Weekends during my childhood often involved watching old Abbott and Costello films on one of the local television channels. One bit had Costello find Abbott and some other men playing craps. Costello naively asked what they were doing, and Abbott, thinking Lou was a mullet, introduced him to the game. As Lou started winning, he occasionally uttered some dice slang, tipping Bud off that he wasn’t quite the newbie.
One phrase, “Little Joe,” stuck in my head, because I didn’t catch on to what it meant. Decades later, as I wandered through a Vegas casino one morning, I asked one of the croupiers standing idly at an empty craps table what it meant. He informed me that Little Joe is a “hard 4,” i.e. 2 and 2 on the dice. Hard, in that it’s more difficult to get 4 that way than 1 and 3. The craps board has proposition bets for all “hard way” rolls (i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8).
As is the norm for that cluttered hoarder’s palace that is my brain pan, I flashed back to this “hard way” idea in reading about the various bans and restrictions being imposed on vaping, including a FDA decree that bans flavored cartridges.
A friend commented on the breathtaking speed with which vaping has been proclaimed “Public Health Hazard” and been smashed by the blunt hammer of the regulatory state. And she’s right. The spate of “vaper’s lung” that is one of the motivators for the government’s regulatory fist came into public awareness just this past summer. E-cigarettes have been widely available in the US for a dozen years, though, which should have been a major tip-off that there was something new and different going on.
That “vaper’s lung” turned out to be, as libertarian sources reported well before everyone else, caused by the use of black-market THC fluids (or, more specifically, the Vitamin E acetate used in those fluids). While the science is certainly young, there seems to be a reluctance to “admit” that it’s misuse that’s at the root of the health issues. I’d speculate this reluctance stems from a desire to regulate and restrict vaping, possibly to full prohibition. This desire is, again I’d speculate, born of a puritanical attitude towards smoking, i.e. they want smokers to quit, with no “third way” alternatives permitted.
Vaping is a “third way,” and an important one from a public health perspective. Yet, even as the science revealed that the health risk was not from the legal products, the health scolds continued to urge people away from vaping. As Reason reports, there’s strong evidence that vaping helps people get off tobacco. While vaping still delivers nicotine, it does not deliver the carcinogens and other stuff that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, in the US alone. Yet, rather than encourage people who, despite the universal understanding that smoking is bad for them, and despite all sorts of other help-quit options, continue to smoke to try vaping as a less-bad alternative, the people who are at the fore of the “quit-smoking” movement are outraged that the option exists.
But, what of the children?
Yes, indeed, vaping by minors is a problem. It’s a problem the way that underage smoking is a problem – minors are, both by science and definition, not fully formed adults, and therefore societies correctly choose to restrict their liberty. The matter is – how to enforce this restriction? Limiting the rights of others hasn’t proved effective, but moreso it’s incompatible with a society committed to liberty. The proper answer is enforcement of the restrictions on sales to minors… and, parents doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
Some have argued that banning just the “flavored” vapes, or the subset of those sold as cartridges, isn’t that big an infringement, since it’s “for the children.” What will happen when that ban doesn’t work, and some kids continue to vape? Will ineffective restrictions be removed? Or, will we be told that further bans are necessary?
How have other prohibitions worked out in the past?
Way back in 2014 (it seems funny to write that), I blogged my speculation that opposition to vaping was about “eye pollution,” about people being bothered by witnessing the ritual of smoking, even if there was no actual tobacco smoke produced. I still think that’s part of it, but I also believe that a puritanical demand that people quit “the hard way” or not at all is part of this anti-vaping frenzy. I think it’s safe to generalize that most non-smokers look down upon smokers and smoking, and see vaping similarly. Smokers as a class have had their rights severely infringed for decades, with “second-hand smoke” as the justification for imposing government mandates and bans on private businesses and residences. That the science doesn’t actually affirm the widely-reported ill health effects of second-hand smoke is of no relevance – those who dislike smoking have won that war.
I hate smoking, with a passion. I’ve never smoked, never will, and usually remove myself from the vicinity of smokers. This has fostered my own prejudices about vaping, and I don’t care to be around it. And, mind you, I’m not endorsing vaping as a risk-free alternative to smoking. Safer, yes, but if you want to be safest, don’t inhale anything other than air. But, I’m not willing to use lies or bad science to impose my will on others.
This, sadly, makes me an exception in the realm of public policy. The anti-smoking harridans want smokers to quit, and they want them to quit the hard way. So, they’ve seized the opportunity that vaper’s lung offered to do what they do. As Rahm Emanuel infamously declared, “never let a crisis go to waste.” Even if it’s made up.
Loading ...
“I think it’s safe to generalize that most non-smokers look down upon smokers and smoking, and see vaping similarly.”
Count me in that “most”. To me it says a few things: the smoker (1) does not care about my air, (2) does not care about her health, (3) consequently seems intellectually challenged. Why spend $7 per pack (an amazing price) for things that slowly kill you and make you unpleasant to be around?
“Smokers as a class have had their rights severely infringed for decades”
Oh? what “rights” might that be? Where is it written?
“That the science doesn’t actually affirm the widely-reported ill health effects of second-hand smoke is of no relevance”
When I joined the Navy I did not care whether others smoked. But after a few years of living day and night in second hand smoke so thick visibility was measured in feet, not miles, I became very sensitive to it. It burns my eyes. If the science says there’s no effect, then the science isn’t scientific. So now, I care.
Liberty is freedom to choose, but it is also freedom from your choices.
“those who dislike smoking have won that war.”
In some states anyway that have an “indoor clean air act” or similar. I realize it isn’t all that libertarian but until smokers can confine their odors and particulates to themselves then it is better for confined spaces to not have smokers. The battle of rights is not symmetrical; a non-smoker walking into a room filled with smokers adds nothing harmful or unpleasant to the mix. But a single smoker entering into a room that until then had no smoke at all, almost instantly converts clean air into foul air in the entire room.
Libertarian principles, if there is such a thing, suggests that a mix of different kinds of community is best; some will embrace smoking, some will not, and so long as citizens are reasonably free to choose community it ought to stay that way.
I’ll give you one “right” that’s been abused – the right of a private business to cater to smokers. If a business owner wants to permit smoking in his establishment, the market, not the government, should be the arbiter of that decision. Whereas government gets to decide what happens in government-owned spaces and organizations, including the military, a restaurant or bar that wants to have a smoking section should not be debarred from doing so.
You, as a consumer, do not have a “right” to a smoke-free restaurant, if that restaurant is owned by a private citizen.
You touch on that in your last paragraph. Yes, there are libertarian principles, and they are more consistent than the principles of any other political system.
Thank you for replying. I enjoy your posts, they are thoughtful and provocative. True to libertarian principles not only does each person choose his own behavior he also chooses the meanings of the words used to elucidate libertarian principles typically to his own advantage.
Suppose the principle is to do anything you want so long as you are not harming someone else. What is “harm”? I arrive at this question on reading your words “That the science doesn’t actually affirm the widely-reported ill health effects of second-hand smoke is of no relevance”
So that is the threshold of your concept of harm; but it isn’t *my* threshold of the concept of harm. Consider a typical playground for children. A bully comes along and taunts Susan. Eventually Susan loses her temper, hits the bully, and it is Susan that is suspended from school. Making physical contact, “battery” in legal language, is usually accepted as “harm”. But the taunting, “assault”, usually is not considered harm and yet is nearly always going to be the proximate and deliberate cause of “battery”.
As for me, its nice that “the science” assures me, perhaps incorrectly, that there’s no harm in smoke. Never mind the people that die from smoke inhalation; it’s “harmless.”
But I don’t use that as my threshold of science. I use it as a bludgeon when it is convenient since not very many people are interested in merely being courteous or something like that.
A society cannot exist on libertarian principles; it would not be a “society”. In a society, people give up *some* liberties in order to gain some benefits. But not everyone subscribes to the same social contract.
You also mention rights: “You, as a consumer, do not have a right to a smoke-free restaurant”.
Trivially true; I have no rights and neither do you, if by “right” it means I get to do whatever I want no matter what. If it is constrained to the social contract, then it is not a right, it is an *agreement* that you can do these things without interference from government, in return for your allegiance to that government. But all such agreements are negotiated, with advantages bestowed on the strongest and/or most numerous contingent, which until recently *was* smokers and maybe still is the case in many parts of the world.
The result of that lack of a right to a smoke-free restaurant meant that there were no such things anywhere. As a consequence, I seldom patronized restaurants. Such as had “nonsmoking” sections were invariably poorly chosen; one such in Poulsbo, Washington (47.742113° -122.639194°), had placed the non-smoking section under the air intake for the HVAC system and it pulled the smoke from everywhere else in the restaurant to the non-smoking section making it the smokiest place in the restaurant. Was this accidental? Probably not but it doesn’t matter. Non-smoking section of the aircraft? To the rear, buddy, where the smoke exits the tail of the aircraft. It’s the smokers that get the fresh air, not that they know what to do with it.
When I was in the Navy, at one duty station was 49 persons; 3 did not smoke. It was horrible. Equipment malfunctions were numerous and often due to smoke; but not really smoke. There’s chemicals that condense, crystallize and separate the contacts on the equipment. So about weekly I would have to pull circuit cards and wipe the connectors with alcohol to get the sludge off. This is in also in smoker’s lungs. But the fact it was in the computer was plenty proof that these crystallizing residues were in the “second hand smoke”. Particles weren’t all that bad but OMG if the smoke got into the hard disk drives (the removable platter kind) it would destroy the platters and the heads. So yea, plenty of crashed heads because of particles. One of my prouder moments was repairing a crashed head using a stereo microscope and micro-soldering tools; also polishing the surface of the flying head. Up in Alaska; gotta have the computer running and we cannot wait a week to get a replacement head.
Now in a truly libertarian non-society, a restaurant owner could easily declare his restaurant “non-smoking”, with paid thugs to enforce it, since it would definitely require enforcing. But simple economics worked against it; with threadbare profit margin, restaurants must cater to the majority. Would it even be possible? I have no idea; it seems to me that the mere existence of a non-smoking restaurant would bring hordes of smokers to test that owner’s resolve; as surely as if that owner did not want to bake a cake.
If nobody in Colorado wants to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, by golly the government will compel that behavior, you will either bake a cake or pay big money to the government, and then still bake the cake. As it happens, many bake shops were willing to bake the cake, but that’s not the goal. Universal obedience is the goal and the irritating fact of someone that does not want to bake a cake brings down the wrath of the SJW’s and their bludgeon called “government”.
Approaching these limitations on liberty, so as to have a society, is invariably riddled with personal judgments that differ from one another, with hopefully some compromises worked out that maximizes choice while minimizing offense on any particular class of citizen. The aspect of necessity plays into this. Nearly everyone must work, so it is the workplace where some rules are reasonably created and enforced, rules that simply are not needed at restaurants; with the interesting conundrum of what if the work place *is* a restaurant?
Anyway, clearly my thresholds are not your thresholds; for me, second-hand smoke *is* harm. It is at least a nuisance and in some cases measurably harmful. Courtesy is the opposite of nuisance. I don’t fart in an elevator even though I have “liberty” to do so. If people heeded the Boy Scout Law, or even just parts of it (the courteous and kind part), liberty would be greatly enhanced for everyone and some parts of government would shrivel up for lack of purpose.
“Suppose the principle is to do anything you want so long as you are not harming someone else.”
This is libertarianism’s “non-aggression principle.”
What is “harm”?
This question is why we debate. Some have a more expansive view than others. For space purposes, I’ll refer you to the “clean hands principle.”
I arrive at this question on reading your words “That the science doesn’t actually affirm the widely-reported ill health effects of second-hand smoke is of no relevance”
I think you’re reading this the wrong way. The meaning behind that sentence is that banners don’t care about reality so much as their own feelings on a subject. If we are to presume that we are all equal in our rights, some persons’ individual feelings ungrounded in objective reality cannot be held paramount. For example, would it be permissible to ban hats if enough people deemed the sight of them offensive? How about yoga pants on fat people? How about body odor?
“But the taunting, “assault”, usually is not considered harm”
Says who? Intimidation is unlawful if it rises to a certain level. What that level is, is why we have courts and trials.
“A society cannot exist on libertarian principles; it would not be a “society”. In a society, people give up *some* liberties in order to gain some benefits.”
You’re conflating libertarianism with anarchy AND you’re misunderstanding liberty. My rights end where they infringe on yours. And vice versa. The job of government in a libertarian society is to manage that boundary and punish transgressors.
You’re also implying that you’d engage in “majority rule” with regard to certain noncoercive behaviors. That’s not liberty, and when it’s tolerated, society gets *worse*.
But not everyone subscribes to the same social contract.
Yes, there are people who will use government to coerce others’ behavior, to restrict others’ behavior, and to steal the fruit of their labor. They’re all over the place. Doesn’t make them right.
You also mention rights: “You, as a consumer, do not have a right to a smoke-free restaurant”… The result of that lack of a right to a smoke-free restaurant meant that there were no such things anywhere.
Patently not true. As smoking fell into disregard, places that severely restricted or banned smoking started to come into existence.
But, even so, you are not entitled to dictate the terms by which a private business can operate, not if liberty is to mean anything, even if a majority decides so.
The government, on the other hand, *can* decide that there’s no smoking on military bases, or on ships. And it has.
‘with paid thugs to enforce it, since it would definitely require enforcing.”
Again, libertarianism is not anarchy.
Moreso, you’re engaging in what I’ve dubbed Reductio Ad Anarchium, not just in falsely conflating the two, but in arguing against a hypothetical pure-libertarian society (even as you mischaracterize it).
I talk about that here: http://www.pigsandsheep.org/reductio-ad-anarchium/
It’s as much a straw man as arguing that the hypothetical perfectly communist society is better.
The reality is that changes are incremental, and society will always be an imperfect mix of various ideological pulls. History clearly shows us, though, that more liberty makes for better societies. And, that the minority is *far* better protected when liberty is paramount.
As for smoking, you’ll get no argument with me about government’s right to dictate rules in places managed by the government. That includes the military, courthouses and other public buildings, national parks, etc. The line starts when it interferes with the interaction between private citizens. Yes, a restaurant should be able to permit smoking. The market will dictate whether it will thrive or wither. If you think that you, as a non-smoker, have more right to patronize that restaurant than your neighbor the smoker does, you’re imposing your will on him in violation of his rights.
Thanks for the comments!
I should follow up with the fact that even in clean-air states, bars and taverns have plenty of smoke as it is part of the expectation of the business. Patrons go there to drink and smoke. Those that want clean air simply don’t go to bars and taverns. Choice and liberty for all.
Not where I live. Smoking has been banned in bars. Smokers have to go outside.
“The proper path lies somewhere between ignorant pleasure and outright prohibition.”
https://reason.com/2020/01/11/how-truth-became-a-casualty-of-the-war-on-smoking