This is the LDP policy towards smoking. For discussion & debate…
It is everyone’s right to control the property they own, and everyone’s right to determine the standards of behavior on their own property. However, recent moves by government have sought to ban smoking in privately owned bars, clubs and restaurants.
Just as a private individual has the right to dictate whether visitors or guests may smoke in their lounge-room or their car, so too the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to determine whether smoking should or should not be permitted on their premises. Some people may prefer that a particular venue is non-smoking, others may prefer that it is smoking, but the rule for a particular venue should be made by the venue’s owner.
Many of us may not like smoky environments, and we may not like them for a number of reasons – some of us may not like the smell, some of us may be concerned about long term health risks from passive smoking. But no-one forces us into those venues.
If there is a demand for smoke-free venues, then operators will make them smoke-free to attract more clientele. Any operator who ignores the hoards of patrons deserting their establishment for the smoke-free establishment up the road will soon be out of business, while those who recognise and meet the demand for smoke-free environments will prosper and grow.
The government does not need to be involved in this process.
Some people may not wish to work in smoky environments, but no-one is forced to do so. Many people accept risk in their jobs – security workers, construction workers, miners and farmers just to name a few. They accept the risks for their own reasons, and are free negotiate suitable remuneration for doing so. And with the current low unemployment levels, employees have many options open to them.
The LDP is neither pro-smoking nor anti-smoking, it is pro-choice. It is an individual’s choice whether they smoke, and a property-owner’s decision whether to allow smoking on their property. The LDP is also pro-tolerance. People may not approve of the decisions that others make about their own bodies, or their own property, but a truly tolerant society respects their right to make those choices.
The government should butt out of people’s freedom to choose.
October 23, 2006 at 7:51 am |
Bravo
October 23, 2006 at 1:59 pm |
What about age restrictions on smoking. Should 16 year olds be able to smoke if they wish? 12 year olds?
Is it useful free choice if 18 year olds with discount rates of 20% initiate smoking to become addicted to nicotine only to find they regret their decision at age 25 when their discount rates are 5%?
Suppose passive smoking does cause health problems. Should parents have the right to breathe tobacco smoke over their children?
October 23, 2006 at 2:26 pm |
There’s no need to bring pointless political grandstanding into this Harry. You know as well as anyone that Libertarians don’t advocate smoking for children any more than anyone else does. You’re just being a tool.
Suppose passive smoking does cause health problems. Should parents have the right to breathe tobacco smoke over their children?
Parents already have the right to drive children around in their cars (which both emit pollutants and are a cause of many juvenile deaths). Since nobody has ever died from passive smoking, perhaps you should be going after those irresponsible parents who put their kids at risk by letting them inside a car first.
October 23, 2006 at 3:01 pm |
Harry, you and I both know that when we are referring to a person’s right to choose we are talking about an adult of sound mind. There’s no issue with reasonable laws protecting children.
October 23, 2006 at 10:03 pm |
Yobbo, Its not grandstanding. It is now known that the pre-frontal cortex in the brain continues to develop until people reach their mid twenties when people mature. Where do you draw the line and why do you say it is obvious that children should be excluded (presumably on grounds on diminished ability to make decisions) but advocate laissez faire for adults? Michael, please give me a definition of ’sound mind’. Its an escape route that destroys your argument since you not I are making your policy prescription dependent on people behaving rationally.
If you admit that people might make poor decisions (as in case of children) your overall argument that society should not interfere in what is the major preventable cause of death in the world today looks shaky.
I think your claims on passive smoking are false. Almost certainly low level exposure to the carcinogens in tobacco is dangerous – particularly for children. The point I was trying to raise is the same as that related to whether violence in the family due to alcohol is an externality. I would say it is.
October 24, 2006 at 12:11 am |
hc, the issue is not whether the brain continues to develop into adulthood. It is simply about adults being free to make up their own minds. The alternative is to have someone else make decisions for them.
We protect children because we assume they cannot make a rational choice to protect themselves. We assume adults can make such a choice.
Passive smoking has not killed anyone by itself, but it is a risk factor in a range of illnesses. So are lots of things. As adults, we can choose to avoid them or voluntarily assume the risk. Only if the risk cannot be avoided is it legitimate to ask whether it warrants government intervention. Even then, the answer may be no.
October 24, 2006 at 12:23 am |
Harry, Sound mind means not prescribed insane i.e. not in a mental institution. If you are permitted to vote or drive a car, then why shouldn’t you be able to choose whether or not you wish to smoke tobacco?
October 24, 2006 at 1:42 am |
I think that this statement needs some qualification. I think issues of personal liberty can still trump the property right issue. I don’t think you should be allowed to butcher children in your suburban back yard or test mustard gas explosives.
I think that the correct issue here is the concept of businesses being an extention of your personal sphere. If I am allowed to set a given rule in my home I should be allowed to do the same in my business. As such I don’t think you should be allowed to test mustard gas explosives or butcher small children in the pub even if you own the pub. However I do think you should be allowed to say whether smoking is tolerated or not.
In my view smoking should be prohibited in government buildings and government work places.
October 24, 2006 at 3:32 am |
“I don’t think you should be allowed to butcher children in your suburban back yard or test mustard gas explosives. ”
Of course not. Both those activities defy the principal of personal freedom up to the point where it affects someone else. I think that qualification was implicit in the policy.
BTW, how do you do block quotes?
October 24, 2006 at 3:50 am |
Blockquotes require the text to be enclosed by tags. The relevant tags are:-
(blockquote) this text gets quoted! (/blockquote)
Except you replace the curley brackets with angle brackets.
October 24, 2006 at 12:40 pm |
Terje — you own your own body, so private property rights includes personal liberty.
October 25, 2006 at 12:11 am |
John,
Technically yes. However in formulating policy statements I think you want to avoid making sweeping generalisations and focus in on the core message. For me the core message is that my business is an extention of my home and what I can freely do in my home I should also be allowed to do in my business. If my employees visit me at home on the weekend as friends then I have the right to say yes you can smoke, as the owner of the house it is my choice. The fact that work is commercial should not stop it also being a civil matter.
Of course by equating the two their is a danger that some will use it as justification for regulate home nudity and other such crimes against good taste.
Regards,
Terje.
October 26, 2006 at 4:36 pm |
As someone who works security in bars, I am still waiting for the huge surge of patrons that are supposed to be coming since qld outlawed smoking in licenced venues. All the people who claimed that they couldnt go to bars due to the smoke, must have found another reason why they cant go.
October 27, 2006 at 2:09 am |
John Humphreys: “you own your own body”.
Really? AFAIK established case law is contrary.
November 1, 2006 at 10:40 pm |
So does this mean adults who choose to be victims of passive smoking will be barred from suing in tort later, but children will be allowed to do so?
November 2, 2006 at 11:09 am |
Timothy — I was refering to libertarian philosophy. Obviously, under the current system, we don’t have full ownership of our own bodies. But I think we should.
November 7, 2006 at 12:39 am |
I too am pro-choice when it comes to smoking.
I believe in the libertarian principle that people should be free to do as they please so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
Problem is, smoking hurts a lot of people, me included.
I would also point out that pubs enjoy a monopoly market situation thanks to liquor licensing which firmly places them out of the ballpark when it comes to a “you can smoke in my house” vs “you can smoke in my business establishment” argument.
Why not argue that people who want to smoke are free to smoke on the street, in their cars, anywhere except inside licensed premises. If you want to choose to smoke no one is forcing you to go inside a pub to do it.
Here in Toronto a total ban has been in place for over a year, the pubs are putting more money into keeping their places looking nicer – and my clothes don’t stink after a night out. Even my smoking friends have adjusted and don’t mind it anymore.
November 8, 2006 at 12:04 am |
“I would also point out that pubs enjoy a monopoly market situation thanks to liquor licensing”
Then get rid of the liquor licensing monopoly. The liquor licensing regime itself is far, far worse than the anti-smoking laws in any case. Especially in Australia.