Things that make you go hmmmm

The Economist's Certain Ideas of Europe blog notes the boom in year-round operation of bar terraces, supported by outdoor space heaters, that tends to follow smoking bans. This has certainly been the case in DC. But what about global warming?

. . . these outdoor terrace heaters (which have also sprung up like topsy all over Brussels in the last couple of years) are not exactly a brilliant idea, environmentally. The gas ones may be prettily designed with little silver hats to reflect the heat downwards, but they still amount to sticking a bunch of large propane cylinders on the pavement, lighting them, and letting them heat the sky. The electric ones are surely equally wasteful, aren't they?

It is all rather a poser. This blogger, as a selfish non-smoker, confesses to finding bars and pubs in places like Britain much more pleasant since smoking was banned in them. Yet a headlong rush to more and more outdoor heating cannot be a bright idea, either.

How long before the first city council bans smoking in outside bars?

Comments

The city of Calabasas, in southern California, has banned outdoor smoking anywhere in the city, including in outside bars: http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0209/Front_page/001.html.

Posted by Bob | December 31, 2007 12:38 PM

The Illinois law (effective tomorrow) likely prohibits smoking in outside bars--I'm not sure how it will be interpreted, tho:

"No person shall smoke in a public place or in any place of employment or within 15 feet of any entrance to a public place or place of employment."

"Place of employment" means any area under the control of a public or private employer that employees are required to enter, leave, or pass through during the course of employment[.]"

It is reasonable to believe that an outside bar area falls into "any area under the control of a private employer that employees are requierd to enter during the course of employment." Even if the outside area is intended to be entirely self-service, it is inevitable that employees would be required to perform some clean-up at some point.

Posted by zaleriana | December 31, 2007 1:00 PM

What makes me go hmmmm is the scientific lameness of the referenced post. It is true that these outdoor heaters are, environmentally speaking, a bad idea. What's important is not the fact they are "heating the sky", but that they are burning fossil fuels and in turn producing CO2 which exacerbates retention of warmth from the sun. The actual heat from these devices is the side-effect.

Posted by Michael W | December 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Michael--

The "heating the sky" comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, no?

Posted by Matt | December 31, 2007 2:03 PM

You may be interested to know that Islington Council (a borough of London) is trying to ban outdoor heaters.

Posted by Sam | December 31, 2007 2:08 PM

"How long before the first city council bans smoking in outside bars?"

In Del Mar (a small Southern California beach city) has banned smoking outdoors. San Diego itself banned smoking last year on the beaches.

Posted by JordanT | December 31, 2007 2:19 PM

My own opinion is that the sanctimony of those who want to persecute smokers is bad for my environment. There is some justification for a tax on cigerettes both because of the negative externality associated with the smoke and because of the damage smokers are doing to themselves (this latter reason will strike some as too paternalistic).

But an outright ban is enormously stupid. There is no rational justification for it. The ideal situation is one in which bars are free to permit smoking or not to permit it. Some would permit it and some would not and the customer could choose which bar he wanted to go to.

What's next after smoking bans? Mandatory calisthenics? A ban on bacon or, worse yet, on whiskey? God let it never come to that.

Posted by rwe | December 31, 2007 2:20 PM

"What's next after smoking bans?"

Well, the year after smoking was banned on San Diego beaches, drinking got banned.

Posted by JordanT | December 31, 2007 2:38 PM

"Well, the year after smoking was banned on San Diego beaches, drinking got banned."-JordanT

Not long ago I was in Europe and was surprised to learn that people are free to drink just about everywhere. Even at children's playgrounds. Of course, they would be penalized for disorderly conduct, but there is no prohibition against sipping on a pilsner and watching your kids build sandcastles.

What's the result? Social chaos? Pervasive iniquity? Not that I saw. America needs to loosen up with regard to publlic consumption of alcohol. Again, there's no rational justification for our current restrictions. It's just prudery (or maybe priggishness) run amok.

Posted by rwe | December 31, 2007 2:52 PM

> The ideal situation is one in which bars are free
> to permit smoking or not to permit it. Some would
> permit it and some would not and the customer
> could choose which bar he wanted to go to.

Is this what we had in the US before the recent wave of bans? If so, the result was smoking everywhere and nonsmokers had no place to go.

Posted by MarkT | December 31, 2007 7:39 PM

Is this what we had in the US before the recent wave of bans? If so, the result was smoking everywhere and nonsmokers had no place to go.

Well, boo-hoo. That just means you were outvoted by the smokers in the marketplace. There is no fundamental right to go to a bar.

Posted by Rob Lyman | December 31, 2007 8:22 PM

The city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada actually banned smoking on Patios, before it banned smoking in bars.

Posted by Steven DallaVicenza | January 1, 2008 3:54 PM

Santa Monica, CA did more than a year ago

http://www.smgov.net/news/releases/archive/2006/cao20061011.htm

Posted by Martin Greenberger | January 1, 2008 7:11 PM

rwe said: Of course, they would be penalized for disorderly conduct, but there is no prohibition against sipping on a pilsner and watching your kids build sandcastles....there's no rational justification for our current restrictions....

This sounds a lot like the arguments for increasing speed limits (I too would love to drive faster, BTW) because the autobahn works for Germany.

However, there is a large difference in cultural "norms" for both cases and we would likely find that neither would work quite the same here. I suspect the Europeans can get away without these restrictions because their culture will enforce decency, while here in the US we apparently require laws that seem stupidly basic in order to assure the same level of decency.

"No person shall smoke in a public place or in any place of employment or within 15 feet of any entrance to a public place or place of employment."

Case in point.

Posted by TakeFlight | January 2, 2008 11:33 AM

The no smoking and no drinking ordinances on beaches are more about litter and polution than about trying to prevent people from using drugs. I grew up in Southern California, and took part in several beach cleanup events when I was in High school. Cigarette butts when put in the sand seem to last forever. They don't biodegrade well, and they float so the waves send them back to shore instead of out to sea. There are/were so many of them that we eventually gave up on trying to clean them up, and simply started declaring that an area was clean as long as everything but the Butts were picked up in that area. The prohibition on alcohol is more about keeping broken glass off the beach than it is about drunk and disorderly behaviour. As a kid, we always had to be very careful about glass fragments on the beach. Everyone had a story to tell about a time when they cut their foot or other body part on glass. They banned glass containers on the beaches in my area when I was about 12-13, and by the time I was in High school you could play, run, etc. on the beach with minimal risk of slicing yourself open.

Posted by Eric Gagen | January 2, 2008 12:17 PM

"Well, boo-hoo. That just means you were outvoted by the smokers in the marketplace. There is no fundamental right to go to a bar."-Posted by Rob Lyman

Smoking bans are not for the benefit of customers, but for the benefit of employees. The justification is not that people should be allowed to drink without smoke in the environment, but that waitresses and bartenders should be allowed to work in a smokefree environment.

Posted by Njorl | January 2, 2008 12:20 PM

Njorl, I was responding to MarkT, who was focused on customers' lack of choice.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 2, 2008 12:45 PM

"The justification is not that people should be allowed to drink without smoke in the environment, but that waitresses and bartenders should be allowed to work in a smokefree environment.-Njorl

They were always "allowed", Njorl. They could always have quit and taken another job. That's the beauty of a free society.

Posted by rwe | January 2, 2008 1:34 PM

The prohibition on alcohol is more about keeping broken glass off the beach than it is about drunk and disorderly behaviour.

The efficient way to stop littering is to increase the penalties for littering (and enforcement, of course). It doesn't make sense to ban all alcohol for that purpose. Why permit Coca Cola bottles but not budweiser bottles? It doesn't make sense.

Posted by rwe | January 2, 2008 1:39 PM

In response to rwe, the prohibition is worded that way for two reasons: It aids the ban in getting votes from those who want to ban alcohol on the beaches, and most soda's are not sold in bottles any more. I currently live in Louisiana, and we have no ban's on open containers (so it is legal for example to drink a beer on the sidewalk downtown) but there are strict and enforced laws on glass containers being used in public places or near streets. The penalties for littering are already high on California beaches - last I remember they were $1,000 minimum per offense. Enforcement is definately a problem though. The beaches are large areas that are frequented 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, and most beaches have no controlled access to them, so it's very easy for people to break the rules if they really want to.

Posted by Eric Gagen | January 2, 2008 2:54 PM

Public drinking really doesn't seem to work well in England. Impossible drunken behavior is common, and nobody seems to know what to do about it. Also, you smell urine (and I mean a lot of urine) in all sorts of places you wouldn't expect.

Much as I want to be a libertarian on most things, I do think that restricting drinking to certain times and places makes sense.

As for the heaters, I have no particular problem with the notion of smokers getting cold. Have outdoor smoking with full natural air circulation, whatever the temperature of the air might be. Ventilation is the point.

Posted by M.C. | January 2, 2008 3:53 PM

"Public drinking really doesn't seem to work well in England. Impossible drunken behavior is common, and nobody seems to know what to do about it." Errr, that's because throwing criminals in jail seems to be out of the question.

Posted by markm | January 3, 2008 1:31 PM

Response to M.C. and markm

Public drinking in Loiusiana doesn't seem to cause the major problems you have noted. Bourbon street is an exception, because of the extremely high density of drunks, and the fact that you usually have to pay a cover charge to walk into a bar and use a bathroom. Plus a lot of alcohol is sold from stands and the like so you can get to a drink without getting access to a bathroom. Elsewhere there isn't much trouble with public intoxication. It is tolerated to be drunk in public as long as you aren't a problem to anybody else. Start peeing in the bushes or whatever and you will start spending time in jail real quick - either that or the local folks in the area will set dogs on you or whatever and run the drunk off. The main downside seems to be the very high incidence of pedestrians being hit by cars. Usually these incidents are the pedestrian's fault as they are very drunk and try to walk across freeways, walk down the middle of the roaad in rural areas, cross against lights, etc.

Posted by Eric Gagen | January 4, 2008 10:41 AM

"Cigarette butts when put in the sand seem to last forever. They don't biodegrade well, and they float so the waves send them back to shore instead of out to sea. There are/were so many of them that we eventually gave up on trying to clean them up"

To me, the litter aspect of it is the real problem. Why peep don't switch to Camels, or roll their own, at the Beach, still puzzles me.

But, then again, litter, anywhere found, puzzles me. "Pack it in, Pack it out" is pretty simple, afterall..

Posted by MEH | January 5, 2008 9:18 AM