An Economics Lesson in the Post-Dispatch
Restaurants are limiting smoking--not always because of state intervention, but because customers demand it. If anything, local "no smoking in restaurants" ordinances are anachronisms before they hit the books.
The article in question has several glaring economic mistakes (what articles don't?), but it offers a nice summary of how the market for restaurant meals has evolved. More and more restaurants are offering smoke-free environments, and they aren't doing so because of government intervention. They're doing it because allowing smoking in the main dining area hurts business.
Of course, it would have been nice if the Taco Bell representative had been completely truthful about their reason for eliminating smoking in their restaurants. It wasn't just a "health initiative." It was a good business decision: to the extent that there is a competitive market for smoke-free fast food meals, they would've lost money had they continued to allow smoking--public health concerns notwithstanding. Good job, Taco Bell: you're providing people with quality products at reasonable prices, and making a lot of money doing it. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
Comments (1)
that article looks like a thinly disguised shill piece to me. it's inaccurate to conclude in any way that global smoking bans are simply the will of the people. they are the will of a nasty anti-liberty faction that convinced fence-sitting non-smokers to climb on the passivity bandwagon after they discovered how nice it was to not have smoke blowing in their faces.
if government were not involved, the solution would most likely end up with most businesses banning smoking while a minority became havens for smokers — in the dynamic proportions only a free market allows. what we have now is just one more sad indicator of the willingness of the common man to put a gun to his neighbor's head in the name of goodness. few practices shout "protect me from myself, mother government" so strongly.
government smoking bans and their supporters are malicious in their intent and their socialistic cover-up rhetoric. the article is worse than biased, because it attempts to hide its bias by pretending to argue for both sides. the author argues neither for me (a non-smoker) nor for the businesses who've suffered real damage from the "humanitarian" policies of busybody scoundrels.
what could be more indicative of the socialist onslaught than the premise that we are not free to leave environments we consider hostile (i.e., turn around when you smell the smoke you hate)? it must be done for us. we may not interact with our neighbors except through the officious window of the nanny state. we are children.
a positive outlook on this issue is impossible. it should not be written off in even diluted form as merely the will of the people accomplished through undesirable means. it is tyranny.
Published: July 15, 2004 6:20 PM