Your presentation: A’s right to smoke in place X, versus B’s freedom from an extra 1 in a million cancer risk – is not quite right.

More accurately: A’s right to smoke in place X, versus B’s right to go to place X without being subject to second hand smoke.

The fact that many B’s were quite happy to to places X when there was smoking suggests that the availability of places X, with smoking, was already a utilitarian good. And this limits the negative utility that should be assigned to the cancer risk. (Many other B’s weren’t, I grant you)

I would argue that there was virtually no substantive liberty infringement in not being able to smoke in enclosed public spaces, to be offset against, what in all likelihood is a small increased health risk from exposure to ETS. If you want to be utilitarian, you do have to weigh up the costs to the individual and society of the damage inflicted upon both groups; I would be willing to bet that the cost of not being able to smoke in specific environments (perhaps not as restrictive as the current legislation) was outweighed by even a cancer risk of 1 in a million (without considering the more likely risks to those who already suffer from asthma and those who develop COPD).

Mill was a utilitarian of a sort, and therefore would, I suggest, have weighed up the marginal harm from something like second hand smoke, with the loss of freedom that would result from restricting an activity such as smoking.

“So, basically, well ventilated areas with enough space”

I already agree with that in principle, hence why I think people not being able to smoke in public parks, or outside office buildings is ridiculous.

“Harm and consent are our core concerns.

The funny thing is you seem to drift off this logic quite a bit”

Where do I drift off this logic btw (other than specifically on your shouting example)? I don’t suggest ALL actions need have a positive value, I suggested it is very easy to argue against a Millian Harm stance against shouting in most instances, due to the oft positive effects of shouting. It was a specific point, related to one example, there is no way you can make a reasonable, considered inference on that basis as to my liberal bona fides. I suggest that smokers have to prove a non-negative affect on others of their smoking to be allowed to do it in enclosed public areas given the weight of epidemiological evidence.

I agree with what you say about liberalism, but there IS evidence that ETS exposure is harmful to others (without us knowing the precise exposures or pre-dispositions necessary to effect disease), that is enough for me to feel happy invoking the harm principle ion the case of the smoking ban. I just don’t agree with the scope of it – I am happy to be around smokers outside, or in my own home if they’re round for tea, I would also have no problem with dedicated smoking rooms in places of work.

My definition of liberty is that an individual should have the maximum amount of personal liberty possible, without negatively affecting the liberty of others.

Err, no. The position you’re discussing is an outlier of liberalism, known as libertarianism. There are certainly some who label themselves “liberals” and hold the above views, but to characterise the above as the ethos of today’s mainstream liberalism is mistaken. This goes back a the point made in the original post, i.e. the danger of constructing fanciful strawmen.

The right context is where it is acceptable to everyone who is reasonably going to be effected by it. So, basically, well ventilated areas with enough space. Or enclosed spaces where everyone is happy with a smokey atmosphere (perhaps because they are smokers themselves). If we are being liberals, then that is how our logic ought to work. Harm and consent are our core concerns.

The funny thing is you seem to drift off this logic quite a bit. For example, sugesting that any particular action should have some sort of potential positive value. But the whole point of liberalism is letting people do what they want so long as they don’t intefere with other people. They shouldn’t have to justify their activities as “positive” to anyone. That is kind of the whole point of a harm principle.

not a study I was aware of, why was it published in an economics journal? unfortunately I can’t comment as can only see the abstract, which isn’t exactly extensive. There is a New England Journal of Medicine study, that shows a decline in rates of admission for Acute Coronary Syndromes month-by-month following the smoking ban (greater than the reductions seen in previous years): could be an anomaly, but at first glance provides support for the ban (as it studied non-smokers). It may well be the case that public smoking bans do not impact on the burden of respiratory and cardiac disease in non-smokers, but given that we have plenty of epidemiological evidence for a causal link with known environmental tobacco smoke exposure and cardio-respiratory disease I think, personally, that the case has to be made against the ban, by gaining epidemiological evidence as to whether or not social exposure to ETS is associated with a disease burden.

Matt Munro,

“What I was trying to say if you bothered to read it properly was certain elements of nu labour *harperson, flint et al) didn’t use pubs, didn’t “get” them and didn’t like them, because they perceived them as masculine, and right-wing. Not my descrirtion, theirs”

that is not a basis for accusing them of carrying out a vendetta against traditional pubs via the smoking ban.

Can you honestly name a single activity which could not be banned by the state in a manner consistent with liberal principles? ‘Harm’ is such a fluid concept that anything can be said to cause it, if you’re willing to distort it enough.

Here’s an interesting study on second hand smoking, BTW: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790.pdf

Would you fuck. You wouldn’t dare.

I agree on shouting, but still don’t think it is equivalent to environmental tobacco smoke; for instance when is the “right context” for smoking, it isn’t making a point, nor is it a porentially positive reaction to circumstances, eg shouting at the incompetent member of staff.

I think it does meet the Milliam harm principles, given the weight of available evidence points to a causal link between environmental tobacco smoke and respiratory/cardiac disease. What we don’t know is a necessary “dosage” and I see no reason why we should delay a public smoking ban until we know that.

Second post: funny

First post: a little paranoid? Again I am defending my position re the smoking ban, not the state’s, not the exact wording of the ban. I was also stating that getting people to give up smoking is not the primary function of the ban.

Your point about it having nothing to do with public health is entirely baseless, intellectual meandering. Even if it was “giving in to the militant health lobby” (who I’d love to meet btw), what motivates them? Health I presume. And to call it another way to control people by the state, that’s just crackers.

Do you work for the tax office then ?

On that measure the ban hasn’t worked. Tobacco consumption has not decreased since the ban, nor has smoking prevalenec in the wider population. The ban actually had nothing to do with public health it’s just the state giving in to the militant health lobby and grabbing another opportunity to control people. Nu labour just didn’t like traditional pubs, they were a perfect storm of political incoorectness: old fashioned, masculine, decadent, right wing, just too off message message basically. The ban was the perfect opportunity to get rid of them, whilst appearing concerned about the nations health

That is exactly the sort of case I had in mind. Shouting is frequently intimidating, but as an activity it is fine given the right context, whether a private setting, a public setting with enough space, or another setting where it is particularly appropriate (like a powerful speech delivered in front of a podium in Trafalgar Square).

But where is the motivation for this sort of policy coming from, because it doesn’t seem liberal on anything like the Millian harm principle?

I don’t think you can reasonably compare shouting in a public space with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; do you, really? Unless it is deliberately intimidating or threatening, but sometimes receptionist need a good shouting at!

Clearly getting people to give up smoking is an aim of public health policy and so it should be, but it’s a secondary effect of the smoking ban. I agree that the state shouldn’t use coercive methods to discourage smoking, but that hasn’t been the main point here.

What I find upsetting is the continuing conflation of my argument with that of the government, I am not here to defend a specific state sanctioned position.

1. if you feel the “right” to smoke is an “important” liberty your priorities are skewed to a point at which I have no interest in debating with you.

2. Once again you are treating me as if I had a role in the smoking ban; I have stated at least once that I have no problem with dedicated smoking rooms, nor in smoking in open spaces. I’m sorry your previous workplace prevented you from smoking outside the building, but I didn’t. Was this a legal obligation on their part.

3. My objection was to an ad hominem attack, but I find it uncanny that people who feel that smoking is an important liberty are incapable of making jokes that are funny; it’s not my fault you’re not very funny.

4. Your argument about specific clubs or bars for smokers is an irrelevant one to me. You aren’t presenting non-smokers with a choice here. What if every landlord opted to make his establishment a smoking one? But clearly you don’t care about inflicting damage on the health of others.

This really isn’t an issue of liberty, you object to the smoking ban, fine, but this isn’t about freedom

(except, obviously, the freedom or liberty to smoke)

‘…if environmental tobacco smoke is indeed harmful to ohthers, smoking in enclosed public spaces would be a greater infringement on the liberty of others.’

An infringement on the liberty of whom, if bars, etc. are clearly signposted as either SMOKING or NON-SMOKING? How can banning clubs set up by and for the sole benefit of smokers be justified in the name of ‘liberty’?

‘Smoking itself is not banned, so the state is leaving you to smoke if you wish, but it is attempting to limit the potentially harmful effects of an individual’s decision to smoke on others.’

At my previous office they shut the smoking room so people had to leave the building to smoke; then they banned smoking outside the building bacause that’s technically the car park and – again for ‘their own good’ – they were not considered adult enough to avoid traffic. Now they have to stand outside the office grounds where – given the nature of the business – they risk verbal abuse or physical assault by members of the public.

So no, it’s not yet been banned, it’s just been made more dangerous.

As to your feelings of ‘offense’ at my joke about your friends not wanting to sit with you, well surprise, surprise: someone who wishes to limit other people’s liberty who doesn’t have a sense of humour.

You could have knocked me down with a feather.

I think we are more in agreement than not. The purpose of the state (if it has one) from my perspective is to deal with coerced harms to people, not uncoerced ones. Otherwise, as I argued before, there would be no reason in principle why you might not ban unsafe sex. Enclosed public spaces might well require things like smoking regulation, but in the same way it might require things like speech regulations (”no shouting while in a doctor’s waiting room”). That is a liberal argument for specific smoking prohibitions. The problem is the way that this argument gets elided with the public health argument, that we are REALLY interested in getting people to stop smoking altogether as well. And that I don’t think can be a liberal policy goal.

The bit where he said “your friends, who clearly don’t want to sit with you.” I consider that a slur.

The smoking ban has no meaningful affect on any important freedoms or liberty, if environmental tobacco smoke is indeed harmful to ohthers, smoking in enclosed public spaces would be a greater infringement on the liberty of others. Smoking itself is not banned, so the state is leaving you to smoke if you wish, but it is attempting to limit the potentially harmful effects of an individual’s decision to smoke on others.

Liberty is not IMO about the “right” to do whatever one pleases, it is about liberty for all and in my first post, the one not about smoking, I tried to state what I felt liberty to be about.

Please note I did not author the ban, I am not responsible for it and personally have no issue with smoking in open spaces or as it stands on dedicated smoking rooms, so long as they are enclosed.

Uhhh…. where?

“I really had no position on the smoking ban, pre-its implementation, in fact I was leaning to be against it, but friends have given up, or drastically cut back as a result; I view that as positive, don’t you? Clearly personal smoking presents a very cvlear danger to one’s health.”

It is a positive if you think the purpose of government is to protect one’s health from oneself. But it is not a liberal positive, which is our major point.