In November 2006, the French government enacted a decree banning
smoking in public places which became effective as from last February 1.
French cafés, bars and tobacconists, where smoking is generally the rule,
have though till January 1, 2008, to comply. Instead of the ban, the
government should leave the choice to their owners to decide if their
establishment should be smoke free or not for the benefit of their
consumers.
There are several drawbacks related to an overall, government-backed,
ban on smoking.
First, even if it is fashionable in many countries, a smoking ban turns
out to be quite largely pointless for those establishments which really
wish to declare themselves smoke-free. It should be recalled that places
such as restaurants, bars, cafés, and nightclubs, remain private places
and that it is in the interest of their owners to ban smoking
voluntarily when smoke is indeed a nuisance for their clientele.
A demand for smoke-free establishments unquestionably creates profit
opportunities which entrepreneurs are ready to grasp. Thus, before the
ban, consumers already had the choice among establishments for non-smokers,
smokers, or both, to the extent that it was allowed by law. Owners are
in a position to offer the ambient air that best suits their clientele,
just like they offer menus and ambient music that meet their preferences
in the best possible way.
In contrast to a ban imposed by public authorities, the entrepreneurial
freedom enjoyed by owners allows them in fine to reconcile the
preferences of all consumers – whether they are smokers or not – in the
most efficient way. And, non-smokers are able to avoid the alleged risks
linked to passive smoking, if they really wish, simply by not
frequenting establishments for smokers only.
But, the ban is also prejudicial from an economic standpoint, especially
for those establishments known for being frequented by smokers. Even if
it has often been asserted that the ban on smoking would not generate
economic costs, things are probably more complex and these
establishments face the risk of registering a slowdown in their activity.
In some countries, this slowdown has been sizeable. For example,
according to a study conducted in several towns in Canada, sales in bars
and pubs were 22.5% lower than what they would have been in the absence
of a ban on smoking. One must therefore not rule out that in a country
like France – where the proportion of smokers is higher than in Canada
and where it is commonplace to smoke in cafés –the consequences could be
much more significant.
But, most importantly, figures do not fully reflect all economic costs.
One must also take into account the dissatisfaction – impossible to
quantify, even though it is real – of smokers. On this issue, even an
anti-tobacco economist such as Kenneth Warner concedes that "tobacco
consumption produces utility for some members of society, and this
utility warrants recognition (and perhaps some respect) in planning
optimal tobacco control policy."
Ultimately, instead of enacting a decree that imposes a general ban on
smoking in France, the French government should have left the choice of
banning smoking or not to the owners of establishments, as is partially
for example the case in Spain.
The author is a non-smoker.
|
