Posted on 03/02/2017 8:56:01 PM PST by TBP
For the past several decades, governments have been cracking down on tobacco consumption, including by banning smoking in many places such as bars or restaurants. But we've learned a lot about the effects of these kinds of policies over the last few years and now it's time to reconsider them. Here's why:
1. Property Rights
Most fundamentally, the debate about smoking bans should center on private property rights. Whether you should be allowed to smoke in a bar should be determined by the owner of that bar, not by busybody bureaucrats who think they know how to live everyone’s lives for them.
2. Second-hand Smoke Isn't as Harmful as Once Thought
In 2013 already there were indications that the commonly accepted narrative on second-hand smoke wasn't entirely accurate. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (which the below-mentioned Slate article calls "hardly a pro-tobacco publication") published a study which finds no significant relationship between passive smoke and cancer:
"A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke."
3. Smoking Bans Don’t Make People Healthier
An immensely informative article by Jacob Grier in Slate finally sorted through the questionable "proof" behind the second-hand smoke myth. The bans had largely been implemented because early studies believed there to be a correlation between secondhand smoke and heart disease. Politicians, however, should have waited for more research to be done. In fact, Grier reveals that a 2006 study in the Piedmont region in Italy (published in the European Heart Journal) revealed an 11 percent drop in heart disease, a much smaller drop than the 60 percent that politicians had promised.
After a sweeping ban on smoking inside in England, a 2010 study found a heart attack reduction of only 2 percent. That number is so small that it might not be related to the bans at all. A 2008 study in New Zealand found no correlation whatsoever. The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management published a study in 2010 that also found no significant impact in any age group. Similar US-studies appeared in 2012 and 2014.
4. Smoking Bans Don’t Discourage Smoking
Moreover, smoking bans don't actually reduce smoking. Data in France (which implemented its smoking ban in 2008) shows that consumption of tobacco products only correlates with prices.
Source: Institut national de prévention et d'éducation pour la santé (INPES) (National Institute for Health Prevention and Education in France
In fact, the quantity of tobacco sold immediately after the ban rose by 1,500 tons. The French government then promptly reacted by increasing the price increase level by 300 percent over the next three years (between 2010 and 2013, the price increased by €1 per pack on average; taxes make up 80 percent of the price of every pack).
5. The Market Can Handle It
Now that straight-out smoking bans have been generalized throughout many countries and the concept of a smoke-free bar is ingrained in most people's minds, why would people be afraid of the market? The number of people who consume tobacco statically lies between 20 and 30 percent, with no trend showing it to grow above that or go below that line. Gay bars cater to the 15 percent of the population that is gay, and yet they haven't gotten a stranglehold on the bartending market. The exact same goes for bars that would allow smoking inside: while there would be numerous bars that would allow it, the fact that many customers would be repulsed by the idea of being in an environment of cigarette smoke would have a majority of establishments keep their places smoke-free.
Whether you're a non-smoker and you believe that all studies disproving a correlation between smoking and increased risk for cancer and heart disease are all conspiring in favor of Big Tobacco doesn't even matter in that instance. Similarly, if you hold the belief that GMO-foods are bad for your health, there is a simple solution for you: don't eat GMO foods.
Nobody forces you to go into a smoking bar, to work there or to even associate with people who like them. Consider this: you already don't go to most bars and restaurants. That might be because they play music you don't like, serve food you don't eat or host events you detest. The beauty of a free society is that you don't have ever have to change your mind on this, so don't ask others to change theirs.
I understand RR and think David Hitt has some valid points. Thanks.
Do you agree or disagree that a large body of evidence shows smoking is negatively correlated with education (and IQ). DSC and eXe don’t agree with the science. How about you?
“DSC and eXe don’t agree with the science.”
I’m going to presume that this is carelessness rather than a malicious lie.
I don’t agree with the fake science that holds second-hand smoke to be harmful. I have made no statements regarding smoking and IQ or educational level.
see #66 then #68.
See #67.
Your attempts to change the subject and put words in my mouth just show you for what you are.
It’s more of a social engineering cultural norm thing. There are plenty of Indian and Pakistani IT executives standing outside my office building smoking cigarettes. They just weren’t brought up in a PC public service announcement heal the world make it a better place liberal utopia.
It’s cultural.
Ronald Reagan used to smoke.
0bama does/did.
bfl
“Do you agree or disagree that a large body of evidence shows smoking is negatively correlated with education (and IQ).”
Do you get some type of pleasure by trying to insult FReepers who smoke?
Astonishing.
.
In the first place there is no science.
Considering that there are many more people without college degrees than there are with college degrees I would expect there to be more people that smoke with a lower level of education, even if the percentages are the same. That is just simple math.
If you understand RR then you must be willingly telling people lies about ETS.
There is NO proven correlation between ETS and ANY health disorders that were not present prior to being exposed to ETS.
You can either acknowledge that you are an anti-smoking nazi telling people lies ONLY because you, personally, dislike smoking - OR, you can admit that the anti-smoking nazis have tried to pull the wool over the publics eyes concerning ETS - OR, you can go with the third alternative and continue the way you have for years trying to pretend that you are only informing people about a danger that doesn't exist.
I don’t mind being called a Nazi by those who pimp death or addiction.
I don't mind being called a pimp by those who willingly lie to advance their own social agenda JUST because they, personally, dislike a certain act, even though I don't even suggest anyone start, or keep on, smoking tobacco, or any other substance.
Would you care to come back around to a civil discourse?
I will apologize for the use of the word "nazi".
What I thought.
bttt
I’m a nonsmoker, and I completely oppose government smoking bans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.