The smoking ban in Minneapolis will be effective starting March 31st. Not that it matters, but here's my 2 cents worth...
Whose 2 cents is this?
As a recent ex-smoker still trying to shut down triggers and the cravings that one gets now and again, these days I welcome anything that reduces my exposure to other smokers. My biggest trigger is alcohol, that's the only time I really crave a smoke, late at night, feeling and enhancing the buzz. But I've been going to bars and not smoking and it hasn't been hell, far from it. Point: the ban won't stop me from going; in fact it will allow me to enjoy myself without having to face temptation every other minute - yes addictions can and do weaken your willpower, by definition. And I venture to guess that it will help my social-smoker friends to become non-smokers as well. Hard to admit the State can do you some good ... it's ok P., take it like a man! Relax and have smoke, no... wait!
Equilibrium switch
Game theory establishes that multiple outcomes (equilibria) are the norm, not the exception. And unfortunately, ranking the equilibria in terms of social welfare is in most cases impossible. Regardless, legislation can be used to induce a particular equilibrium, or a switch from one to another that would otherwise not occur. Why not? Because unilateral deviations from the equilibrium aren't self-sustainable. Simple example: the current equilibrium while driving your car around here is: use the right lane. Let's see YOU start using the left lane, on your own, and play chicken with every driver on the other side. [make sure to phone me before doing that though, I'm sure some that good video footage of this would be worth something] But, if by law we were required to use the left lane, the deviation from the previous norm wouldn't be unilateral anymore and bingo! a new equilibrium and you're in, say, England. Neither equilibrium is better, the important thing is that it is an equilibrium and that (in this case: only) laws can implement that switch.
The example is meant to illustrate what is meant by equilibrium switch, not to claim that these situations - traffic laws and current smoking practices - are in any other way similar. Why would unilateral (single individual) deviations from the norm in a bar where most smoke not be self-sustainable? Surely it's possible to frequent a smoking establishment and not smoke, regardless of how difficult it is - which varies according to each individual obviously. But as long as the deviation (here, not smoking in a smoker's heaven) is not rewarded (maybe massive 'you'll get laid with a hottie if you don't smoke' handouts could do the trick?), the equilibrium (here, this bar is a smoking bar) will not change just because you didn't smoke that night, or any other night you go there and be deviant.
Arguments Schmarguments
I put anything to do with second-hand smoke (affecting other customers and the employees) in the negative externalities argument. Valid argument, in fact one of the few that can counter personal freedom arguments of the "I know what's best for me, and I can do whatever the $#% I want to" type. Notice there are two lines of argument in there. The second one is shot down easily: no you can't do whatever you want, not when your actions impact negatively on the welfare of others, unless you'd like to live completely alone. I am unaware of any set of social conventions that puts no restrictions on individual behavior that impacts others. [Anthropologists, historians, whomever, ... help out - true or not? Not my area ....]
As for the 'I know what's best for me', I tend to agree (especially when considering the alternative of the State deciding for you what that is), but it's a moot point: the right to smoke is not being challenged, when this activity is conducted in a private setting (my attempt at 'legalese') - without externality there is little, if any, case for government intervention.
This leaves the issue of mechanism - the how to, and which way is best. Legislators just aren't being very creative. An outright ban will jeopardize some business. No big deal, maybe if you have a greater goal in mind, and public health can be held up there. But they could very well auction off smoking licenses (heard of liquor licenses?): restaurants & bars that rely on smokers purchase licenses, those that don't, don't. Some public revenue is generated - ghee, I wonder what we could use that for? Customers and employees self-select into smoking or non-smoking establishments. Second-hand smoke isn't a legitimate issue for people who self-select to frequent a smoking establishment.
'Schmarguments' have also come up, like "fear that those who now frequent downtown clubs and restaurants will choose to go to other cities that don't have smoking bans". Pleeeease... You don't think lousy opening hours, expensive alcohol, and a high drinking age are already incentive enough to go find your watering hole elsewhere?
Even agreeing with the general objective of a better public health, I can't help but feel that legislators too caught up in their IOUs have, once again, missed a great opportunity to use a better mechanism (auctions) to induce a more desirable equilibrium rather that naively trying to force it instantaneously, an approach often found to be quite counter-productive. How is the hard line war on drugs approach doing?...
