Hitchens On "Mayor Bloomberg's Nanny State" (And Nannying In General)
Via David Boaz at Cato. It's from a seminar in New York (and here's a link to him talking at it):
I often take the train from Washington, D.C., to New York and back. A few years ago they put the smoking car on the end of the train so nonsmokers wouldn't have to go through it to get to other parts of the train. And then the day came when they said, "We're taking that car off the train altogether." And I thought, "Now we've crossed a small but important line." It's the difference between protecting nonsmokers and state-sponsored behavior modification for smokers.And I thought there was insufficient alarm at the ease with which that was done. Because state behavior modification, no matter what its object, should be viewed skeptically at the very least. There's serious danger in the imposition of uniformity--the suggestion that one size must fit all.
When the complete ban on smoking in all public places was enacted in California, I called up the assemblyman who wrote the legislation and I said: "I've just discovered that bars are not going to be able to turn themselves into a club for the evening and charge a buck for admission for people who want to have a cigarette. You won't be able to have a private club. You won't even be able to have a smoke-easy, if you will, in California."
And he said, "That's right."
I said, "Well, how can you possibly justify that?"
And he said, "Well, it's to protect the staff. It's labor protection legislation. We don't want someone who doesn't want to smoke, who doesn't like it, having to work in a smoky bar."
And I said, "You don't think that if there were bars that allowed it and bars that forbade it, that, sooner or later people would apply for the jobs they preferred, and it would sort of shake out?"
He replied, "No. We could not make that assumption."
So we have to postulate the existence, if you will, of a nonexistent person in a nonexistent dilemma: the person who can find only one job, and that job is as barkeep in a smoking bar. This person must be held to exist, though he or she is notional. But everyone who actually does exist must act as if this person is real.
There used to be areas, like the West Village in New York or North Beach in San Francisco, that are now dull and boring and have to be policed. And I think that's a terrible loss. I write better when I have a cigarette and a drink. I'm more fun to be with--other people seem less boring. The life of bohemia, of the small cafe and the little bar that never quite closes, is essential to cultural production. It may seem like a small thing. It doesn't add very much to the GNP. But if you take it away, you may not know what you've lost until it's too late.
But suppose all this was really a good idea--people might live longer. Suppose all that was really true. There would still be the question of enforcement, that awkward little bit that comes between your conception of utopia and your arrival there. The enforcement bit. You could appoint regulators and inspectors to enforce the law. It would take quite a lot of them, but you could do it. There are such people. I know about them because they've come after me.
My editor, Graydon Carter, the splendid editor of Vanity Fair, and I were having a cigarette in his office. And someone on our staff--it's not very nice to think about it--was kind enough to drop a dime on us. And round the guys came. "You're busted!" These people are paid by the city, which evidently has no better use for its police.
I think that's bad enough. But then Graydon went on holiday, and I went back to Washington. And his office was empty. But they came round again and they issued him another ticket because he had on his desk an object that could have been used as an ashtray. In his absence. With no one smoking. But there are officials who have time enough to come round and do that.
The worst part is that the staff has to become the enforcers. The waitresses have to become the enforcers. The maitre d' has to become the enforcer. He has to act as the mayor's representative. Because it's he who is going to be fined, not you. If you break the law in his bar, he is going to have to pay.
So everyone is made into a snitch. Everyone is made into an enforcer. And everyone is working for the government. And all of this in the name of our health.
Now, I was very depressed by the way that this argument was conducted. There were people who stuck up for the idea that maybe there should be a bit of smoking allowed here and there. But they all said it was a matter of the revenue of the bars and the restaurants. That was the way the New York Times phrased it.
In no forum did I read: "Well, is there a question of liberty involved here at all? Is there a matter of freedom? Is there a matter of taste? Is there a matter of the relationship of citizens to one another?"
And something about it made me worry and makes me worry still. The old slogan of the anarchist left used to be that the problem is not those who have the will to command. They will always be there, and we feel we understand where the authoritarians come from. The problem is the will to obey. The problem is the people who want to be pushed around, the people who want to be taken care of, the people who want to be a part of it all, the people who want to be working for a big protective brother.
Via a Walter Olson post at Overlawyered on prohibition. Olson writes:
Prohibition ... was important in eroding constitutional protections against various law-enforcement tools, especially search and seizure, the law being inherently aimed at contraband goods.The role of exorbitant cigarette taxes in contributing to New York's giant black market in cigarettes came to wider public notice following the police custody death of Eric Garner on Staten Island. ... The New York Post reported that Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the city law department to refrain from filing an intended press release over a would-be landmark suit filed over untaxed cigarettes the week of the Garner grand jury decision, because it interfered with City Hall's efforts to downplay the role of the tobacco black market.
I absolutely hate breathing cigarette smoke, but why should that stop someone from opening a business where cigarette smoking is allowed?
People who do not want to breathe smoke -- like me -- should find work elsewhere.
All jobs are not open to me (or any of us). For example, because I get motion sick, I cannot become a flight attendant. (Should they keep the plane on the tarmac so I can have the job?)
To be a truly free society (which we are anything but), we have to let grown adults be free to make their own choices.
Cigarette smoking probably killed Hitch but you know what?--I support his right to make the choice. I have no idea if he regretted that tradeoff or not but he was an adult and he did what he wanted to do. I deplore the idea that the state should act as the caretaker of all difficult choices.
I actually think smoking was a smart trade until the invention of antibiotics. If you are in danger of random, early death and life expectancy is relatively low and life is tough, why not take a bit of pleasure while you can? I have never smoked but I have been told by former smokers that is it quite lovely and they miss it even decades later. (Not all of them: my husband took up smoking as a teen and dropped it just as readily two years later.)
Astra at January 12, 2015 6:19 AM
This is the reason I personally refuse to accept "gun control" measures instead of "gun safety" measures.
One of my jobs involved participating in the writing of the national safety "rules" for electric utilities. It is very easy to prohibit something via "rules/laws" that determine how that action should/shall be done.
The easiest is to not require the regulating body to perform its part of the permit/regulatory process. You send in the application and they just do not get around to processing it. Done deal.
Of course, it's all for your protection.
Bob in Texas at January 12, 2015 6:32 AM
A few thoughts on this.
Smokers got kicked out of restaurants and bars years ago where I live. Fine. Most inner city bars adapted by revamping their space into about 50/50 "outdoor" - one moved a wall back about 10 metres to provide more balcony space. Now it's going to be banned outside too, but there will be no compensation for businesses who have spent big providing outdoor spaces for their clientele.
I'm a heavy smoker but I'm generally considerate. If I'm out with friends and I'm the only smoker out of six people, I don't smoke at the table even if legally I can. But people whining about wanting to sit outside with their coffee but they can't because smokers make them sick are pissing me off. You kicked me out there in the first place! Consideration is out the window for me now.
Last week my partner and I went on a trip to Mungo National Park (it's a spectacular place to visit by the way). Having lunch at the place we were staying, I asked where I should go to smoke. The proprietor (bear in mind we had only met an hour ago) immediately responded "you shouldn't do it at all". Ok, this is the sort of low level sniping you learn to expect as a smoker. I don't go round telling people that cake is bad for them, but ok, I'm used to it. But he was nice enough to tell me that within the National Park, smoking had been banned as of Jan 1. The entire park, even within your own vehicle. On pain of a $6000 fine. Fortunately we were staying just outside the park, so at least I could smoke outside our fucking room.
Ltw at January 12, 2015 8:46 AM
When Jacobs (nee Progressive) Field was built in Cleveland, they paid for it by raising the tax on cigarettes. Then when it opened, you couldn't smoke anywhere in the stadium where you could see the field from. And club seats were more idiotic. You couldn't smoke in the seats (out in the open), and had to go inside the bar/club to smoke.
And I think this is nice...
For example, because I get motion sick, I cannot become a flight attendant. (Should they keep the plane on the tarmac so I can have the job?)
THIS. DEFINITELY.
Oh, don't forget, in California (and several other states), it is illegal to smoke in your own car if there is anyone under 18 in the car.
drcos at January 12, 2015 10:29 AM
If you're bitching about not smoking in national parks or elsewhere in public, perhaps you should ask your fellows why butts pile up at traffic lights, get dumped in convenience store parking lots, etc.
I bet you'd be a lot better off if you thought of others first. You'd also bolster the arguments of others who claim that responsible behavior would somehow instantly follow the legalization of {insert drug name here}.
Radwaste at January 12, 2015 10:33 AM
If you're bitching about not smoking in national parks or elsewhere in public, perhaps you should ask your fellows why butts pile up at traffic lights, get dumped in convenience store parking lots, etc.
I was in Chile several years ago touring a bird refuge in the Atacama desert. I ended up on a Spanish language tour with a number of Chileans and Argentinians. One guy smoked a cigarette during the presentation and then dropped it to the ground and crushed it with his foot. I could only imagine how that would be received at a sensitive environmental site in the U.S. We've come a long way, baby.
I hate hate HATE people who throw butts out of their cars, especially when I lived in fire-prone Colorado. That doesn't make me judge smokers as a group, though, just the trashy ones.
Astra at January 12, 2015 12:02 PM
All jobs are not open to me (or any of us). For example, because I get motion sick, I cannot become a flight attendant. (Should they keep the plane on the tarmac so I can have the job?)
_______________________________
Um, I REALLY don't see how you can use that analogy.
After all, they used to allow smoking on airplanes too, until (if only for the sake of the passengers) it was acknowledged that "a smoking section on an airplane is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool."
However, the airlines could have chosen to have smoking and non-smoking flights. Yet they didn't. Aside from the fact that air travel is a necessity for many passengers, and flight attendants have to be far better trained than waiters and therefore need more rights protecting their health, smoking, unlike motion on a plane, can be postponed. If you're such a wreck that you can't handle going without a cigarette for eight hours, maybe you shouldn't fly. People spend less than half that time in a bar, as a rule.
Not to mention that I'm sure plenty of waiters who are trying to quit smoking - and thus keep down insurances rates for the rest of us - relish the extra push given by restaurants that ban smoking. Besides, a lot of people who have to wait tables aren't qualified to do other work.
lenona at January 12, 2015 12:17 PM
"However, the airlines could have chosen to have smoking and non-smoking flights. Yet they didn't. "
Airlines had smoking and non-smoking sections on flights for decades. The movement towards non-smoking flights (at least from the U.S.) didn't come from government; it came from Delta Airlines, which was one of the first airlines to go all smokeless. Delta did it because of passenger demand and reduced maintenance costs. They made their own choice. Other airlines could and did choose differently, until the government took the choice away from them.
"Not to mention that I'm sure plenty of waiters who are trying to quit smoking - and thus keep down insurances rates for the rest of us - relish the extra push given by restaurants that ban smoking."
How much do you want to bet they don't? When people are forced to alter their lifestyles by authority, they do so only grudgingly, and many of them will be constantly looking for ways to subvert the mandate for a long time aftewards. And as for insurance, don't even get me started... why should my insurance rates be effected by someone else's smoking or not?
Cousin Dave at January 12, 2015 12:37 PM
OK, so maybe I goofed regarding airlines' right to choose - but I suspect there were plenty of good reasons for the government to step in and abolish all smoking, maybe even reasons relating to keeping the planes safely on course.
___________________________________
"Not to mention that I'm sure plenty of waiters who are trying to quit smoking - and thus keep down insurances rates for the rest of us - relish the extra push given by restaurants that ban smoking."
_____________________________________
How much do you want to bet they don't? When people are forced to alter their lifestyles by authority, they do so only grudgingly, and many of them will be constantly looking for ways to subvert the mandate for a long time aftewards.
___________________________________
Maybe you should read that again. I wasn't talking about waiters who smoke and DON'T want to quit. Besides, workers generally get a break or two during the workday.
lenona at January 12, 2015 1:12 PM
"And as for insurance, don't even get me started... why should my insurance rates be effected by someone else's smoking or not?"
Ask those who support the ACA. That's what you're getting.
Radwaste at January 12, 2015 2:23 PM
If you're bitching about not smoking in national parks or elsewhere in public, perhaps you should ask your fellows why butts pile up at traffic lights, get dumped in convenience store parking lots, etc.
Then fine people for littering, the compliance costs wouldn't be any different and it would affect the right people! That's a terrible argument.
I always have a half full water bottle in the car for butts, I look for bins, I've even got a pocket ashtray to carry around now. Admittedly I'm happy to use two foot deep trenches on site as ashtrays when they're about to be backfilled.
Ltw at January 13, 2015 2:25 AM
"That's a terrible argument."
Wow - not half as bad as sugggesting that enforcement is better than eliminating the source.
OF COURSE "compliance costs" would be bigger. Somehow you think that fining people is free? I can tell you've never spent a second thinking about what enforcement would look like.
You wouldn't put up with a chemical company spilling material from its trucks just because they follow it around and fine the driver.
-----
This issue is very similar to noise issues w/r/t motorcycling. Bikers intent on their own interests installed loud pipes - which actually do nothing but make more noise and the illusion of power - and got all bikers banned from national parks and thousands of communities nationwide. Got a silent BMW, not a clapped-out Harley? Doesn't matter. No bikes, because selective enforcement is expensive.
Both groups of people affect other people who want nothing to do with that disturbance. Both groups COULD behave in ways that lead to more tolerance for their activities.
And if you listen to RJ Reynolds' advertising, they themselves will tell you there is "no such thing as a safe cigarette". Trading your peace of mind for months and years off your life may be up to you now, but as health care is socialized, it's gonna cost you more very soon.
Radwaste at January 13, 2015 5:20 AM
Leave a comment