Alternative Title: “a post to prove I really was paying attention in economics”
The Governor passed the statewide smoking ban today (with the support of the Tavern League, no less). The exact ban that was passed was pretty much the “Madison” version of the smoking ban – as opposed to other, stricter versions of the ban. Cigar bars, hookah lounges, and similar establishments are exempted from the ban. The man concession was a delay in implementation – which was a compromise that was made for the City of Madison ban. For a full discussion of the news, check out the Wisconsin State Journal’s coverage.
I posted the news of this and my strong support of the legislation on facebook. To which I received a negative reaction from some of my friends. I think part of their negative reaction to the ban is that they haven’t heard a decent argument for the ban. While my argument probably isn’t prefect it probably is better than “cigarettes are bad” argument.
Initially, I was very sympathetic to smoker’s arguments. I am a debate coach and many of my debate friends are smokers – though not all of them are. I can certainly understand that it seems like you’re constantly getting picked on – U.S. taxes on tobacco are going up, Wisconsin taxes on tobacco are going up, and now the Governor has restricted the up until now only place you could engage in your activity without fear of persecution. That sounds a bit scary, but it’s not. Let’s explain the reason for taxation first.
Taxes raise the price of a good. At higher prices, people generally demand less of a good. That is, unless the demand for the good is inelastic. Because smoking is a very addictive activity, its demand is highly inelastic. Those who are hooked are going to want to continue. Given the difficulty of quitting, this is very true. From a public policy perspective, you want to tax goods that are inelastic because those items maximize the amount of revenue you’ll receive from the tax. As far as excise taxes go, cigarette taxes are about as efficient as you can get. In a world where both our state and federal government are hurting for revenues, it makes sense to maximize the amount of revenue that governments can collect. I will concede that excise taxes do not make a large portion of either governments’ budget – but as long as money is needed, how can we turn down a source of revenue? Also, as a society we want to discourage you from smoking (for social cost reasons I’ll explain later). A good way to discourage an activity is to tax it back to the stone age.
My justification for the smoking ban follows similar public policy reasons. From the outset, I will acknowledge that individuals are free to choose to visit smoke-laden establishments and that people are free to work at the same establishments. Many smoking-advocates define themselves as freedom advocates and similarly advocate the free market approach. The problem with their argument is that the free market fails when it comes to bars. Few tavern owners correctly guess the demand for smoke-free drinking, especially for those taverns that exist outside of a college town. In places like Sheboygan, there should be multiple non-smoking taverns to meet the demand. There are currently two – in a town that has approximately 50 to 75 bars. In state that loves its booze, it seems silly that this is an accurate approximation of the number of people who would prefer a non-smoking establishment. Perhaps this is a bad example (maybe people in Sheboygan love smoking). Madison, before its ban is a better one. Given that all of the state street/university avenue bars previously allowed smoking and now don’t and still do high volumes a business, should serve as an example that the demand for non-smoking establishments is significantly higher than what tavern owners estimate.
The problem (prior to the ban) lied within current law and its incentive structure. Tavern owners need to attract people to their bar. They get more people to their establishments by offering as few disincentives to come as possible – this means that it’s unlikely for any reasonable tavern owner to prohibit smoking because they may be turning away customers. This market leaves people who prefer non-smoking bars little place to go. And this is where the problem of second-hand smoke becomes really important: those who want to avoid second hand smoke have no option to do so in a world where no government regulation occurs. Return to a statement I made earlier – this state is booze crazy. The large number of people who prefer to drink in Wisconsin outweigh the number of people that like to smoke. This means the large majority of drinks are constantly exposed to the negative effects of second hand smoke. Exposure to second hand smoke creates a large social cost because we not only have to pay for the health care of those who smoke, but those who are around those who smoke. In Wisconsin – this is everyone who’s ever been to a bar, which I’m sure is everyone.
Granted my Sheboygan example (remember, I said there are two non-smoking bars) serves to prove that it’s possible that non-smoking establishments can exist – so it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong. I generally don’t think that is true because the ones in Sheboygan by and large survive because they also conceive of themselves as “high-class/upscale” establishments. (This is fine by me, but then I can’t drink with people who want their $1 Miller Lite.) In light of the large cost of second hand smoke, it seems risky and poor public policy for us to put the incentive structure in favor of smoking. Rarely, if ever, do you hear people argue that the common sense compromise (go smoke outside) is unfeasible. Those who smoke are free to do so outside, without harming the health of everyone else.
I’ve always been in favor of the ban because it seemed to be about promoting workplace safety for waiters/waitresses/bartenders. These individuals are at particularly high risk for second hand smoke, and they have few options to choose from in a society where the incentive structure prefers to allow smoking. Smoking advocates tend to be very existential about these individuals, claiming that they chose their profession and therefore chose the risks. In general, I have a hard time buying this claim for two reasons. First, because I’m way too much of Rawls-ian. It’s hard for me to think that a rational person would want this job – knowing all of the potential disadvantages. It seems unjust to create a person in society that is doomed to cancer.
Second, just because that you choose a profession, doesn’t mean that you accept 100% of the risk. Rather, it means that you will follow regulations/safety procedures to ensure that your personal risk is lowered. Think about people that work at a chemical plant or other hazardous material – they have specific procedures they follow in order to make sure that their work is conducted safely. What safety measures do we provide those that work in a bar? Again, I return to the common sense solution: smoke outside.
At this point, I’m almost wondering why my common sense solution isn’t more pervasive in the status quo. If you engage in an activity that’s unwanted by others/harmful to others, simply as a matter of being polite, wouldn’t you do the activity such that you wouldn’t offend/harm others? What’s so bad about being polite and using common sense?
