Was public smoking decreased by market forces or ordinances?

Yeah, smoking is awful, but let the market decide
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
May 11, 2000

The recent debate about an ordinance banning smoking in restaurants raises three issues that aren’t discussed enough in any law-making: how widespread will conformance to the ordinance be; how and at what cost will enforcement be; and how might the same result be obtained by other means?

I am in sympathy with Greg Gilbert’s and others desire to have smoke free restaurants.  Second hand smoke does not make for a pleasant dining or drinking experience.  Many no-smoking areas in restaurants are a joke.  How can you have a no-smoking table next to a smoking table or even in the same room?

I’ve been at Hacienda del Sol where one smoker three tables away contaminated the whole room.  I always asked to be seated in the back room at Louis’ on London road because the smoke from half of the front room contaminates the whole room.  During a long wait for a table at Blackwoods I didn’t bother to get drinks from the smoke-filled bar.  And I only stop at Hugo’s in Brimson if I’m sure I’ll be the only one at the bar.

I’ve talked to servers who detest working in the smoking areas.  They say they have to wash their hair when they get home so they can stand themselves.  And I’ve talked to owners who would rather operate as non-smoking but think they will see less business if they do.

With a no-smoking ordinance, many restaurant owners and employees will be very pleased.  It will level the playing field for them.  On the other hand, some restaurant owners who feel strongly that a no-smoking ordinance is an intrusion into the operation of their businesses will wink at patrons who smoke in their establishments.  And smokers who feel strongly about their “right” to smoke will gravitate towards those establishments.

How much effort and money will the city be willing to expend to ensure the ordinance is obeyed uniformly?  Even if the city were willing to make a big effort to expend the effort, could not those resources be better used elsewhere, say on sidewalks and alleys?  Also enforcement would work in some quarters to further increase disrespect and distrust of government.  This in turn further erodes our ability to have a civil society.

It may take a bit longer, but a private anti-smoking campaign may be more successful and far cheaper than a city ordinance.  A good start is the full page ad sponsored by the Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco Coalition on the back cover of the previous issue of the Northland Reader.

Other headlines for ads besides “Secondhand Smoke is Poisoning Our Children” could be “If Restaurants Take Pride in Their Food, Why Do They Let Smokers Contaminate It?” or “The Wine’s Bouquet Was Magnificient But the Air Was Foul Indeed ”.

Anti-smoking organizations could publish lists of smoke-free restaurants or even ratings on how truly “smoke-free” no-smoking sections are.  They could also provide window signs for no-smoking restaurants that are a bit more inviting than “No Smoking” such as “We Value Our Food, Please Don’t Smoke.”

And we can all let management know what we think of their environment.  If you are unhappy with the smoke in a restaurant, tell the manager.  If you are pleased that a restaurant has a no smoking policy, tell the manager.  And be sure to go back as often as you can.

If you don’t think it will work, consider all the fast food restaurants that are now smoke free.  It was customers that got them to change, not ordinances.  Now let’s work on the better restaurants.

If you think about it, market forces can provide solutions to some other problems that currently are going through courts or legislatures.  Market action could provide solutions more quickly and cheaply than litigation and laws.

Postscript: 2017-11-02
Well, it seems we’ve had a combination of market forces and ordinances.  It is really nice to not even worry about smoke, except possibly on a patio.  And it’s great to walk into buildings without passing a phalanx of smokers.

Now if we can only get smokers to pay attention to the no smoking signs at bus stops.  I’ve never had the nerve to ask smokers if I didn’t make them smoke why are they making me smoke!

Quote of the day: Coal vs. Solar

"There are now more than twice as many workers in the fast-growing solar power industry than there are coal miners."
- "Coal Industry Wobbles as Market Forces Slug Away", James B. Stewart, New York Times, 2015-08-06

Are the likes of Sen. Mitch McConnell preventing jobs in solar while protecting jobs in coal?  Also, does he think of the lives destroyed by lax safety standards and the contaminated air and water around towns near coal mines.

Of course not!  Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit over 200 years ago.  They deceive and oppress the public.  See "The Invisible Adam Smith".

The Magical Marketplace Can Be Malevolent

Once again, one who lives by profits justifies wages by the magic of the market.  See “Work like you mean it, and let the market set the best wage” by Scott Sayer, Star Tribune, 2015-04-20.  He writes, “Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth.”

Once upon a very bad time, market forces determined that a slave should work as many hours as the master required. These masters were so determined that they were right, they were willing to wage a bloody war to protect their interests.

Once upon a bad time, market forces determined that children should work as many hours as the masters of the factories required.  These masters didn’t fight a military war to protect their interests, but they bought a lot of politicians to defeat child labor laws.

Once upon another bad time, market forces determined that young women should work long hours in unsafe working conditions as the masters of the factories required.  Even fires and other disasters did not stop the corruption from letting these conditions continue.  Then the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, killing 145 people, mostly immigrant teen-age girls, made a bit of progress in reducing these conditions.

Even in these supposedly more benign times, market forces determine that masters’ employees should work long hours, well past their ability to function safely.  How many people other than these employees have been killed by truck or bus drivers working longer hours than the drivers could stay alert?  Despite these deaths, there are still masters who decry government interference with too many regulations.

Now as many call for a minimum wage of $15/hour,  Sayer states “Market forces should determine what an hour of work is worth.”  He complains that these figures are coming “from bureaucrats who never had to sign a paycheck in their lives.”  But these “bureaucrats” are officials, elected by the People, who try to follow the Constitution and promote the “General Welfare”.

And just what are these “market forces” that Sayer mentions so often?  Are they many buyers and many sellers free to enter and leave the market?  Do these “market forces” provide buyers and sellers with all the information they need to make an informed decision?  Are all the costs of the transaction covered, or are there costs that others must bear?

There are far fewer buyers of labor than sellers of labor.  The buyers of labor are free to contract or expand their work force. The sellers of labor must find buyers or be hungry and without shelter.

Both buyers and sellers of labor might not provide all the information for informed decisions.  Buyers might not provide all the details of the job, including how safe it is, how many onerous rules there are, and how reliably checks are issued. Sellers might overstate their credentials, hide unsuccessful performance, or hide illness that limits their abilities.

Both buyers and sellers of labor might push off costs to others.  Buyers might not have insurance to cover work injuries. Sellers might engage in theft that needs to be investigated by public law enforcement officials.  Buyers might pay less than “a living wage” passing off to others the concern that sellers have sufficient food, shelter, and clothing.  Sometimes these costs are borne by relatives, sometimes by governments.

These are only a few of the ways that other than “market forces” can influence labor decisions.

Sayer decries that a living wage is based on 40 hours a week, and he wonders why such a limit.  He ignores that many people fought and even died to get a standard work week set at 40 hours.  This push came not from bureaucrats but workers who wanted long, healthy, and enjoyable lives.  They defied Adam Smith’s observation that it was legal for the masters to unite to keep wages down but illegal for the workers to unite to raise wages.

Consider that a work day is eight hours plus a half hour for lunch.  Assume that a worker has a half-hour commute each way and that the other two meals also take about a half hour each.  The worker has now accounted for ten-and-half hours of the day.  Add eight hours for sleep and fifteen minutes each preparing for bed or getting dressed. The worker has now accounted for nineteen hours of his or her day, leaving five hours for other activities.  It seems Sayer believes that the work day should use these extra hours up to give him a thirteen-hour day from his employees.

Even when I was enjoying my job, I was quite willing to go home at the official quitting time.  Sure, there were times when some pressing problem needed more work or when I was so involved in what I was doing that I didn’t want to stop.  In fact, I don’t think that there was an hour of the day at which I didn’t work sometime or another.  Sometimes that was when the work was to be done; sometimes that was when the work just kept going.  But I was always glad when work returned to a normal day-time pace.

It was not bureaucrats who decided the work week should be 40 hours, but We the People.  It was We the People who decided that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.