tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111476046870882027..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Smoking BansRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-53375217724025167232007-12-18T14:53:00.000-05:002007-12-18T14:53:00.000-05:00OK...My wife and I both love jazz and blues. The p...OK...<BR/>My wife and I both love jazz and blues. The problem is that she is always triggered into an asthma attack because of the smoke at the places that have this music. They have enacted a non-smoking policy in our city now that prohibits smoking in these places. We can both go now. The problem here is that these places have closed since there are a higher number of smokers at these venues. So what has happened is that the bars closed and we can't go to them to hear jazz or blues music. <BR/><BR/>Another example is that we have casinos in our area that we like to go to. The problem is similar to above,but we have found the days and times that fewer smokers are there and that is when we go. The smoking bans will start next year in these establishments. Will they also end up closing down becuase smokers are at a greater number than non-smokers? <BR/><BR/>There are many pluses and minuses to any action put in place by a government. We both are non-smokers but feel that in order for a democracy to work that some personal sacrifices most be made so that things in general are not over-regulated by any government entity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-4739053913741795162007-12-17T19:54:00.000-05:002007-12-17T19:54:00.000-05:00It's difficult to determine the market failure. No...It's difficult to determine the market failure. Nobody was ever forced to work at or go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. I think the biggest reason for these policies is people's feelings towards smoking even if it can't hurt them. Feelings are not a proper foundation for policy.<BR/><BR/>Utilitarianism makes sense. Logically something is right or wrong based on what it causes. However, it is not possible to objectively measure the value of consequences. What's good and bad and how good or bad it is is a matter of opinion. The best thing to do is respect the subjective valuing of the individual who is being affected. If a person is forced into a smoke bar or restaurant they might value their life more than their desire to go inside(which if they're forced might not even exist), so that person's rights are violated. If they've come in of their own free will, though you can assume they value what ever it is they went into the bar or restaurant for (drinks, food) over what ever health or lifespan will be lost from inhaling second-hand smoke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114847801541196372005-04-30T03:56:00.000-04:002005-04-30T03:56:00.000-04:00There are also good utilitarian reasons for not pa...There are also good utilitarian reasons for not passing laws that are theoreticaly valuable but unenforcable. <BR/>Since banning smoking outright is just not practical (rather like prohabition) the way to get to that point is to<BR/>1) ban advertising from most places<BR/>2) make packaging reflect the true effects<BR/>3) ban the activity in certain places<BR/>etc etc<BR/>slowly usage of the product disappears or reduces to levels where it is no longer a primary concern.<BR/>Getting the job done this way has the same effect as doing it by force but reduces the individuals ability to get a critical mass of support to oppose it.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114846238837050462005-04-30T03:30:00.000-04:002005-04-30T03:30:00.000-04:00The government isn't trying to ban people from smo...The government isn't trying to ban people from smoking in private though. (And thank goodness for that. There are <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2004/06/on-liberty.html" REL="nofollow">good utilitarian reasons to support liberty</A>, after all, as J.S. Mill famously explained.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114845771168735012005-04-30T03:22:00.000-04:002005-04-30T03:22:00.000-04:00Utilitarianism requires the government to not only...Utilitarianism requires the government to not only protect you from others but also you from yourself. since you harming yourself is jsut another arbitrary reduction in utility (unless possibly your life had negitive utility and you killed yourself). <BR/>this is basically a result of individuals not always making correct cost benefit decisions even when provided with all the information. Smoking is in general a case of people not properly calculating the cost benefit.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114819730067560472005-04-29T20:08:00.000-04:002005-04-29T20:08:00.000-04:00Yeah, that does sound silly. The law is a blunt i...Yeah, that does sound silly. The law is a blunt instrument, eh?Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114772795430445912005-04-29T07:06:00.000-04:002005-04-29T07:06:00.000-04:00I don't have much in the way of philosophical argu...I don't have much in the way of philosophical arguements or whatever to offer, but I'll just throw this in for good measure and perhaps a fair arguement against the smoking ban.<BR/><BR/>At the time it was being introduced, I read an article in the paper about the ban on smoking extending into theatres because they are considered places of work. This means that actors cannot smoke during a play while on-stage, even if the play speicifically calls for them to be smoking.<BR/><BR/>At the time, there was quite a lot of disapointment in this, particularly relating to one play where one character spends her entire stage-time smoking, and where a lot of the dialogue is based around her smoking addiction. Disallowing the smoking in this situation is fairly idiotic, as it is impacting on being able to convey the culture that has sprung up around smoking and smoking habits.<BR/><BR/>They also said that the theatre company had appealed a special status from the government in order to allow smoking (did you know that truck drivers, under certain conditions, are allowed to smoke within the cab of their vehicle?) on stage, but were denied.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't be surprised if they've already been granted it, or will be, in the future. <BR/><BR/>Just thought I'd throw that in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1114765077772616432005-04-29T04:57:00.000-04:002005-04-29T04:57:00.000-04:00If we want to claim that denying everybody the lib...<I> If we want to claim that denying everybody the liberty to marry a partner of the same sex is discriminatory, then doesn't consistency require that we say the same of denying everybody the liberty to smoke in bars?</I><BR/><BR/>I think your harm principle analysis in the following paragraph is quite right, but we can also extend it to the harmfulness of the discrimination itself. Gay people are constitutively unable to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Thus, a ban on gay marriage means that gay people can never marry the person they love. In contrast, a smoker can just step outside to have a cigarette, and can still smoke at home. Or they can quit smoking. So the "discrimination" against smokers is quite a bit less severe than the discrimination against gay people. So the cost-benefit analysis of banning smoking (slightly harm smokers, but also reduce harm to nonsmokers) differs from that of banning gay marriage (greatly harm gay people, cause no benefit to anyone else).<BR/><BR/>On market failures, I think there is a case to be made that bar owners have been mistaken about what will satisfy their customers. A couple weeks ago the New York Times had an article about the New York state ban on smoking in restaurants and bars saying that contrary to expectations, the ban hadn't really hurt business at bars at all. So it seems that bar owners overestimated the degree to which their customers demanded smoky bars.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11639791864909005895noreply@blogger.com