In Montreal, it is no longer possible to smoke inside of restaurants and bars. There was resistance at first, but the anti-tobacco law is now part of the past and done and it seems to have popular support. But was it the right choice? Many will consider the answer to this question obvious, but this does not mean that we should not analyze and critique this law, for what is popular is not necessarily right. I have found that my question — “was it the right choice?” — will probably be impossible to answer with certainty, but even then, I believe the question highlights a problem for which there is an answer, a solution; there is a compromise to be made that should satisfy both those who lean both towards a liberal and collectivist interpretation of this political question.

It is quite clear that if a person finds himself in a restaurant where, much to their disgust, the air is tainted with the odor of tobacco, that they are free to complain and leave the restaurant. If there are enough people who prefer a smoke-free environment and are ready to express their desire, then it would make sense for a competing restaurant to gain an edge by banning cigarettes from their business so as to attract those who prefer a different atmosphere. This is the same mechanism that filters restaurants with bad food, service or an uncomfortable atmosphere. People are, however, ready to accept such disadvantages for the sake of cost. Sometimes it is just a matter of taste and this is a choice we must respect.

People should feel encouraged to complain about smoke in restaurants if this is how they feel, but to ask the government to change this would seem somewhat silly. Some businesses put their music too loud and this bothers people and can even cause ear damage. Should the government regulate how loud music can be played in restaurants, bars, clubs and so forth? Yet, though there are indeed differences between loud music and tobacco smoke, these differences do not seem to create a distinction between whether or not the government should regulate these things. When the government makes such decisions, it render irrelevant the mechanism where people complain and take their business elsewhere as a way to exert pressure on business owners who, after all, make money by satisfying their customers. So, because there is already a mechanism in place that serves to modify the policies of businesses so as to be in accordance with the wants of customers and because this mechanism is more directly tied to the wants of people — governments are slow to act, while when we vote with our money, the results are quick –, it would seem that there is no need for the government to interfere, be it due to loud music or tobacco smoke.

At least, this is the liberal approach to such questions. But is it the right one? I believe that the most significant problem with liberalism is that it operates with the assumption that humans function in a certain way, one that might be called “rational”. However, it has been my observation that people do not work quite in the same way that liberal philosophers seem to assume they do. The main issue can be summed up by noting how people do not always follow a course of actions that is best for them. Human nature is complex and capricious.

To return to the ban, I should first note that I am too young to have had much experience with bars and restaurants before the ban, but when I went to such places, though I did not like the odor of burning cigarettes, I simply accepted it as a fact of life and I did not consider the possibility of complaining about it. I suspect that — as long as the place was ventilated “well enough” (by some rather low standards) –, people did not even consider the cigarette smoke as a determinant in choosing a bar. People smoked in bars and that’s just how things were; there were no alternatives to consider, except drinking at home.

Now, I do believe that it could have been a good business choice for a bar-owner to ask smokers to go outside, but it seems that they either didn’t think of this one or that they deemed the risk of alienating customers too great. So, regardless of what people wanted, it seems that cigarette smoke was just seen as a necessary inconvenience when people went out to drink and even for supper. It was just how things were.

I have noted the liberal approach and the main problem with it. Now I will take the more “collectivist” or perhaps “utilitarian” approach, where, unlike with liberalism, the ends do justify the means and everything is a matter of public opinion, be it smoking in restaurants or the right to say and write certain things. The focus is no longer on individual rights and the freedom of contract. While with liberalism, the reason stealing food from another person is wrong due to matters of principle, with collectivism it is wrong because of what society would look like if such theft were to become widely accepted. These two approaches are fundamentally different.

Now, to take the collectivist approach: will society be more or less happy if zero percent, rather than one-hundred percent, of the restaurants and bars allow smoking inside? Let’s assume that society will be happier if this happens (there is proper research on the matter, but this assumption only makes my overall point more difficult to make, thus strengthening its value). There are those who don’t care either way about smoking in restaurants, there are those who will suffer less unwanted exposure to second-hand smoke and, finally, there are those smokers who will adapt. There is even the possibility that they will also be happier, since, though smokers prefer smoking inside, they may well be annoyed by being in a room where many, many people smoke. If this is indeed the case, then it would be in the best interest of all smokers to agree not to smoke, but, because people do not apply the “if everyone did like me” thinking, they just look at the small picture and smoke, even though they don’t like how a bar smells when other people do like them. Overall, let’s assume that society was better off after the smoking ban than before.

Is this, however, an argument in favor of a smoking ban? First, there is the question of whether or not some people actually prefer a bar where they can smoke inside. I believe that there are such people. Second, there is the issue that, when we apply this utilitarian approach, we open some dangerous doors. Liberalism, for example, shows a clear philosophical opposition to censorship, to slavery and other such things we found despicable due to clear philosophical principles. Utilitarianism, however, is more open minded about such things and everything is up for debate (the conclusions are often the same, but they also differ on key issues). It is what allows us to ban proponents of hate speech (such as discussed in “The Limits of Free Speech”), ban drugs such as marijuana and censor words such as “fuck” as well as nudity on advertisement or in films. Utilitarianism is what would allow us to ban food such as potato chips and candy and even ban all uses of tobacco. Arguments about preventing restaurants from allowing people to smoke inside go directly against those arguments which note that people are free to do what they wish as long as they do not force anything onto another. “Second-hand smoke is forced onto others and it is harmful”, some would answer, but the key point here is that people are not forced to enter bars where people smoke; it is their choice. They no more have a right to dictate the policies in a bar than they do in someone else’s house. This is, after all, what a bar is: someone else’s house. The property belongs to an individual or organization, not to the public, and they, not democracy, should determine how it is run. Granted, in many communities people have to manage the exterior of their house in certain ways and can not paint it pink, for example, nor can they let the grass grow too tall.

Is this good? Is this bad? These are difficult questions, so I will return to the case of tobacco bans. Is it possible to obtain the same advantages a tobacco ban would provide without having to, once again, compromise the ideals of liberalism? If not, then we might have a clear example of collectivism providing a better end-result for society.

Ideally, there should be some restaurants that allow smoking, some that do not and some that have a mixed policy (such as was commonly the case in the past). Their ratio would be determined by which kind people prefer. In a liberal system, it is up to the businessperson to discover unsatisfied needs and find a way to profit from them, to satisfy them. As stated earlier, I believe that it would have been profitable to apply such a policy. So, why did we never see anything that went beyond mixed systems if many people do indeed prefer a non-smoking environment (again, this is an assumption, but one I am willing to make)?

The first explanation I can, as a liberal, offer is that we did not give things enough time. It is only recently that tobacco has dropped out of fashion and it would, understandably, take some time for businesses to adapt themselves to a new context, to a society where people do not want to see any cigarette smoke. I believe that our problem is that we are in too much of a hurry to see things changed, that we are too eager to rely on the government to make such decisions and that we are, ultimately, left with a system that is less in line with our wants, with what is best for us. I believe that this is an issue that extends to many things, including our attempts to alleviate poverty in poor countries (I recommend reading what Muhammad Yunus has to say on such things; I found “Banker to the Poor” quite fascinating).

The second is that there was a failure with the mechanisms of liberalism. By default, the option that allows the most freedom — in the case, the right to smoke in bars — is the one that reigns. If people do not like this, for reasons previously explained, there are mechanisms that should ensure that they get what they want. However, these mechanisms do not always work: for example, smokers and non-smokers are friends, they go out and non-smokers will be pressured to go to bars with policies they do not like becaue a) they do not want to exclude the minority that “needs” these policies b) it is the status quo, the dominant model for bars.

These are two reasons that could explain why the policies of bars were not in accordance with what people wanted.

Personally, I definitely prefer smoke-free restaurants, but there are those who would like a restaurant where it is possible to smoke, and they no longer have that option. Whether or not you or I believe that it is “good” to smoke, it is ultimately up to the individual to determine what is best for himself. We can not take away the individual’s responsibility over himself.

Yet, this is what we often try to do. We have been quick to restrict our liberties and history shows us that, once they are lost, they are difficult to gain back. I do not want a society where the choice of smoking in restaurants is determined by the government for the same reason that I do not want a society where the choice of the music’s level is determined by the government or where the choice of choice of food is determined by the government (something, I note, that may well happen as people try to prevent people from becoming obese, first by a “fat tax” and we all know where this may lead us).

Do you believe that society would be better off if tobacco, drugs, unhealthy food, loud music etc simply did not exist, if they were unheard of? I believe that there’s a good case to make in favour of this, but I also believe that in this reality, where people do have the choice between eating potato chips or fruit, smoking a cigarette while watching television or going for a jog, that to ban such unhealthy things would make make life bland and too clean, where we choose healthy, productive lives rather than fun ones. I am definitely more in favour of the romantic ideals where people should just pursue their passions and seek happiness than I am in favour of those Victorian ideals where it is important to be rational, proper, clean and precise, almost machine-like.

All of this said, I must admit that the case I am trying to make does not seem too clear. Am I trying trying to show that we should not have banned tobacco? In some way, I am. But I am also trying to explain why we should have banned tobacco and ultimately it seems that we are better off after the ban than before. But could we be even better off? I believe so, and this would be with a system that would accomodate the now unsatisfied desire of some smokers to smoke inside. I see one solution that allows us both to maintain the advantages and protections of the liberal system, while allowing the general will to exert its influence via the government.

If the purpose of smoking ban was to resolve a mechanical failure on the part of liberalism, to resolve a discrepancy between what people wanted (smoke free bars and restaurants) and what they had (smoked up bars and restaurants), then this has already been accomplished. Smoke-free establishments have been made the norm and people have had a taste of it and will not allow things to go back as they were without a fight; change is, after all, difficult, no matter what directions we are being pulled towards.

It is for this reason that I believe that the anti-tobacco ban, and any future laws like it, should have a sunset provision, where it will expire after a certain amount of years. Once expired, it would be difficult to bring back cigarettes into restaurants and bars if this is not what most people want. But, if there is a niche that would be happier with the right to smoke in such places, then some of these establishments will, for the greater good, bring back the right to smoke so as to cater to a niche of people who would be made happier from this.

The use of sunset provisions in such cases would mean that the overall framework of liberalism will maintain its position of supremacy, while still leaving a clear and open room for the general will to restrict liberty when it is deemed to serve the greater interests of society. However, we will be protected from having unnecessary restrictions pile up and and form a weight upon society, since these restrictions will automatically expire and, if society no longer deems the necessary, fade away.

I cannot imagine how a person could be opposed to such a solution unless they believe that the purpose of the smoking ban was not to make the whole of society happier, but to force a certain choice upon others who have different tastes and desires, needs and wants. To such people, I say: such arrogance has no place in politics.

Dussault.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website