We’ve just got back from a
couple of days in France. It was a good trip, but one thing is clear - smoking
is a problem in France. I have nothing against people smoking if that’s what
they choose to do. What I do have an issue with, is myself and my family having
to ‘share’ in their smoking. And for a large part of our trip we had no choice
but to share. In public spaces - train platforms, Christmas market, cafes etc.
- you could argue it is not so disturbing to be constantly engulfed in
cigarette smoke. But, when you cannot escape the smoke in your hotel and hotel bedroom
then it starts to get a bit annoying.
Smoking is, of course, banned
in public places in France. And, there are lots of signs to remind people of
this fact – the hotel was full of no smoking signs. Its just that the French
appear to complete ignore the law. Indeed, during our visit a report was
published by government auditors (Cours de Comptes) highlighting the seriousness of the problem – 1 in 3
French adults smoke, tobacco is the most common cause of avoidable death, and
enforcement of the legislation is very poor. The report was headline news, but
will anything change?
Well, my purpose here is not
to question how smoking can be reduced. Instead I want to talk about the danger
of legislation that is not enforced. In the U.K. the ban on smoking in public
places is enforced relatively well. If a person smokes in a hotel room then
there is a significant probability of punishment. I recently heard, for
instance, of someone staying in a hotel where the fire alarm went off in the
middle of the night because another guest was smoking – the culprit was fined
£100 and thrown out of the hotel. Such threats appear to work – smoking in
British hotels does not seem a major problem. An enforced ban on smoking suits
me, because I don’t have to put up with cigarette smoke. It is probably not so
great for smokers. But, as with any negative externality, its impossible to find
a solution that pleases everyone. Current legislation favours non-smokers and,
as such, protects non-smokers relatively well.
What’s happening in France is
not about favouring one side over another – its a lot worse than that. To see
why, think back to the days before any ban on smoking. Then firms had an
incentive to offer a service for both smokers and non-smokers. Hotels, for
example, had parts of the hotel with rooms for smokers and parts for
non-smokers. This also suited me fine because I didn’t have to put up with a
room smelling of cigarette smoke. It can also benefit smokers if smoking rooms
having slightly lower demand. The only people that lose out are non-smoking
employees that need to clean the rooms of smokers.
Once a ban on smoking is
imposed firms cannot discriminate between smokers and non-smokers. That clearly
does nothing to help smokers. The main point, however, is that when the ban is
not enforced it harms non-smokers: non-smokers have to put up with cigarette
smoke because hotels no longer have the power to distinguish smokers from
non-smokers. This can even lead to adverse-selection – non-smokers getting so
annoyed that they spend less time in hotels. And employees are clearly no
better off either if smokers carry on smoking as before. A non enforced ban on
smoking, therefore, helps no one and positively harms non-smokers!
That’s not very clever. But,
there is nothing special about smoking bans - any law that is not enforced has
the potential to harm the very people it was designed to protect. And that clearly
does nothing to motivate people to change their ways. It is, therefore, no
surprise that smoking has increased in France since the smoking ban was put in
place over five years ago. Until France starts enforcing the ban expect the
proportion of smokers to increase further, not decrease!
Comments
Post a Comment