Yanukovych signed a law banning tobacco advertising. Ukraine has finally joined the family of civilized nations—which, as we know, are distinguished above all by their talent for prohibiting themselves from drinking alcohol, smoking in public places, and even looking at advertisements for these abominations.
What I want to do here is briefly describe what I think we’re dealing with when we encounter phenomena like smoking bans, and what these phenomena reveal. I’ll say right away that I haven’t smoked in a very long time, can’t stand cigarette smoke, and try to avoid places where people smoke heavily. The smokers in my building light up in the stairwell, and my wife wages guerrilla warfare against them. It’s the same as everyone else’s situation. Well, now let’s get down to business.
First. An illustration of how freedom is lost gradually
The smoking ban didn’t happen overnight. I first encountered it in the early 90s, on my first trip abroad. Back then I still smoked. I remember how, exhausted after an eight-hour flight on a non-smoking plane, I wandered the depths of JFK airport searching for an ashtray. I remember the smoking rooms in American universities, which were deliberately designed to look like torture chambers. We had nothing like that yet—no one had even heard of it. So the smoking ban didn’t come suddenly or all at once. It was a long campaign that began long before the 90s. Over time, the harm of smoking came to be seen as self-evident, and its prohibition as a noble cause. The practice spread wider and wider until it became the norm in “respectable households.” Now Ukraine has joined those “respectable households” too.
Second. How the machine works
This story shows clearly how the bureaucratic machine actually operates. The system will always support any initiative aimed at control and restriction. The scary word “system” simply means that a perfectly ordinary official—let’s call him Ivan Ivanovich—will spot an opportunity in any given initiative. And this opportunity consists, first and foremost, in having something to do. Bureaucracy operates by the same laws as the market. Having a work front is a business opportunity. Even if one Ivan Ivanovich fails, his experience will be preserved, and someday another Ivan Ivanovich will find a way to build another budget on the back of such a useful initiative. That’s what the system is—a regular, sustainable interdependence between elements. A bureaucrat’s search for work is equivalent to an entrepreneur’s search for profit. The only difference is that the entrepreneur risks his own money, while the bureaucrat risks ours.
It’s hard to believe that as recently as the 1930s, cigarettes were advertised as medicine and prescribed by doctors. But the harm that smoking objectively causes the body became a perfect work front for the bureaucrat. People who believe that “capital rules the world” should prepare to be disappointed. In reality, a stupid bureaucratic machine rules the world. The “omnipotent” tobacco companies lost to the bureaucrat—for the same reason: unlike a tobacco company, the bureaucrat’s resources are infinite. And so is his time.
Third. Who loses from bans
Note that in countries like ours, any nasty rule gets adapted first. And there’s a reason for that. Anyone who served in the army knows the saying, which in mild form goes: “You can find fault with even a fence post.” But out in the field, so to speak, you can’t find fault with a fence post. You can only find fault with one if there are idiotic rules in place. Hernando de Soto, in his book The Other Path, among other things describes the endless struggle of street vendors with the state. The Peruvian state (like ours, and any other) deeply dislikes street vendors and is always banning them. But the vendors, naturally, keep existing. In Peru, things got so bad that a “compromise” law was passed with many reasonable points—except for one clause requiring vendors to wear aprons. Should I continue?
Generally speaking, the smoking ban is simply another opportunity for state control over people. Another checkbox in police reports, another instruction for sanitary inspectors, and the like.
Fourth. Who benefits
It’s clear that our people take a lighthearted attitude toward other people’s—and their own—freedom, so long as there’s order. But does “order” actually come of it in this particular case? The usual arguments for the ban go like this: “Smoke to your heart’s content at home, but there are children here! (Elderly people, pregnant women, deputies.)” That is, the problem, properly speaking, arises exclusively with close contact between a smoker and a non-smoker. Let’s take it a step further. How is this problem solved when there’s no smoking ban? Option A: a polite request not to smoke; option B: moving to another place, further from the smoker; option C: a fight. How is it solved when the ban exists? Exactly the same way. You don’t have a pocket policeman on you, and you never will. You’ll still have to resolve the conflict yourself, and if it comes to a fight, the fact that “the law is on your side” changes nothing—least of all when the police arrive. The ban gives no advantage to people who don’t like cigarette smoke (I remind you I count myself among them); the only ones who gain advantage are all sorts of bosses.
Fifth. Another brick in the wall
I think many Ukrainians so joyfully support all manner of bans because these bans preserve and even improve their picture of the world. In this picture there are good “we” and bad “they.” With “them” there’s “no other way”—they need to be prohibited, told what to do. The fact that instructions and bans change nothing is also good, even excellent, because it helps find someone to blame. The “criminal authorities” are to blame, for being unable to ensure the laws are enforced. That’s it. Everyone is comfortable, everyone in their cozy little home—we’re innocent little squirrels, and you are—who knows who.
Sixth. Who owns what
Generally speaking, all problems of this sort are resolved only through recognizing property rights. In such a situation, there can be no various “publics.” If we speak, say, about smoking in establishments like bars and cafes, a society that recognizes property rights solves this automatically. After all, both smoking and its prohibition are competitive advantages. If my bar is counting on bikers, I’ll have a smoking establishment, and mothers with children will have no business there—and no cause to complain—they knew what they were getting into. Similarly, if I open a family-style café, then bikers with their beer and cigarettes will fly right past, out of sight. You can try your luck with both “audiences,” and in that case, note that I, as the owner, will really have to invest in proper ventilation. And this without any laws, police, or sanitary inspection. In our case, however, even clearly private property (a café) is declared by the state a “public place,” and the state, not the owner, sets the rules of conduct there. This makes the problem unsolvable in principle.
Seventh. What comes next?
Bureaucracy will never let up. I think the next item on the agenda will be sugar. After all, everyone knows what enormous harm it does to the body. Serious people at the UN have been wrestling with this problem for years. The public is gradually waking up to its truly terrifying scope and raising their voices against the omnipotent sugar corporations. I have no doubt that British scientists will soon prove that not only is eating sugar harmful, but watching someone eat it is too. I think this is just a matter of time. You’re laughing, but remember my word—in ten years, customs officers will confiscate all sweets, and students at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy will sniff and explain that in the civilized world sugar was banned long ago, and it’s only here, among savages—but what can you expect from Yanukovych or whoever you have in power…