Smoking Ban

Just who is the new smoking ban intended to help?

• As a piece of Health and Safety legislation it purports to protect the rights of employees, by acknowledging that passive smoking is akin to having to have fire extinguishers, fire exits, etc. But workplace safety can be incorporated into formal contracts - a smoky environment one of many aspects of a job that people are free to decide whether there's sufficient compensating wage differentials. Some people get up at 4am, some work on an oil rig, others at Heathrow airport. Provided you're not forced into slavery, blanket legislation simply prevents some people being able to command a higher wage for doing "unpleasant" jobs. How can the smoking ban be said to benefit people who voluntarily accept smoking? If "they" are now fighting the ban, aren't we violating their rights?
• The burden of proof used to be on smoke-free pubs to advertise as such. Although plenty of smoke-free establishments exist, the fact that most pubs remained hospitable to smokers suggests that the new legislation is the result of people failing to get their preferences through the market, and therefore turning to government. If people aren't willing to freely satisfy your demand, better force them to instead. This is democracy. But the justification on health grounds is completely bogus. There is an absence of evidence to link sporadic exposure to cigarette smoke with adverse health effects, so there are no rights violations, just inconvenience. The fact that people don't like their clothes smelling of smoke is the driver here, not their susceptability to lung cancer. But the ban is excessive because there is a perfeclty reasonable middle ground: the smoking policy  of bars/pubs/restaurant is at the discretion of the owner, but it must be clearly signposted if smoking is allowed. That way "Earl's Cigar Bar" isn't criminalised. And people who work from home, or hire staff, are legally allowed to smoke in their own home.

The bottom line is that bars/pubs/restaurants are not public places. They're enclosed private places that are open to the public, and a place of employment. The issue would be a lot clearer if people acknowledged the simple fact that the only "rights" that are relevant are those of property owners. If you only hire people willing to work in a smoky environment, and clearly mark that you have a smoking section, you are now a criminal. It might be right, it might be wrong, but since it denies freedom of choice; freedom to contract; and freedom of diversity, it is illiberal.

To be logically consistent the anti-smoking lobby would also be trying to outlaw nightclubs. Oh bugger, here we go...

Comments

[Jim]

Aren't you assuming that the labour market works a lot more smoothly than it actually does? Someone who works, say, behind the bar in the only pub in their village doesn't have the option of moving to a job which is identical except that the patrons don't smoke. Maybe they'd love to work in a smoke-free bar, but short of moving house there's no way to do it. Just about every job exhibits similar if less obvious frictions which mean that the range of trade-offs you're talking about frequently don't exist.

[Rick]

And how the hell can you find out what's really going on in a factory or office now that the smokers' room has gone?

[AJE]

I'm not making an assumption (implicit or otherwise) that labour markets are "perfect" - as you well know, I don't concur with that economic paradigm.

The point i'm making is an issue of political philosophy - so it doesn't matter how many pubs there are in the local village, a potential employee has no "right" to dictate the offered working conditions.

Fair enough if you wish to bring in an economic argument, but personally even if there's low labour mobility, limited employers within a local area, etc I think that an environment conducive to entrepreneurship is the best process by which to resolve such issues, since it expands the menu of choice (and therefore the opportunities available to employees). Show me local monopolies/monopsonies that are harmful to consumers and I'll show you barriers to entrepreneurship. Any form of workplace legislation that wouldn't be voluntarily adopted by a business owner is - we can safely assume - likely to undermine their ability to earn profit. Ultimately we have to bear in mind that if we raise those costs too much, they won't be in a position to employ people, regardless of the working conditions. You might feel that there's plenty of scope to increase the burden of employing people, but my sympathy is with the unemployed looking for a job, not the employed trying to protect theirs.

Anyway, I think it's ludicrous to justify a national ban on smoking on private land using hypothetical cases like this. Even the Welsh have more freedom and capacity to develop than you grant.

[tc]

"Even the Welsh"? Explain yourself!

[tc]

Oh. Because they don't have the smoking ban? I thought you were just being offensive.

[Jim]

"The point i'm making is an issue of political philosophy ... Fair enough if you wish to bring in an economic argument"

You based your argument on economics when you claimed that employees can identify and act upon wage differentials hinging upon individual features of the job such as smoking. My point is that there is frequently too much friction in labour markets for that to be the case - it's not a choice between this job with smoke and this job without smoke, it's a choice between this job and a completely different one, maybe a much worse one, or indeed none at all.

"Show me local monopolies/monopsonies that are harmful to consumers and I'll show you barriers to entrepreneurship."

Where they come from isn't important, just as long as you ackowledge they exist. But I would add that there are always going to be restrictions on 'entrepreneurship' when it comes to locations for the flogging of booze.

[aje]

it's a choice

This might be an oversimplification, but all i'm really saying is that it's one thing to say that people have a choice about where they work, and another thing to look into their relative bargaining power. For the purpose of this article the relativey bargaining power might be small, but the fact that the choice exists means that the empoyee has no "right"

there are always going to be restrictions on 'entrepreneurship'

Agreed, but if the aim is to give employees greater ability to find satisfying, fulfilling jobs I think that policies should be directed towards that goal, rather than somewhat unrelated legislative intervention on dubious health grounds

[Jim]

"the fact that the choice exists means that the empoyee has no "right""

Oh well then let's just scrap every bit of workplace health and safety legislation then, eh? And building regulations while we're at it. Because 'choice' and the free market does such a wonderful job of protecting workers in countries with laxer regulations, doesn't it? And we never had deaths at the workplace before health and safety rules, did we? Please, get a grip.

"somewhat unrelated legislative intervention on dubious health grounds"

The health of bar workers has noticeably improved in Ireland after the smoking ban. Perhaps not enough for you to think it worth requiring smokers to get up from their chairs and walk outside, but it has.

[aje]

Because 'choice' and the free market does such a wonderful job of protecting workers in countries with laxer regulations, doesn't it?

You're implying that I'm advocating a system with no regulations and no markets. I'm not.

The health of bar workers has noticeably improved in Ireland after the smoking ban.

So?

[Jim]

"So?"

So the health grounds for the ban are not dubious.

[AJE]

Is the ban justified purely on the grounds of protecting the health of people who choose to work in enclosed environments where people have permission to smoke?

[Jim]

Because the labour market doesn't offer people free choice of working conditions, and because employers can't be relied upon to provide safe and healthy working environments out of the goodness of their hearts, yes it is justified. It's the same as any other form of harmful pollution except that some people happen to enjoy it, or at least they think they do.

[AJE]

the labour market doesn't offer people free choice of working conditions

Yes, it does. It might not offer a "perfect" choice, but that's a completely different thing. Who is it working for monopsonys anyway? Private or public sector??

employers can't be relied upon to provide safe and healthy working environments out of the goodness of their hearts

Fortunately market forces will lead them (as if by an invisible hand) to do so otherwise they wouldn't be able to find any staff

Unless, of course, the staff aren't capable of weighing up the risks for themselves because they're too stupid

or at least they think they do

...which you clearly think they are.

Ultimately this post was about whether the smoking ban is liberal or not. By arguing that you'd advocate any policy that violates the rights of employees and entrepreneurs on the grounds of paternalism, shows that you're arguing from a socialist perspective. Yes, I completely concede that to a socialist the smoking ban makes sense. But it's not liberal, and that's all I'm trying to say.

[Jim]

"Fortunately market forces will lead them (as if by an invisible hand) to do so otherwise they wouldn't be able to find any staff"

An argument rather undermined by the fact that people have got and continue to get sick or injured and even die because of their employer's negligence. Unfortunately still quite a lot today (over 200 deaths at work last year), but fortunately much less so than in the past, and much less so than in many other countries - I wonder why that could be?

"Unless, of course, the staff aren't capable of weighing up the risks for themselves because they're too stupid"

Nice - I suppose those 200 people who died at work, and the tens of thousands who were injured were all just too stupid. And the hundreds of thousands who have or will die as a result of exposure to asbestos at work. I could go on.

The fact is, the invisible hand has completely failed to move employers to protect their workers from second-hand smoke, and they've had to be regulated into this as into just about every other health and safety improvement. Sure, *some* employers will make changes of their own free will because they see an economic benefit, but you know and I know that some (most, if history is any guide) won't because they don't, and a labour market in which some bosses know they can get away with risking the health of their employees calls out, if we actually care about these things, for regulation. Which is why health and safety legislation has saved untold thousands of lives over the years, something I have never heard free-marketeers express any gratitude for or even acknowledge. Which says a lot.

[AJE]

get sick or injured and even die because of their employer's negligence

If a kid has a serious accident at nursery, it's pretty obvious that the person supposed to look after them has been negligent. I think it's useful to treat employees at work as different to that though. To some extent accidents happen, and since we live in a risky world it'd be utopian bullshit to make a "risk free workplace" a policy goal. So I'd say that "negligence" is a loaded term and if we explored the issue in greater depth we'd find that
- some of those deaths were unavoidable, acceptable risks and seeking blame is neither just nor useful
- some of those deaths implied criminal negligence and the employer should be charged with manslaughter rather than violated section 8.3 of the Health and Safety guidebook

I wonder how many cases fit into neither category?

I suppose those 200 people who died at work, and the tens of thousands who were injured were all just too stupid

I prefer to base public policy on the assumption that people are responsible adults. You're the one claiming that they're incapable of exercising their free will, and are stupid. Not me.

calls out, if we actually care about these things, for regulation

So Thatcher would have been right to shut down the mines if she'd done it on "Health and Safety" grounds?

Which is why health and safety legislation has saved untold thousands of lives over the years,

The reason people work in safer environments than they did 100 years ago, is not because opf the Health and Safety Executive. It's because prosperity creates higher value, safer jobs since we can afford to automate the most dangerous methods of production. It's true that legislation might save a few lives in the short term, but only by transferring risk and diverting resources away from the technological advances that improves living standards.

It's impossible to use the visible hand of the state to eliminate risk, therefore the issue is one of trade offs. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this means it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion - you're a fantasist if you think that HSE can prevent work place accidents at zero cost.

Finally, I don't see why you try to claim that people who advocate market solutions have blood on their hands. This isn't about saving lives. It's about monopolies seeking greater protection from competition by raising the costs of doing business, and an increasingly litigenous society expanding their pool of clients. The irony is that you're targetting the wrong consipiracy theory

[Jim]

Apologies for the delay in responding.

"The reason people work in safer environments than they did 100 years ago, is not because opf the Health and Safety Executive. It's because prosperity creates higher value"

That's nice, since it implies the mechanism you're talking about is completely bloody useless in poorer societies, where I suppose we should expect to see large numbers of injuries or deaths at work simply as part of the onward march to prosperity. This also appears to contradict your other claim that regulations simply aren't necessary because workers will always understand the risks they're faced with, and if they don't they're 'stupid' and pretty much deserve what they get.

Which brings me onto my second point. I wouldn't call a failure to comprehend each and every risk we may face in our lives 'stupidity'. I'd simply call it imperfect information, and I would point out that it applies to all of us. We simply cannot know all the risks we face, because we cannot know everything that we might, in hindsight, wish we had known about our workplace. Employers, however, are in a much better position to know these things and it is this kind of information asymmetry that a short-termist, profit-maximising employer would be foolish not to exploit.

Introducing simple features such as imperfect information into the economy immediately implies that government regulation can actually increase efficiency rather than, as I was surprised to see you suggest, always "diverting resources away from" the technological frontier that firms would otherwise occupy. You know and I know that there are market imperfections, barriers to entry and rent-seekers everywhere, which means that we are already very far away from maximum efficiency. This has at least two consequences for this argument: labour markets that do not work smoothly enough to restrict employer abuses of information asymmetries, and the possibility for government intervention to increase efficiency.

Lastly, I would point out that even if you're right and employers always face exactly the right incentives to provide maximum safety for their workers (given that the economy we're talking about is rich enough! But let's ignore that for the moment), some of them may still, even if only in the short term and even in the face of economic wisdom, ignore those incentives and endanger their workers, if only out of stupidity or malice. What then? Should we just let them get on with it?

[aje]

it implies the mechanism you're talking about is completely bloody useless in poorer societies

I don't see any reason to make an assumption that the poor will always be poor. I see wider economic prosperity as the best way to improve working conditions, that's all

your other claim that regulations simply aren't necessary because workers will always understand the risks they're faced with, and if they don't they're 'stupid' and pretty much deserve what they get.

I've never said that. Accidents happen, people make mistakes. I'm just saying that I have enough faith in human responsibility to believe that individuals are the best judge of personal risk. You're the one implying 'stupidity', since you're claiming that distant bureaucrats are in a better position to make those decisions.

I wouldn't call a failure to comprehend each and every risk we may face in our lives 'stupidity'.

Me neither, as I've tried to make clear

Introducing simple features such as imperfect information into the economy immediately implies that government regulation can actually increase efficiency

I disagree. Once again you're assuming that the case for free markets rests on an assumption of perfect competition. It doesn't. No school of thought has been more critical of the information assumptions of perfect competition than the Austrians.

You know and I know that there are market imperfections, barriers to entry and rent-seekers everywhere,

These are all valid reasons why competition should be favoured instead of regulatory intervention through Health and Safety legislation (which create barriers to entry, and generate rents)

even if you're right and employers always face exactly the right incentives to provide maximum safety

I've not claimed that at all - asymmetric information is a fact of life.

Should we just let them get on with it?

They should be prosecuted for manslaughter. I'm not advocating lawlessnes. There's existing laws to deal with gross negligence and criminal behaviour.

[Jim]

"These are all valid reasons why competition should be favoured instead of regulatory intervention through Health and Safety legislation (which create barriers to entry, and generate rents)"

I was afraid you'd say that, because it's a cop-out. Even without the HSE, even without as much of the machinery of government as you care to dispense with, there will still be too much friction in labour markets and therefore too little incentives for employers to look after their workers safety, and information will still be far, far too imperfect for people to know all the risks they face. That's why markets have never delivered safe workplaces by themselves - because in reality, they can't.

"They should be prosecuted for manslaughter. I'm not advocating lawlessnes. There's existing laws to deal with gross negligence and criminal behaviour."

Having a Health and Safety Executive (or equivalent) that can inspect workplaces and require changes means we can identify problems *before* they kill someone, which I would have thought is a good thing. Believe it or not, sometimes even the most well-intentioned employers are unwittingly putting lives at risk. Health and safety regulations are just a set of rules that mean "If you do it this way (or don't do it that way), we'll all be safer". You call that 'distant bureaucrats' making stuff up off the tops of their heads. I call it collective wisdom, the result of decades of bitter experience watching people's lives ruined because their employers didn't have the right 'incentives'.

[aje]

information will still be far, far too imperfect for people to know all the risks they face

And here's the bottom line: I don't think that anyone can ever know "all" the risks they face. It should be about the institutions that allow people to utilise their own preferences, and their own local knowledge, as to whether something, to them counts as an acceptable or unacceptable risk.

This attitude that we can establish a government body to uncover each and every single risk, and then reduce them, at zero cost, is just ridiculous.

Having a Health and Safety Executive (or equivalent) that can inspect workplaces and require changes means we can identify problems *before* they kill someone, which I would have thought is a good thing.

Yes, of course it's a good idea for specialists to assess workplaces and identify potential problems. The issue is whether it's compulsory, what powers such agencies would have, and who pays for them.

Regardless, you seem to be justifying the HSE's quest to eliminate all work accidents with some moral rhetoric about the plight of labourers prior to big government. Can we agree to abolish the HSE and spend the money on improving living standards in the third world?