Leaving the Choice
to Owners and Consumers
Instead of
Government-Backed Smoking Bans
Valentin
Petkantchin
Issue CIV - June 9, 2007
|
-----------------------------------
Principal Index
-----------------------------------
Old
Superstructure
-----------------------------------
Old Master Index
-----------------------------------
Contributors
-----------------------------------
The Rational Business Journal
-----------------------------------
Forum
-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Group
-----------------------------------
Gallery of Rational
Art
-----------------------------------
Online
Store
-----------------------------------
Henry Ford Award
-----------------------------------
Johannes
Gutenberg Award
-----------------------------------
CMFF:
Fight Death
-----------------------------------
Eden against the
Colossus
-----------------------------------
A
Rational Cosmology
-----------------------------------
Implied
Consent
-----------------------------------
Links
-----------------------------------
Mr.
Stolyarov's Articles on Helium.com
-----------------------------------
Mr. Stolyarov's Articles on Associated Content
-----------------------------------
Mr.
Stolyarov's Articles on GrasstopsUSA.com
-----------------------------------
Submit/Contact
-----------------------------------
Statement of Policy
-----------------------------------
|
In November 2006, the French
government enacted a decree banning smoking in
public places which became effective as of last
February 1. French cafés, bars and tobacconists,
where smoking is generally the rule, have though
till January 1, 2008, to comply. Instead of the ban,
the government should leave the choice to their
owners to decide if their establishment should be
smoke-free or not for the benefit of their
consumers.
There
are several drawbacks related to an overall,
government-backed, ban on smoking.
First,
even if it is fashionable in many countries, a
smoking ban turns out to be quite largely pointless
for those establishments which really wish to
declare themselves smoke-free. It should be recalled
that places such as restaurants, bars, cafés, and
nightclubs, remain private places and that it is in
the interest of their owners to ban smoking
voluntarily when smoke is indeed a nuisance for
their clientele.
A demand for smoke-free
establishments unquestionably creates profit
opportunities which entrepreneurs are ready to
grasp. Thus, before the ban, consumers already had
the choice among establishments for non-smokers,
smokers, or both, to the extent that it was allowed
by law. Owners are in a position to offer the
ambient air that best suits their clientele, just
like they offer menus and ambient music that meet
their preferences in the best possible way.
In contrast to a ban imposed by
public authorities, the entrepreneurial freedom
enjoyed by owners allows them in fine to reconcile
the preferences of all consumers – whether they are
smokers or not – in the most efficient way. And,
non-smokers are able to avoid the alleged risks
linked to passive smoking, if they really wish,
simply by not frequenting establishments for smokers
only.
But, the ban is also
prejudicial from an economic standpoint, especially
for those establishments known for being frequented
by smokers. Even if it has often been asserted that
the ban on smoking would not generate economic
costs, things are probably more complex and these
establishments face the risk of registering a
slowdown in their activity.
In some countries, this
slowdown has been sizeable. For example, according
to a study conducted in several towns in
Canada, sales in bars and pubs
were 22.5% lower than what they would have been in
the absence of a ban on smoking. One must therefore
not rule out that in a country like France – where
the proportion of smokers is higher than in Canada
and where it is commonplace to smoke in cafés –the
consequences could be much more significant.
But,
most importantly, figures do not fully reflect all
economic costs. One must also take into account the
dissatisfaction – impossible to quantify, even
though it is real – of smokers. On this issue, even
an anti-tobacco economist such as Kenneth Warner
concedes that "tobacco consumption produces utility
for some members of society, and this utility
warrants recognition (and perhaps some respect) in
planning optimal tobacco control policy."
Ultimately, instead of enacting a decree that
imposes a general ban on smoking in France, the
French government should have left the choice of
banning smoking or not to the owners of
establishments, as is partially for example the case
in Spain.
The author is a non-smoker.
Valentin Petkantchin
is Director of Research for the Molinari Economic
Institute.
This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with
TRA’s
Statement of Policy.
Click here to return
to TRA's Issue CIV Index.
Learn about Mr.
Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus,
here..
Read Mr. Stolyarov's
new comprehensive treatise,
A Rational Cosmology, explicating such
terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound,
light, life, consciousness, and volition,
here .
Read Mr. Stolyarov's new
four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic
intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life,
here.
|