Any government intervention in the market can give us cause to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences where a policy decision or action leads to fresh actions which might not have been considered by those putting a policy in place. Some of these knock-on effects can be positive, a windfall that enhances the impact of the original decision. Others can be negative leading to fears of government failure and a deepening of an existing problem or market failure. The smoking ban seems to be providing a rich seam of examples of such unintended blow-back effects.
There is growing evidence that the smoking ban has had a major impact on cigarette consumption among certain groups. But some of the side effects are starting to become apparent. One is the rising mountain of litter created by the millions of cigarette stubs casually tossed aside by smokers forced out into the open air because of the ban on smoking in ‘enclosed areas’. This BBC news audio-visual clip provides a vivid and nifty illustration of the problem.
A second negative unintended consequence has been a surge in demand for and use of open-air patio heaters, widely regarded as a very inefficient way of providing heating for patrons of pubs, clubs and restaurants and which are very energy intensive contributing to C02 emissions. A typical pub patio heater emits more than 4 tonnes of C02 emissions per year, more than the average car. Some superstores now refuse to sell patio heaters. here is another BBC news audio-visual clip on the heated topic of patio warmers.
Can you think of other side-effects of the smoking ban that might come under the banner of ‘unintended consequences’?
Euro MPs back patio heaters ban
Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSSOne consequence, perhaps not completely unintended, is the growing control of government over people’s everyday lives. You control people by controlling their pleasures—look at the millenia-old attempts by various power structures to control sexuality. The antismoking, antidrinking, antifat nanny state arrives at the same time as the security state with its surveillance cameras and proposals for implanted chips. None of it adds up to anything positive.
I have heard stories about nightclubs pumping air freshener into their venues to mask the smell of sweat which tobacco used to cover up. Obviously there are many other examples of complements/substitutes who have been affected like this.
There must be consequences for people suffering from depression and schizophrenia. Both of these groups use tobacco as self-medication. I took part in a medical trial as one of a control group who had to be smokers. The psychiatrist told me that this was because 90% of schizophrenics smoke; partly as it helps them and partly as it lessens the side effects of their medication. Causing these people to suffer more loneliness and isolation seems to me barbaric. This is not actually an unintended consequence. It was pointed out to those who voted and campaigned for the ban.
The argument in this article means nothing. There was always people littering the streets with cigarettes before the ban, they are simply lazy people. I don’t see why forcing people to smoke outside should make litter increase, if people will litter then sadly they will, it’s not hard for someone to put their cigarette out and put it in the bin is it? Of course a more anti-smoking fanatical look on this would be that there could be a direct link between people who smoke and people who litter, smokers could be seen as lazy because they are unwilling to stop their filthy habit, littering is lazy and dirty too… ?
I’m in two minds about the smoking ban either make them illegal or re- introduce smoking rooms in pubs, at this time of the year nearly every pub I visit or drive past has about three or four new patio heaters with smokers huddled underneath puffing away - each to their own I say enjoy your fags whilst you can.
The real solution to this problem is very easy to guess: ban smoking for ever and close all cigarette companies. That would surely improve the health of millions of people.
Ban smoking for ever would be very hard at first but with time people will get used to the idea that cigarettes do not exits anymore so maybe in the future such companies should be closed because they are certified drug dealers.
I’m in two minds about the smoking ban either make them illegal or re- introduce smoking rooms in pubs, at this time of the year nearly every pub I visit or drive past has about three or four new patio heaters with smokers huddled underneath puffing away - each to their own I say enjoy your fags whilst you can. I’ve just googled the number of pubs in the uk and the count is about 58,000 - with two heaters per pub that’s an extra 116,000 emissions being created by outside heaters and what happens in the winter, more heaters I suppose - how short sighted of the government, maybe the oncoming winter floods and severe weather will put out their fires. We must think of our children’s children they are entitled to a future too.
What people don’t understand is that if you look at active smoking as well as passive smoking in population studies, you can see that exposure to smoke, active or passive, is perfectly capable of killing you now.
Another reason why smoking ban is not an effective solution.
The psychiatrist told me that this was because 90% of schizophrenics smoke; partly as it helps them and partly as it lessens the side effects of their medication. Causing these people to suffer more loneliness and isolation seems to me barbaric.
I think that if we allow restaurant owners, bar owners etc. to choose whether or not they want people to smoke in the place of establishment then people can choose whether or not they want to go there. I hate that I can’t go to a local club or bar and smoke inside. I would rather stay home and I know that others feel that same way. It would be easier if people new if a place allowed smoking and then made the choice on whether or not they wanted to go there.
