Ohioans today are deciding whether to implement a statewide smoking ban. I've written in the past about my views on smoking bans--in short, I'm conflicted. A few weeks ago, Thomas Lambert, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri perfectly laid out the case against smoking bans--at least for restaurants.
The case for smoking bans thus fails. Contrary to ban advocates' claims, the costs of smoking's externalities are ultimately borne by the owners of smoking-allowed establishments who, as a group, have incentives to efficiently accommodate smokers and nonsmokers. Efforts to shape people's preferences regarding smoking run into individual choice issues and may be counterproductive. Scientific evidence on the risk of ETS may be overstated and never addresses the important point that some people are willing to take that risk.
A better approach would be a hands-off policy permitting business owners to set their own smoking policies. Motivated by the pursuit of profits, the owners would have the proper incentive to maximize social welfare. The market would be far more likely than government regulation to accommodate the various preferences of nonsmokers and smokers alike.
Lambert's argument is spot on. There is no reasonable reason why the market can't solve the problem of smoking/non-smoking in restaurants. This is a case where it is clear that government intervention in blatent paternalism.
But, sometimes even sound economic arguments can't overcome emotion--even for an economist. So today, I'm taking off my economist hat and I'm voting for the Ohio smoking ban. I'm so ashamed.
