Ban Smoking in Public Places?

[snex]

Because the free market causes companies to do what's in their best interest.

you also keep making this assertion, and it is the one thing you say that i agree with. however, what you fail to see is that if most people do not want smoking, THEN IT IS IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTEREST TO BAN IT. and it is this very issue that you keep evading. when are you going to answer my question about why companies didnt already ban smoking if thats what customers wanted?

Smoke bans are to keep people from harming others in public.

then why dont we ban cars? cars are far more dangerous than smoking. driving a car is dangerous to both you and everybody else around you. more dangerous than smoking a cigarette. more dangerous than smoking 1000 cigarettes.

 

[AltF4]

I already did answer your "free market" assertion. Companies didn't ban on their own because the best interest of consumers and the best interest of companies are not the same. In fact they are quite disjoint.


Important topic: (Because I enjoy nothing more than shattering the framework of others' beliefs)
It is clear, snex, that you value the Free Market system very highly. A capitalist for sure. Are you familiar with the work of John Nash? You may remember him from the movie "A Beautiful Mind". He was a real mathematician who worked in Game Theory, and one of his major contributions was proving that Adam Smith was wrong.

They go over it briefly in the movie. Recall the scene where Nash has his epiphany: He and his friends are at a bar and spot a group of women, one of which is prettier. It strikes Nash that if they all work entirely by self-interest (going for the blond) then their utility is not maximized (nobody gets the blond).

Anyway, the gist of his work is that the Free Market system is flawed in many important ways. Agents acting on self interest do not lead to optimal results.

You inevitably enter what is called "Nash Equilibrium", which is a state where you have maximized your own goals given the choices of other players. But the crux is that the sums of the Nash Equilibrium states for all players is not the optimal possible sum! In essence: when everyone acts only maximize their own good, they do not achieve it.



Consider this (contrived) example: The prisoner's dilemma.

Two men rob a bank and are being questioned by the police in separate rooms. Each one is given a choice: To stay silent and not say anything, or to rat out the other prisoner.

If one rats the other out, the rat gets off free, while the betrayed prisoner gets 10 years in jail. If they both rat each other out, they both get five years in jail. And finally if they both stay silent, they both serve 6 months in jail.

You are prisoner 1, and don't know what prisoner 2 has chosen. What do you do?

1) If you choose to stay silent you could serve 6 months or 10 years, depending on what the other guy picks.

2) If you rat him out, you'll either get 0 time, or get 5 years.

It is easy to see that it is in your best interest to rat the other prisoner out. No matter what he chooses, it your jail time is less given his choice.


BUT: When both prisoners act in their own self interest, we end up with the case where they both receive 5 years in jail. This is not the optimal situation. The best outcome is where both prisoners stay silent! Then they both receive only 6 months in jail each! Acting on self interest hurt them both.


What John Nash did was prove that this principle extends to any nontrivial system (such as economics)


In order to actually optimize your benefit, you must work to the best interest of the whole, not the self.

 

[Sandy]

Personally, I can hardly stand the smell of smoke and if I have to walk by a smoker I'll hold my breath till I'm certain I'm far enough to not have to smell the stink any more. It's not an issue of health, although in my mind I have convinced myself it is harmful for me, but it's just that I can't stand the smell of cigarettes/cigars/tobacco. I have no idea how smokers can be okay with their clothes stinking of it all the time.

First ammendment, second ammendment, human rights, whatever... I'm all for a smoke free enviornment because if, for whatever reason, someone tried to get a following for eating **** and carrying it around in public we'd outlaw that too. (Ok, not really. Let people smoke, don't make it illegal in public buildings, but smokers should be a little more mindful of the people around them. The fact is: If there is no smoke in the air, no one is bothered. If there is some smoke in the air, some people might be bothered.)

I don't mean everyone in at a bar should stop smoking because there is one non-smoker. Simply that if you're in a mall, for example, where the smell of smoke lingers and plenty of people walk by... smoke outside, not because it's illegal or unhealthy, but just as a common courtesy.

So I hate smoke, I can't stand "second-hand smoking", but I've read pieces that have claimed SHS is more harmful than first hand smoking. and there are people who believe this too. I mean, C'mon how gullible can you be?

 

[snex]

I already did answer your "free market" assertion. Companies didn't ban on their own because the best interest of consumers and the best interest of companies are not the same. In fact they are quite disjoint.

you absolutely did not answer it. if customers do not want smoking allowed, then how can it possibly not be in the company's best interest to disallow smoking? your claims about game theory simply do not apply to this situation. if you want to get into the math of it, fine.

lets say we have two restaurants, x and y. both restaurants draw the same amount of customers (100) and allow smoking. then one day a scientist publishes a study that shows that second hand smoke is bad for you. company x decides to ban smoking and company y decides to keep it. according to http://www.theburningissue.org/percentages.htm, the percentage of smokers is around 20% (lets use that because its a nice round number). normally, on average, each restaurant draws half the customers (50) and half the smokers (10). after restaurant x bans smoking, the smokers will probably go to restaurant y, meaning restaurant x has 40 customers and restaurant y has 60. so restaurant y will be more profitable, right? but wait.. we have to take into account the number of people who do not want to be around smoke. if that number is higher than the number of smokers, then restaurant x that bans smoking will actually be more profitable. if restaurant y wants to stay competitive, then it will need to ban smoking as well. if the number of people who do not want smoking banned is less than the number of smokers, THEN THEY WERE NEVER THE MAJORITY OR EVEN CLOSE TO IT. and that being the case, the government does NOT represent the will of the people.

n = number of people who want smokers banned
s = number of smokers (~20% of the population)

if n > s, then businesses that ban smoking are more profitable
if n < s, then governments that ban smoking are not leading as the population sees fit

 

[AltF4]

you absolutely did not answer it. if customers do not want smoking allowed, then how can it possibly not be in the company's best interest to disallow smoking? your claims about game theory simply do not apply to this situation. if you want to get into the math of it, fine.

Did my entire last post go directly above your head? The free market ensures only one thing: That companies will do what is in their short term best interest. Which turns out to be what is not their best choice after all.

It does not ensure things like public safety. You have some misconception that the Free Market is the solution to all problems, when that is far from the truth. By itself, it is in fact quite terrible.


But, I'm only even bothing to speak of this because you so fervently asked for it. The entire point, however, is moot.

Public safety is not a matter for the free maket to decide. Public safety is something that the government has the right and duty to ensure.

 

[snex]

you didnt address my point at all. deal with the math in my post or admit defeat. i have nothing more to say until you do one or the other.

 

[AltF4]

I did refute your point. Multiple times already, I can't imagine how you don't see this. I'll even start quoting myself instead of typing things again.

You came up with some contrived hypothetical that shows nothing. It is all based upon the false assumption that the free market will ensure the best interest of the customer. (See: John Nash) But here's an actual quote, and why it's wrong. Because apparently showing (at great length) that you're categorically wrong isn't enough.

THEN THEY WERE NEVER THE MAJORITY OR EVEN CLOSE TO IT. and that being the case, the government does NOT represent the will of the people.

Public safety is not a matter for the free maket to decide. Public safety is something that the government has the right and duty to ensure.

This is not a matter of what the majority wants. We are not a democracy, you know. It is the role of the government to protect the rights of the minority, not the whim of the majority.

What the majority thinks is irrelevant. What the free market demands is irrelevant. What shop owners wish to do is irrelevant.

You do not have the right to go into a public place and harm everyone around you indiscriminately.

 

[snex]

What the majority thinks is irrelevant. What the free market demands is irrelevant. What shop owners wish to do is irrelevant.

ah, finally it comes out. what everybody wants is irrelevant, because AltF4Warrior says so.

you did not refute my point, and you did not address my example. you just keep on repeating the mantra that the government should have the right to tell adults of able mind and body what they can and cant do with their own bodies under the pretense that it is for their own good. nevermind the fact that people know that smoking is unhealthy, nevermind the fact that people can avoid smokers if they want to, nevermind the fact that many businesses banned smoking all on their own exactly BECAUSE they are self-interested. the government is your nanny and youll shut up and obey them if you know whats good for you.

you can blabber on all youd like about nash and game theory, but the simple fact is that it DOES NOT APPLY to cigarette smoking in public places. my example is the exact kind of thing youll find in any college level economics course. you have provided NOTHING to show that smoking bans follow any other model, you just assert that it does and expect us to take your word for it.

so im challenging you to either put up or shut up. demonstrate using ACTUAL FACTS AND LOGIC *WHY* companies would not ban smoking all on their own if thats what people actually wanted. dont simply assert that companies are self-interested - we already know this. demonstrate that it is AGAINST a company's self interest to ban smoking if customers want it banned.

EDIT: another interesting fact to consider.. i was discussing this issue with my friend today, and his father works in insurance. apparently, companies that allow smoking on or even *near* the premises have to pay higher insurance costs. so that is another incentive for companies to ban smoking all on their own. why dont they do it? because the money that smokers bring in far outweighs the higher cost of the insurance. in other words, the public wants to smoke. so where are these politicians coming from saying they represent the public? they dont represent the public. just like companies, politicians are *self-interested* entities. if the public at large wants to engage in unhealthy activity, then that is their right, and any individual who does not like it can go somewhere else that caters to his demands. heck, he can even start his OWN company where he gets the make the rules.

if we take your claim that the government has a duty to protect citizens from behavior that adversely affects other people, then automobiles should be the *first* thing to go. yet nobody ever supports this. why?

 

[AltF4]

Well, I think we've come to an end here. You've come full circle into repeating fallacious arguments I've already refuted.

You're already back to using the same Straw Man arguments of "what they can and cant do with their own bodies under the pretense that it is for their own good". I have never said anything to this effect, yet you pretend like I have.

Then you go and try to imply that only a very small, minuscule proportion of the population supports these bans. As if it is just me that goes against the will of the majority. But this is also not the case. The entire STATE of Arizona has these bans blissfully enacted. (They even passed with an overwhelming majority) The amount of areas enacting bans only increases every day.

Then you continue to assert that whatever the Free Market would choose, must be the correct choice. This fact I have also refuted. It is wrong. Suppose you are correct in all of your numbers, suppose that the Free Market does in fact demand that bars shouldn't ban smoking. That doesn't make it the correct choice. I can't imagine why you still cling to the notion that whatever the Free Market chooses is the best choice.

I agree that the Free Market would choose not to enact the bans. It is clear by the fact that the bans have to be enacted via government intervention and do not arise naturally. This debate is not about what the Free Market would do, but what is RIGHT to do. These things are not the same.

And lastly, automobiles are not banned because they have a legitimate purpose that can be enjoyed without hurting others. Just like guns. Guns kill plenty of people. But you can have them, and I support that. But that does not mean you're allowed to fire randomly in a public place! You are only allowed possession of these things when you are not harming anyone else. Even then, cigarettes are not being banned outright, only their use in public indoor places. Just go outside.

 

[snex]

it is not the place of governments to decide what is "right" to do. history has shown that whenever we ask governments to make such decisions, they end up in disaster. it is also not the place of companies to decide what is "right" to do. history has shown the same disasters when we give them this right.

the sole responsibility for deciding what is "right" is the individual. this is the very essence of the free market system. if the state of things is poor, it is not because the free market failed. it is because YOU as the consumer failed to take responsibility for where you choose to spend your money and to convince others that YOUR idea of "right" is the most beneficial one.

smoking, by the way, also has a legitimate purpose. or does "the pursuit of happiness" no longer count? just because YOU dont find it enjoyable doesnt mean everybody else doesnt, and enjoyment is a perfectly legitimate purpose.

 

[AltF4]

Well, I think we have some closure now. You refuse to accept some basic facts, and instead repeatedly twist the argument into a Straw Man.

I have never argued that smoking should be banned in private places, nor that it should be banned in public outdoor places. Smoking should be banned in public indoor places because it harms everyone in the area, not just the smoker. If it were the case that it only hurt the smoker, then there would be no issue. You are allowed to enjoy cigarettes in any situation where it does not harm random people in public. Why would you be opposed to this?

This is not an issue of individual responsibility, nor the free market. It never has been. If the free market decided everything correctly, we wouldn't need child labor laws, anti-trust laws, or health codes. But we do. Because the free market is a highly imperfect system. A fact that I went at length to demonstrate.

When the free market cannot make the correct decision, it is the place of government to do so. That's the reason government exists. Why else does it exist other than to enforce laws that aren't a natural product of the free market?

I understand where you're coming from. I am a minimalist when it comes to government intervention. It's just that it's naive to think that the free market is the solution to all problems. There are some things that have to be forced on to the free market system for the betterment of everyone. (Anti-trust laws, for example) The government is a necessary evil, but it's still necessary. Protecting citizens from others harming them in public is one of the roles of government.

Just go outside.

 

[snex]

Smoking should be banned in public indoor places because it harms everyone in the area, not just the smoker.

this is entirely irrelevant. nobody is *forced* to be in a public indoor place that allows smoking. if they were, then you would have an argument. but nobody is forced to pick a restaurant that allows smoking over one that doesnt. if you want restaurants to ban smoking, then you need to exercise your right to withhold money from restaurants that dont and to (legally) convince others to do so as well.

When the free market cannot make the correct decision, it is the place of government to do so.

you say this as if it were clear cut what the "correct decision" is. why is non-smoking the "correct decision?" smoking harms bystanders far less and far less often than automobiles, yet you think the benefits of automobiles outweigh the costs. but why do you think everybody is obligated to agree with you about the benefits and costs? these are inherently subjective judgments, and it is not the place of the government to be ruling on subjective tastes. if you dont want to be around smokers, go somewhere that disallows it. you have no right to force everybody else (including places you wouldnt even go to anyway!) to adhere to your standards.

Just go outside.

no, YOU go outside. you are the one that is unhappy with the situation (cigarette smoke polluting your air). nobody should be obligated to cater to your demands. if you want them to do so, then you need to exercise your right to withhold the very thing that you criticize them for wanting from you, your money.

 

[Falco&Victory]

ok, AltF4Warrior, I agree with you but you seem a tad radical. Smoking SHOULD be banned in public places. This does not include clubs or private access places. The government does NOT have the right to stop people from smoking, that would be like saying people can't get fat cause it's bad for you(even if I would be in favor of this notion)

When you divide the big issues into black and white, the ink smears gray =/

 

[Deleted member]

If the government didn't have the right to stop people from smoking, why are recreational drugs banned?

They do have the right. They just aren't going to.

AltF4 isn't radical in the slightest.

 

[snex]

If the government didn't have the right to stop people from smoking, why are recreational drugs banned?

even though this question is not asked in good faith, it is one you should be hammering at your congressmen. why ARE recreational drugs banned? because the government oversteps its bounds, thats why.

read the story on how marijuana became banned. it is full of outright lies about its effects and complete racism of the politicians that voted for the ban.

 

[AltF4]

I can't seem to find any good reason why recreational drugs should be outlawed. It's not the job of government to protect me from myself. If it's only a harm to myself, I can't see why it would be illegal. Only if it hurts other people (smoking in public indoor places) is there an issue.

But that's really an issue for another thread. Somebody should probably make one.

 

[cF=)]

I did, and while it reached 2 pages, it never really caught on anybody.

-- http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=120325&page=2

Post ahead if you got something to add!

 

[Falco&Victory]

probly cause marijuana is really unpleasant to be around. The smoke stings and makes me gag. Not very pleasant >_>

still shouldn't be BANNED, but just disallowed in public(like smoking)

Other drugs, however, have serious psychological effects

 

[Colenstien]

Well, where I live in North Dakota there is only smoking allowed in truck stops, but even then it is in a closed off room. I really think they should get rid of all smoking in a public place. Second hand smoke does kill. Plus, I don't think you want to eat your eggs next to a guy who decided to puff up..... and then breath on your eggs...... again!..... if you can't tell this has happened to me. >_<

 

[cF=)]

Second hand smoke does kill.

Ahem, don't spread false information if you have no knowledge of how cancer cells become tumorous. Second hand smoke increases the chance of developing cancer, which then kills you. Smoke doesn't kill.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Ahem, don't spread false information if you have no knowledge of how cancer cells become tumorous. Second hand smoke increases the chance of developing cancer, which then kills you. Smoke doesn't kill.

You lie! The smoke congeals into a ninja who leaps out of the air and chops your head off before becoming "just smoke" again.

Ninja hand smoke does kill.

 

[cF=)]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Remember, the burden of proof lies within your hands!

 

[Colenstien]

Ahem, don't spread false information if you have no knowledge of how cancer cells become tumorous. Second hand smoke increases the chance of developing cancer, which then kills you. Smoke doesn't kill.

Yeah, I get that the smoke itself dosen't kill you, but the inhalation of the smoke does damage to the lungs, much like the person who smoked in the first place.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Picture of smoke becoming ninja:

Picture of Smoke killing people:

 

[DeadtoSin]

It is funny how everyone can band together one one side or the other in the God topic, but everyone backbites each other in such a simple topic. I don't see this as a complicated issue.

Should we not give public places the freedom to do as they wish in this area? Recently we got our local Dairy Queen to go smoke-free. We didn't do this with any health issues, as legitimate as I believe they are. We did this with the power of the dollar. If a place has a non-smoking section I'll eat there, but if the smokers just sit anywhere they want I do not eat there. I don't want to breath the crap in, if I did, I'd smoke.

The owner doesn't care about my health, if not he wouldn't charge more money for some shreds of lettuce and cheese than he would a bunch of fried pieces of meat and potatoes. We appealed to his pocket book. The group of us that would not eat there because of all the coughing hacking old people became so large and called in so often that he caved. Its smoke free now.

Let the free market work. It may not work instantly, but it is the only real legitimate way to do this in my eyes.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I've already made my position absolutely clear and have yet to find any argument that really counters it. I find a lot of the babble here to be more entertaining than influential and thus decide to add levity where I find it appropriate. Being able to make fun of an issue, regardless of what side you are on, is healthy. Taking something like smoking in a public place too serious is a great way to become like you.

 

[DeadtoSin]

I don't take it serious. I just use the power of money to achieve the result I desired. That isn't a serious issue. I just wanted to eat at Dairy Queen sometimes, and I dislike smoking. So I did the logical thing, and people were organized to ask that Dairy Queen become smoke free.

I just found something I wanted and worked for it. I think the worst thing to do is to force the government to do what we think they should do. Eventually the tides will turn the other way, and we will have legitimized the government's over regulation in our lives.