. Value judgments are also part of that understanding. Thus it is a good practice to include examples with the ideas to help a person visualize how they apply to his own life.

To conclude, here is a touch of some really nasty lethal rat-poison from Rand's essay that could easily justify any cult:


Michael

The physical laws government the man-made and the natural are the same. Everything we do is natural. We cannot build or make anything in such a way as to contradict a valid physical law. A good example is the Bose-Einstein condensate, a state of matter never seen anywhere in nature. Yet it was identified as a consequence of quantum physical laws by Bose (verified by Einstein) back in the 1930's. It was finally achieved in 1995. Humans can do many things not found nature not interacted with by humans, but nothing humans do can violate the basic conservation laws (and their corresponding symmetries). That is why humans cannot make perpetual motion machines that produce energy from nothing. In point of fact, humans are as much a part of nature as trees and rocks. The main difference is that we can talk and think.

The distinction between the artificial and natural at a deep enough level is meaningless. Everything that happens or exists is physical. Humans are bags of mostly water the product of (carl sagan on) billyuns and billyuns of years of evolution. We are all made of stuhr-stuff (carl sagan off).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

It would really help sometime if you read carefully before trying teach everyone what you just read (merely adding a negative normative spin).

Michael

"'we' should be trying to clean that up"?

Whose the 'we'?

If its property owners, sure, but governments?

In my view the governments need to encourage the private sectors through various means, but only passing laws as a last resort.

You have a naive view about governments.

--Brant

I think you have a naive idea that mankind can exist without governments.

A government with the power to take a cigarette out of your mouth also has the power to put the barrel of a gun in your mouth.

No, read my profile. I'm not an anarchist.

--Brant

I agree with this sentiment but what happens when we "inform their discretion" and they still do not listen? Of course the situation is very different in countries where there is socialized medicine, like Canada and France, where basically the government acts as your health insurance company. In the US you may be denied healthcare if you have an unhealthy lifestyle so when a government pays the healthcare costs they have some say in the lifestyles of the citizens. Only an idiot would deny that smoking and 2nd hand smoke are not good for your health and 'the people" have been informed over and over again so the government feels inclined to pass a law. There are other options like making cigarettes so expensive no one can afford them which they have done here - something like $10/pack I think, but that has only limited effect. Besides, the law doesn't "take a cigarette out of your mouth" it simply directs you to designated smoking areas.

I don't have any problem at all with laws prohibiting highly addictive substances with zero benefit value and high negative value like tobacco. Alcohol is at worst harmless and possibly beneficial in small/moderate doses. Tobacco is just pure evil and tobacco companies are eviler.

Edit: to be clear I think I could probably support the right of the individual to be so profoundly stupid enough to smoke if they so chose, but most wholeheartedly support the prohibition on profiting on addiction and death - in other words the sale of tobacco is just plain immoral in the worst possible way.

Bob

Apparently you have not enjoyed the flavor of a good cigar or pipe tobacco. It is a lovely taste. Cigar and pipe smoke are generally not inhaled, rather they are tasted. In small amounts neither are dreadfully harmful to most people (except perhaps, as second hand smoke). There are smoking clubs where those who enjoy the fumes can puff away and those who do not like the fumes can stay away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Then you presumably think that the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies, and to enforce its edicts with fines or imprisonment. This is the belief behind all "victimless crime" laws and the overriding theory behind the catastrophic "war on drugs", which has done more to destroy the civil liberties of Americans than any other government program. It has also led to massive destruction of countries involved in the illegal drug trade, such as Columbia and Afghanistan. It has turned American inner cities into war zones, controlled by violent gangs. It has created international drug cartels to supply a product that some Americans want. And the proceeds of illegal drug money are being used to fund terrorism. Quite a price to pay for trying to stop people from using highly addictive substances.



Tobacco is not evil. You are anthropomorphizing a plant. People who choose to use tobacco are not evil either. It's their body. They should have the right to do with it whatever they wish. What they put into their own bodies is none of your business or mine. That's called freedom. Tobacco companies are not evil either. They are supplying a product that some people want. If they don't supply it, criminal drug cartels will. That's the way black markets develop. People are responsible for their own choices in life.



So you're proposing that people should have the right to smoke, but have no legal means to acquire tobacco. This would turn people who wish to smoke into criminals by forcing them to acquire tobacco on the black market through illegal tobacco dealers, just as people who now wish to use marijuana, cocaine, etc. are forced to acquire them illegally from drug dealers. If you think the war on drugs is bad now, with our prisons filled with non-violent drug users, just wait until millions of tobacco users are turned into criminals.

Martin

With you on this one, Martin. I've profitted on Altria stock and will so in the future. BTW, there are benefits from smoking, even if it takes years off your life. It may help sufferers from sickle cell anemia. Or those who have trouble concentrating. Its anyone's free choice!

--Brant

Gee, Bob Mac ain't even an Objectivist, much less a libertarian. Who'd a thought? The proof is in the pudding!

--Brant

Quite honestly I understand your argument, but its wrong. What your argument relies on is the simplistic notion of freedom and choice and how dare anybody try to take choice away - I get it. The problem you conveniently skip over, and it's the most important point of all, is addiction. Once addiction is involved, choice becomes fuzzy at best and often disappears. How many lives (including family members and not just the addicted person) have been ruined by addiction? You think that is a choice as you've described it?

Here we go with the 'fallacy of hidden double definitions' again. 'Choosing' to smoke once you've become physically addicted is hardly the same choice as choosing what colour of socks to wear today, yet you've equivocated these two ideas and your argument dies because of it.

Only you can answer why you so quickly would dismiss or ignore the most critical point about how CHOICE is actually REMOVED when addiction is involved. Do you really believe what you write?

The failure to police certain aspects of the drug world is not justification for legalization. Just because some people still drink and drive should we abandon these laws too?

Bob

To add: I've never said criminalizing users is appropriate. Treatment is appropriate. What's criminal is PROFITING from addiction.

The 'tobacco is evil' comment was not meant literally. I only meant that tobacco is an extremely powerfully addicting drug. It goes beyond the addiction power of just nicotine because of how it's delivered and the dosage delivery dynamics of smoking.

If you wan to stop smoking it's not too hard. Just give up this nonsense that you are a victim of a powerful addiction. Victims are powerless.

--Brant

I only smoke (cigarettes or cigars) for ceremonial purposes (i.e. "Objectivist" reasons, special occasions, etc).

Choice most certainly does not disappear, even when a person is addicted to a drug. Addiction means that a person will experience unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if he stops using the drug; this does not mean that he loses the ability to choose to stop using the drug. Millions of people have chosen to quit smoking and have in fact quit smoking. The fact that they experienced some withdrawal symptoms didn't stop them from making this choice. People addicted to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and other such substances have also managed to break these addictions as well. Their power of choice overcame their addiction.

Have lives been ruined by addiction? Certainly. But lives have been ruined by many bad choices that people make in their lives. This certainly provides no justification for the government criminalizing such bad choices. Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives.



There is no equivocation or double definitions here. Choosing to smoke is still a choice, and people do in fact choose to stop smoking all the time. If a person is addicted to smoking, this makes the choice to quit more difficult, but so what? Some choices are more difficult to make than others; choice is an analog sliding scale of difficulty, not a digital on/off. If a person has a high paying job that he hates but really needs the money to support himself and his family, this might make the choice to quit his job agonizingly difficult. But it is still his choice to make. The choice to break addictions is no different.



Because, as I have made very clear, choice is not removed. Yes, I really believe what I have written.



It is impossible to properly police the drug world. Attemps at prohibition always fail and have catastophic consequences for liberty and the rule of law. One does not help to protect people from potential addictions by turning them into criminals and imprisoning them. This is a utilitarian justification for drug decriminalization. But the real justification for drug decriminalization is moral. I will state this justification in personal terms. My body belongs to me and me alone. Noone has the right to tell me what I can do with my own body, because it's mine. It's noone else's business what I choose to put into my body. If you don't like the choices I make, too bad; what I choose to do with my own body is my own business, not yours. That's what liberty is all about.

Drunk driving is a completely separate issue, since the basis for laws against this is that a drunk driver represents an unacceptably high risk to the safety of others. The solution to drunk driving is to enforce laws against drunk driving, not to criminalize consumption of alcohol.

Martin

I happen to live in a country where the fight against drugs rages on, but things are going well. The inner cities are not war zones. There is nothing inherently wrong with prohibition (at least on the sale) of addictive/dangerous substances. Just because the US struggles with it doesn't mean it can't be done.

But the main thrust of your argument does most certainly rely on an equivocation. Even if I give some ground and go as far as to agree that the decision to end one's addiction is a choice, it is certainly not the same choice in any sense as a pre-addiction choice. The choice to stop smoking is a totally different 'choice' than to start smoking. Calling them both a simple 'choice' is a huge equivocation. We just happen to use the same word to describe two very different activities.

"Otherwise, the government could use this justification to control virtually all aspects of people's lives."

And there's the real problem - paranoia. I get it, and if you're really that paranoid, reason takes a back seat.

I would much much prefer a situation where tobacco is not widespread and my child never has to face the decision whether to smoke or not. Tobacco has NO benefit, only harm and that's why removing the choice is justified. It is even more justified in a socialized medicine environment, but that's another argument.

Now, for an Objectivist, is life at the top of your hierarchy of values? If it is, smoking would never be a rational choice - could never be a rational choice. It is anti-life, and is indeed evil by that definition. For an Objectivist, this issue should be even clearer than the use of force. But life isn't at the top is it? It's liberty for most - including Rand. That's why her 'logic' gets twisted into nonsensical pretzels when faced with a life or liberty problem. It's almost always politics at the top of the value heap, with a convoluted, self-contradictory philosophical mess built up around it in a vain attempt at rational justification.


Bob

Actually, tobacco has several benefits. It helps one concentrate better It can relieve the symptoms of sickcle-cell anemia. It drives the nanny-statists bonkers. All you want to do is initiate physical force against my person, even though I don't smoke, with a heavy veneer of moral righteousness to bore into my brain.

--Brant

I really like your definition of 'relieve'

University of California Study

"Thus researchers say their data supports the hypothesis that children and adolescents with SCD who live in smoking households have more frequent sickle cell crises requiring hospitalization than do those who live in nonsmoking households.They believe programs aimed at reducing secondhand smoke exposure among these children could help reduce morbidity from the disease. "

"Researchers found that exposure to tobacco smoke increased the risk of sickle cell crisis by 90%. "

So enlighten us all on how an anemic person might benefit from carbon monoxide inhalation.

WTF are you babbling about? Nicotine maybe? Nicotine != Tobacco.

Bob

Let's digress a little...

Objectivist Limited Government Concept:

"Objectivism therefore advocates a strictly limited form of government: a republican system that has only those powers and takes only those actions required to secure our rights to freedom from force. There must be a military force for defense against external enemies."

So it's OK to protect us all against someone who wants to violate our liberty or property rights (hey - I agree), but it's not OK to protect ourselves (communally) from other, more hidden health hazards like cancer? Why is that? Where did 'Life' go all of a sudden in the "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness" thing?

Hmmm....

Bob

I was referring to an adult who smokes, not children exposed to second-hand smoke.

--Brant

Real scientific evidence that seond-hand cigarette smoke causes any cancer including lung cancer is lacking. BS political-media propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. Obviously children should not be exposed to it for they may develop an allergic reaction.

--Brant