Smoking Ban

Bad choice of words...it's local legislation. We as citizens exert influence on that by who we vote in for city council, mayor, dog catcher, whoever...

My bad

I’m new here, and don't mean to step on any toes, but this smoking ban has really touched a lot of nerves among my friends. Personally, I'm against it for a variety of reasons, most of which are brought up here and in debates over the issue, but both sides seems fairly clear. Everyone -- smokers and non-smokers alike -- has a dog in this fight.

That said, my bottom line is based more on economic philosophy than health issues. For me, it’s more a macro than a micro issue… Metro Louisville as a microcosm of the political and economic environment.

Positing theoretical, U.S. businesses exist in a world of Keynesian economics rather than Austrian School economics. Business must follow mandated guidelines rather than allowing the free market to determine many policies and principles. For those who see this latest exercise in social policy-making as an aspect of a “nanny state”, Keynes’ theories share responsibility (or blame) for indoctrinating modern business practices into the concept of an omnipresent state mothering helpless children.

Under Keynes’ economic theories, the state sets policies for business. Policy decisions are removed from the shoulders of business owners, as well as from consumers. The free market is stripped of conglomerate free will and thereby its innate ability to determine real value based on the principles of supply and demand.

Keynes’ theories are debated, debunked and debauched ad nauseam in economic circles, and even economists like Friedman and Greenspan have voiced serious concerns about them. But it boils down to one question; who can more effectively determine value (monetary value as well as policy value)... the state or the free market?

The free market is you and me… anyone who spends money. The state, of course, is the government.

If you believe the state determines value more effectively than you do, then you should naturally support a state-sponsored policy affecting businesses where you spend money. You should support a smoking ban. At first glance it would seem a simple decision for the health and comfort of you and your family -- a good decision in the best interests of your loved ones… nothing wrong with that.

If you believe the free market -- everyone who spends money -- should be the ultimate arbiter of value, and if you believe “the market is always right”, then you should oppose a smoking ban because of government interference in the free market process. That sort of government regulation effectively eliminates the free market ability to determine real value. It essentially negates you. It negates your power to determine value in the marketplace by choosing where you spend your money. And equally important, it negates your power to determine value in the marketplace by choosing where you will NOT spend your money.

For me, the logic is inescapable. I believe I’m immensely more effective than government in determining value in my own life and for my family. I don’t want my family exposed to second hand smoke, so I won’t spend money in businesses where smoking is allowed. I won’t support them.

That said, I also believe that business owners and customers who do prefer smoke-filled rooms should have exactly the same rights I have to make their impact on the free market. We do, after all, live under a proposition of equality in this country, so they must have the same right to spend their own money wherever they choose. And in so doing, they play an equally important role in allowing the free market to determine real value.

The way I see it, if there’s an overwhelming demand for non-smoking bars and restaurants, then let the free market weigh the value of that demand. If the demand actually is overwhelming, then people will open more non-smoking establishments and become highly successful. Current bar and restaurant owners can voluntarily decide to transform to “non-smoking only” and thus increase volume and profit simply by meeting a demand. When people have the freedom to choose, then the free market has always been eminently effective in determining the value of their choices.

Theoretically, freedom comes down to free choice. When government chips away at free choice and removes the determination of real value from the hands of the free market, then we all lose some aspect of our freedom to choose. As I say, it's purely theoretical, but perhaps those who are so strongly favoring the government-mandated smoking policy might want to consider that idea.

One of my other reasons for not favoring a government-mandated policy is connected to something that Mayor Abramson has said more than once in describing his support. That is, he says something to the effect that Louisville is simply following in the footsteps of other major cities that have instituted smoking bans.

What I want to know is this... when did we decide not to be a unique city? Are we really so backward that we actually need to march in lockstep with other cities in order to sociologically "fit in"?

It irks me. I was born and raised here, but travelled around and lived in a half-dozen other cities over the past 3-4 decades. I've been back in Louisville for 15 years and always came back after living elsewhere. It's home, and I always loved our small town flavor. Now it seems we (or at least our politicos) have an overarching need to deny our small town flavor and become just another clone of some major city... not the future that I'd hoped for Louisville.

I'd like to welcome Kent to the forum and I applaud his logic and reason. I too am a lifelong resident of Louisville and have to agree with Kent's assessment of our local leaders. They are trying to make this a "world class city". I have seen New York and Chicago. They are places I would not want to live. Our city has a "hometown" feel and I believe that the members of Metro Council are trying to take that away. Look at their track record since the merger. Nearly everything they have done or try to do has either failed or had to be rewritten later at a cost to the taxpayers. I realize there is no way that the Council will forget the ban nor will they quit trying to legislate nearly everything we or "allowed" to do in Louisville. Though this is supposed to be a food/restaurant forum, I will take this opportunity to urge every voter in Metro to vote out EVERY Council member at the soonest election. It's time we start over with representatives who really want what their constituents desire, not just notoriety for themselves.

[Robin Garr]

Positing theoretical, U.S. businesses exist in a world of Keynesian economics rather than Austrian School economics. Business must follow mandated guidelines rather than allowing the free market to determine many policies and principles. For those who see this latest exercise in social policy-making as an aspect of a “nanny state”, Keynes’ theories share responsibility (or blame) for indoctrinating modern business practices into the concept of an omnipresent state mothering helpless children.

Kent, first, welcome to the forum!

Second, thanks for a thoughtful, civil post.

I've got to respond, though, with a simple deconstruction: This analysis, like many of its kind, oversimplifies reality to the point where it simply doesn't work. It assumes that economic policy can be reduced to a simple, binary, zero-sum system: We've either got to have a completely unregulated free market or a totally regulated statist system.

In fact, we do not now have, never have had, and never likely will have any such thing. Under our system in the US (and in most of the rest of the developed world), we make policy decisions through an elected representative system, regulating business only to the extent that the consensus determines necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Taking your argument about smoking regulation to its obvious extreme, you must also argue that the government should not regulate worker health and safety, the minimum wage, restaurant sanitation, fire safety, false advertising, disabled access or even equal access to minorities and other protected groups.

I understand that a tiny percentage of Americans would actually take this position, but they could hold their convention in a very small hall, and they're generally regarded as nuts.

There's a broad consensus that business and industry should be as free as possible to make decisions based on the marketplace; there's also a broad consensus that it is appropriate and right to regulate business and industry in specific areas where public health and safety are of concern. There's plenty of room for both points of view, but any reasonable argument occurs along the dividing line. You'll find very little support - and I suspect no seriously reasoned support - for the argument that business should go entirely unregulated except by market demand.

I'd like to welcome Kent to the forum and I applaud his logic and reason.

I too welcome Kent to the forum, but I deeply disagree with his "free market should control" position. If Kent is correct, and it is the job of the market and not the state to protect citizens from danger then we have a whole lot of criminal laws that we need to repeal.

Another aspect that Kent ignores is the importance of consumer confidence. A move away from regulation and tort liability is a move toward caveat emptor. Caveat emptor results in a less efficient economy because consumers are less willing to buy products that they cannot rely upon to perform safely. Home Depot sells a lot of circular saws because people can assume that they are safe because of our "nanny state" regulations like ANSI. When people can assume that a tool will not cut off their hands, they will buy it. When customers can assume that a restaurant will store its mayonaisse at a safe temperature, as mandated by the "nanny state" regulations, they will dine at that restaurant and spend money. The same is true with toys, cars, medications, meat & produce.

A society that relies strictly upon the market to set standards of conduct will inherently suffer losses that are not economically efficient and the risk of those losses will be borne by the consumer rather than the producer who created the risk, making a more inefficient system.

The best system is one that is a hybrid, simultaneously employing market forces and government regulation in order to insure a capitalist system that thrives without the ball and chain of caveat emptor.

What Kent said.

[quote="Robin Garr"]In fact, we do not now have, never have had, and never likely will have any such thing. Under our system in the US (and in most of the rest of the developed world), we make policy decisions through an elected representative system, regulating business only to the extent that the consensus determines necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Taking your argument about smoking regulation to its obvious extreme, you must also argue that the government should not regulate worker health and safety, the minimum wage, restaurant sanitation, fire safety, false advertising, disabled access or even equal access to minorities and other protected groups.[/quote]

Thank you for your welcome, Robin, and I do agree that we don't have a free market system; nor are we likely to have one in the future, barring some sort of semi-apocalyptic event, of course.

My purpose in pointing to Keynes' theories was to highlight the fact that they effectively eliminated the potential for an encompassing free market system, although people do indeed have the free market ability to "vote with their bucks".

My premise is that the free market, if allowed, can make correct decisions on a great many social issues... not will make, or must make, but "can make". Although the point doesn't need to be drawn to the extreme, it seems clear to many business owners that the state has indeed adopted the opposite side of the equation (anti-free market) to the extreme with an overabundance of regulations, the smoking ban being the latest. Many business owners see a ban not only in terms of rights but also as another regulation inflicted on their freedom to operate a business. I agree.

To my mind, the challenge in this issue is couched within the question of who decides what's best for individuals. Do we have the ability to decide for ourselves what's best for us, or must we hand that onerous decision over to the government to make on our behalf? In short, can we decide not to spend our own money in smoking establishments, and in so doing potentially drive them out of business or force them to alter their policies, or must government intervene in order to eliminate any potential for the free market (us, that is) to effect that sort of decision?

I'm a bit thick today, which may explain why I don't see the question as congruous with issues like the minimum wage, worker health and safety, disabled and minority access, false advertising, etc.

...that compromise is an extremely undervalued virtue in social reform.

If Louisville politicos were to make an effort to compromise and perhaps shape some option for individual choice into the smoking ban, then they could very well put this issue on track towards a resolution that everyone could live with.

Ideas? I'll start...

Here's one; the smoking ban ends at 10pm in bars, but will continue in restaurants.

See there... a compromise.

Or how about smoking licenses? A bar could pay the city a yearly fee for a smoking license (a healthy fee, so to speak), and prominently display a "SMOKING BAR" sign on their doors. Non-smokers would know not to frequent those bars, and the city would take in a few more dollars in fees.

Bottom line... compromise could broaden the freedom to choose.

[quote=" Everyone -- smokers and non-smokers alike -- has a dog in this fight. That said, my bottom line is based more on economic philosophy than health issues. [/quote]


I see that Kent believes in order to be unique and different and small town, we also have to defy logic. Based on his bottom line I can see why.

I thought health did come before the dollar?

I'm afraid your idea of smoking part of the day as a compromise also doesn't hold water. It just wont work for the staff that don't smoke. The establishment will still smell like an ashtray too.

......So all smokers go to one kind of bar and all non smokers go to another?.... I'd never see my friends.

Just knowing smoke kills your friends and others, would be more than enough to make me want to compromise and not mind grabbing a smoke outside.

Why don't we just leave it as no smoking and try to accommodate our smoking friends. I'll hang out outside with you while you have one.

It just seems weird to segregate and who want's to put establishments out of business?

I too welcome Kent to the forum, but I deeply disagree with his "free market should control" position. If Kent is correct, and it is the job of the market and not the state to protect citizens from danger then we have a whole lot of criminal laws that we need to repeal.

I do agree that the state has a significant role in protecting it's citizens, but only to a certain point. The state can't and shouldn't protect us from everything. In matters where we have the ability to protect ourselves simply by making the right choice to do so, I believe the state should maintain a hands off policy. I truly believe the smoking issue is one of those - for both patrons and restaurant workers.

I do agree that the state has a significant role in protecting it's citizens, but only to a certain point. The state can't and shouldn't protect us from everything. In matters where we have the ability to protect ourselves simply by making the right choice to do so, I believe the state should maintain a hands off policy. I truly believe the smoking issue is one of those - for both patrons and restaurant workers.

I think Aaron has identified the issue correctly. My guess is that the vast majority of us agree that the state has a role in protecting its citizens, but only to a certain point. Where we disagree is whether or not smoking is one of those issues. Who thinks the state should protect us from everything or nothing?

I disagree with Aaron on his specific judgment and think a smoking ban in public places is the right thing.

[quote="christopher stockton"][quote=" Everyone -- smokers and non-smokers alike -- has a dog in this fight. That said, my bottom line is based more on economic philosophy than health issues. [/quote]


I see that Kent believes in order to be unique and different and small town, we also have to defy logic.[/quote]

You can clearly define my beliefs without knowing all of my thoughts and feelings? Amazing.

That must be incredibly convenient in your personal relationships.

Apologies for my sarcasm, but does anyone enjoy being pigeonholed at first glance?

Well if it looks like a duck?

I will apologize if I have pigeonholed you though Kent. I have been known to jump to conclusions and perhaps it has been convenient in relationships but that's neither here nor there.

I am wondering why you are so strongly defending the right to smoke in bars and restaurants. Is it for your constitutional rights or is it for the convenience of having a smoke without conscience in a public place?

Like I said I don't believe in segregating and I think there is a solution for all but just to make it very clear, second hand smoke kills people.

So let's not take this lightly.

Welcome to the forum I am sure this debate will rage on for a very long time so perhaps I will understand a little more of where you're coming from with more posts. Please excuse my itchy trigger. This stuff just really matters to me.

I disagree with Aaron on his specific judgment and think a smoking ban in public places is the right thing.

And I respect that. I am curious though where the line lies for you in determining where, why and how the government exerts it's power to protect us.

I have some lead based toys to sell. That's cool isn't it?