Why the smoking ban is wrong

Christopher Hitchens and Simon Hoggart engaged in debate yesterday about the smoking ban. Hitchens spoke for me, beginning with this:

If I had wanted an encapsulating anecdote for my argument, it would have been provided by our glorious Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt, who commented on recent events in Iran: "It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people." Yes, I think that just about expresses the anti-tobacco mentality. It is all-enveloping and all-inclusive, utterly patronising and completely, laughably literal-minded.

Hoggart never once addressed the question of freedom, contenting himself with a long description of why he doesn't smoke any more (what's that got to do with it?) and simply asserting that it wasn't a freedom issue. Perhaps he is planning a second article in which he explains why.

But neither of them address what seems to me a fatal flaw of the ban - it won't work.

The only possible justification of banning people from smoking in designated public spaces - smoking rooms in pubs, say - is that it reduces passive smoking.

Only it doesn't. The best available study (summarised in an article I wrote in February) suggests bans simply shift the burden of passive smoking from adults to children. This means that it shifts it from those who can choose to avoid it onto those who can't.

I have never heard a proponent of the ban counter this. Yet surely it is fundamental.

Comments

[Neil Clark]

The first country in the world to introduce smoking bans was, (surprise, suprise), Nazi Germany.
By 1939, Germany's anti-tobacco programmes included a total ban on smoking in public places, on all forms of public transport and among the members of the Luftwaffe. In Berlin, all smoking out of doors was banned. In Britain at the same time there were no restrictions on smoking whatsoever. I know which society I would have preferred to live in. I'm not so sure about Patricia Hewitt.

[Andy]

"shift the burden of passive smoking from adults to children"

should be

"shift the burden of passive smoking from strangers to your own children"

If somebody sees no problem in forcing me to passive smoke, then then should have no problem forcing their own children to passive smoke

[Simon Stephenson]

I'm not really sure that the main motive for this ban is anything to do with passive smoking at all. There really is no evidence that passive smoking is a serious health hazard either to smokers or non-smokers. There have been a large number of studies and, actually, none of them have demonstrated, as far as public health is concerned, that we have anything significant to worry about as far as PASSIVE smoking is concerned.

On the other hand, active smoking has been demonstrated quite clearly to be harmful to health. I'm quite clear that, in isolation, a non-smoking society would be preferable to a smoking one. There are some, no doubt, who believe this so strongly that they consider it acceptable to participate in the vilification and persecution of the smoker, by any means, fair or foul, in the interests of creating a non-smoking society. I'm convinced that it is this that is the main driving force behind the forthcoming smoking ban.

What actually concerns me far more than this ban is whether or not we should tolerate a democratically elected government enacting legislation knowingly on the back of a false pretence. It strikes me that there are occasions when such subterfuge is tolerable when dealing with children or other partially competents, where it is not to be expected that they are capable of understanding the fullness of the actual arguments. However, I have reservations about whether such an approach is acceptable in government's dealings with the adult population at large.

[John Allen]

Hitchens speaks for you then he calls this ban "all-enveloping and all-inclusive, utterly patronising..." etc. But your objection in turn is that the ban doesn't answer the need to protect children in private homes?

If you are indeed a 'social responsibility militant', you can hardly inveigh on behalf of children who you'd just as soon leave sat in a fog of cigarette smoke, were it not for the fact their parents are about to be banned from also smoking down the pub.

The ban is intended to lessen a public health risk from its hold on public places. Private responsibility dictates that a parent is responsible for their child's health. You surely believe this more than you believe an adult has an inalienable right to light up where he chooses.

What would you do? Should we lower the price of cigarettes and encourage smoking in bars to incentivise smoke-free homes?

[Richard Mann]

This is the first time I have seen Godwin's law in effect from the very first comment. The Nazis banned smoking, it must be a stupid idea!

[Chris G]

An error from Hitchens there: Patricia Hewitt never made that quote, it was an April Fool in a column by Christopher Brooker in the Telegraph.

[Laconian]

Smoking bans no more shift the burden of passive smoking from adults to children than ousting evil dictators causes terrorism.

Terrorists cause terrorism, and smokers (it seems) shift the burden of passive smoking onto their children. Surely further legislation and/or smoker education is the answer?

[Stuart]

The trouble with smoking is that, as personal habits go, it is among the more anti-social. I have no personal objection to people killing themselves with whatever noxious substance they choose. What I object to is being compelled to inhale the exhaust fumes, and have my clothes, skin and hair stink of it too.

It's a pity the government didn't allow private clubs an exemption though.

[timmyhawk]

Laconian, "Surely further legislation and/or smoker education is the answer?" As for the education bit: yawn (been there, done that, result nil). Further legislation? More like it. Ban smoking at home too (or at least in homes with children in them). Sure, this will be a bit tricky to enforce. Perhaps we should install cigarrette smoke detectors in every home in the country and connect them to the local police station. Failing that we could always rely on spot-inspections by no-smoking commissars, or rely on neighbours shopping each other to the authorities. Or perhaps we could have children interrogated in school to make them rat on their parents. The possibilities are endless.

[Munin]

As Chris G has pointed out, the Hewitt quote was an April Fools jibe by Christopher Booker - see "An Apology" below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/15/nbook15.xml

It's a good joke, but a blatantly obvious, ridiculous caricature. Perhaps you and Mr Hitchens were indulging in your own joke at your readers' expense?

[Valentin B]

It should be quite the same as with drugs. Making smoking illegal would work a lot.

[Laconian]

Timmyhawk,
Other countries have laws against smacking children without needing smack detectors, spot inspections by no-smacking commissars or having "children interrogated in school to make them rat on their parents".

Similar laws can be used to discourage parents from subjecting their children to passive smoking. Since most people have some degree of respect for the law it seems unreasonable to suppose that such a law would have negligible effect.

[Tim Worstall]

Err, it might be worth pointing out something really rather counter-intuitive.

In hte late 90s under the auspices of the UN (WHO I think) there was a huge meta-study done on the effects of passive smoking. The result of which was that there was only one statistically significant result.

(Anyone with access to The Economist archives can look this up if they should wish.)

That exposure as a child to passive smoking REDUCED the incidence of lung cancer in later life.

So smoke around your kiddies, you're doing them a favour.

[Simon Stephenson]

Every time I venture onto the streets, I am aware that my life is being put at risk by other people making unnecessary vehicle journeys. Taken over the country as a whole I'd be surprised if there aren't as many as 500 lives lost annually by passive victims of indulgent, non-necessary vehicle journeys. Not to mention the many times more who are maimed, injured or otherwise disadvantaged.

These casualty figures are far, far greater than any study has predicted as a possible annual death/injury toll directly the result of passive smoking. In fact, virtually all the studies have failed to come to with a conclusion that there is ANY statistically relevant public health risk that can be directly attributed to passive smoking. And, of course, this is not for want of trying. It's just that, no matter how much people want to demonise smoking, science has not been able to establish proving that, passively inhaled, tobacco smoke damages health more than to a minuscule extent, and certainly no more than dozens of other indulgences that no one would seriously think of illegalising.

So does anyone think that we should make illegal, or even impossible, non-necessary vehicle journeys? Where are the legions of smoking ban supporters? If they are genuinely concerned with protecting the health interests of innocent third parties, why are they not jumping up and down about a killer and maimer that has far more wide-reaching effects than does passive smoking.

[Mr Eugenides]

Well, this is an interesting test case to determine whether Mr Finkelstein (pbuh) reads the comments on his own blog.

If he does, I'm sure that he'll pick up on the fact that he's fallen for Booker's April Fool, and make the appropriate correction. If not...

[timmyhawk]

Laconian, that's a good point, though I still wonder about a law that would in effect only be followed on the basis of respect for law, and not by threat of governmental force. My somewhat polemical point was that enforcing this law would be a practical nightmare, that would raise any manner of other problems.
It could of course end up like anti-smacking laws which only get any enforcement once the smacking is completely out control and the abuse is visibly obvious to authorities. I'm not sure how this would work out in the case of passive smoking?
Anyways, so far this is entirely hypothetical, though it is the only logical next stept from the current smoking ban.

[Munin]

Mr Eugenides, I find it very hard to believe that Mr Dinklestein could possibly be in error.

Even if this were to be the case, it would certainly be the fault of the Health Secretary, for behaving in such a way as to make a reasonable man believe such a ridiculous comment was credible.

[Simon Stephenson]

This thread seems to have dried up, but is there anyone prepared to go beyond the emotion of smoking and our way of dealing with it, and consider whether or not they agree with me that this is a bad piece of legislation for 2 major reasons:-

1. It's not possible to disprove assertions that it has been pushed through on a false prospectus.

2. It establishes a principle of legislation against unpleasantness that is incapable of being applied consistently across social behaviour. Piecemeal corrective rules cannot do otherwise than to attack social harmony - many will not accept legislation that they consider discriminates against them unfairly.

[Hugo]

The defence of the nanny state is definitely a scary new development in public attitude. The worst aspect of it is its complete lack of intelligence.

Whenever someone dares criticise the ban as being fascist, draconian, patronising, and anything else that it IS, the exact same pathetic excuse for a "counterargument" is rolled out:

"Why should I/anyone be forced to breathe your/anyone's smoke?"

We'll put aside the absolutely miniscule health risks of breathing in airborne tobacco smoke. The biggest issue with this "argument" is that it's 100%, TOTAL, COMPLETE B******S. It's been rubbished hundreds of times by so many people, it's been torn apart in so many ways, it's been killed off beyond all hope of resuscitation and yet, like a zombie in a corny 70's horror movie, it KEEPS ON COMING BACK!

Why is it rubbish? I'll say it again, and you'd best listen this time, because it's getting tiring repeating it: staying in a private establishment is *OPTIONAL*. You are no more compelled to stay in a smoky room than you are compelled to drink until you pass out.

Pubs, bars and restaurants are not buses. They are not a public service. They are not post offices, schools or law courts. They are PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS, owned by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, and as such, should be free to cater for whoever they want, even if doing so might exclude others. If their chosen customers happen to be smokers, if their staff are smokers or tolerate it, if they are happy to forfeit the trade of anyone who doesn't like smoke, and if they make their policy clear at the entrance, there can be NO grounds for complaints of "forced exposure", and therefore NO grounds for smoking to be prohibited inside.

Preventing harm where those involved have not consented is one thing; preventing it where all parties have willingly consented is fascism.