The exit to the parking lot at my office runs into a fairly busy road. There are 2 lanes going each way, the speed limit is 45 mph, and there is a traffic light at the parking lot to ensure we all make a safe left turn across traffic. Like most people, I generally sit there staring at the red light, waiting for it to turn green like a dog waiting for his owner to throw a tennis ball. As soon as the light turns green I usually step on the gas and mindlessly make my left hand turn across 2 lanes of traffic to get on my way home. However, this evening was a little different. Instead of making my usual mindless left hand turn I looked to the right and saw a car about 50 yards down the road traveling at a pretty healthy speed. I cautiously pulled into the intersection carefully watching the approaching car. I wasn’t too worried because I regularly see people floor it right up until the red light, so I half expected the driver to stop. I also wasn’t worried because I had my eye on the driver, I knew she was coming.
I have no idea what distracted her. She wasn’t on her cell phone but there was a passenger in the car. Maybe she was talking? Either way, it doesn’t matter. She was about to blow right through the red light. Since I saw her the whole way, my heart wasn’t racing. I gave her a polite double beep, she slammed on the brakes half way through the intersection, looked very embarrassed, and I’m sure she was much more cognizant of her surrounding for the remainder of her ride.
As I went on my way I thought, “Why didn’t she stop? There was 2 bright, shiny, red lights in front of her. Good thing I was paying attention!” Which eventually brought me to this article. What is the point of our traffic laws? I’m sure the argument for the laws is that it keeps us all safe. I found this gem of a quote from Pulitzer Prize winning author, Garry Wills in his book, A Necessary Evil:
If we all woke every morning, took out cars of uncertain performance, and tried to drive every which way, not heeding (nonexistent) signs or a right-side requirement, any speed laws or rules of precedence at crossings, we would either be crashing constantly, or would be immobilized by a fear of crashing or being crashed into
While I did not read his book, (I got the quote from this site) I’ll assume he was being serious. Crashing constantly? Why does he think this would happen? Where else in the world does anything like this happen? Why would we put ourselves at so much risk on a daily basis? By reading Wills’ quote, it sound to me like he is saying that the only reason we stop at intersections or do not travel 120 mph is because there is a law telling us not to. Do you really think this is true? There is no law telling us not to lean on a burning stove, yet we still don’t do it. As far as I know there is no law saying you have to go to the back of the line when you enter a pizza or barber shop, yet magically, we all do it, no matter how long the line is. According to Wills logic, it would follow that people would enter the store and fight to be served next. Afterall, No one likes waiting behind someone ordering meals for 5 people when all you want is one slice.
The overwhelming majority of people I’ve come across in my life are very polite. Complete strangers routinely hold doors for me if we enter the convenience store at the same time, and I do the same for them. I see people hold elevator doors for strangers all the time. There is no law that says we have to. So why would it follow that these same people would put everyone’s lives in danger when they get behind the wheel?
To a certain degree, we all make our own traffic laws anyway. I’ve lived within a few miles of Philadelphia for most of my life. There are plenty of red light, and even more stop signs. I rarely see people come to a complete stop at a stop sign, especially when there is clearly no traffic coming on the intersecting road. Why don’t I see accidents all the time? In fact, in my 29 years, I haven’t seen a single one in our residential neighborhood. I’m not saying they have never happened, I’ve just never seen it or heard of it.
I’ve lived on a 15 mph speed limit street my entire live. I’m sure there are people who strictly drive 15 mph, don’t we all hate when we’re stuck behind them? Most of drive 20-25 mph in a 15 mph zone. I rarely see anyone going 30 mph or more, and I’ve never in my life saw someone drive 60-120 mph in the neighborhood. The reason we’re willing to go 20 mph and not 60 isn’t because there is a sign that tells us not to, it is clearly because it is safer to 20 mph when you see houses and children in the area. On highways or busier roads with less pedestrians, we’re willing to go a little faster.
My parents live on a 2 way street. Cars park on both sides of the road and there is barely enough room for one car to get through, let alone traffic in both directions. Why don’t we see several head on collisions on my parents street? We’ve all been on streets like this and we all know what happens. The drivers heading toward each other can see each other coming. Usually both stop and wave the other through. Eventually one driver gives up and makes his way down the road with parked cars on each side then smiles and waves as he passes the on coming driver.
I am not aware of the history of traffic laws, but I’m sure when cars first hit the market people weren’t crashing at high speeds left and right. I have a feeling there were a few accidents, as expected, and our government overreacted, as expected. The argument was probably that it would make us all safer. I’d be willing to bet we’d be a lot safer without them. Think about when there is a storm. The speed limit might say 65 mph, but most people get over to the right and travel at lower speeds, letting the vehicles that handle the weather a little better go faster in the left lane. There might be a law of the books that tells us to do that, but if it does exist, I don’t know about it. I still take it easy in Saturn.
When the power is out and we temporarily do not have traffic lights, people tend to approach busy intersections with caution. In my experience, it doesn’t cause long backups, and there aren’t many accidents.
The point is, when we have these traffic laws we become almost mindless on the roads. The light turns green and we drive through the intersection assuming the other traffic will stop at their red light. We roll through stop signs if we know we’re going to be the first car at the intersection because we assume the second car will stop at the stop sign. Have you ever driven across the Pennsylvania Turnpike? The speed limit arbitrarily changes from 40 (in apparent construction zones with no evidence of any construction) to 55 to 65 mph. Whenever traffic comes near a cop on the side of the road, the brake light immediately come on whether the driver is speeding or not. Traffic was moving safely along, then people suddenly start hitting the brakes. That can’t be safer than traveling at a constant speed.
Trust me, my biggest gripe with the world isn’t that I have to travel 65 mph or that I have to wait at a red light when there is clearly no other traffic in sight. I’m just trying to make the point that people won’t act irrationally without the laws. Most of us probably think the purpose of traffic laws isn’t to keep us safe anyway. Most of us really believe it is a way for the state and local government to extort a few extra bucks out of us.
God Bless Freedom, Liberty, and Personal Property,
Slappy jones II
Good post. I’ve worked as a police officer and I can say that traffic enforcement and traffic accidents were the worst part of my job. Unless a driver was behaving recklessly and endangering lives, I avoided writing tickets whenever possible. When it came to handling accidents, I commonly noted the “at-fault” driver in the report for insurance purposes, but rarely issued a citation. My logic was simple. An accident results in lost time at home/work, expenses to repair vehicles, and increases in insurance premiums. Those costs were punitive enough in my mind, and I didn’t see the point in adding to those burdens with a date in traffic court and a $200 fine. I was not alone in my actions, as many other cops behaved similarly. After about a year, my department issued a new standard operating procedure that required us to issue tickets to “at-fault” drivers. This was not a deterrent from driving recklessly. It was simply a means of raising revenue for the city. And that’s what traffic enforcement is really all about. If there was actually a concern about drivers’ and passengers’ lives, cities would fine offenders thousands of dollars, impound cars, and revoke licenses for minor speeding violations. Instead, they fine offenders a few hundred dollars. The driver begrudgingly pays the fine and may change his driving habits for a short period. However, the relatively small fine isn’t enough to deter minor violations forever. So after a week or two, that driver will weigh the risk and most likely conclude a nominal fine isn’t enough to stop them from driving over the speed limit. They will resume their normal driving habits and the cycle will continue. The bottom line is that traffic enforcement isn’t really about safety. Its about creating a revenue stream for an ever-growing government.
Really enjoying this blog. I’ve largely lost my love for pro hockey and have found little to replace it. Grateful to be able to find new material here daily.
I would like to take this one step further. Imagine all traffic rules were abolished, and also abolished were all forms of insurance. Imagine that if you nailed someone and you had to support their family while the driver was in rehab. Rather than merely inconvenient, it would be life altering.
A question I often ask involves Henry Ford driving to the neighbour’s place to show off his new (black) invention. No licence, no insurance, no registration. Did he violate anything? If not, what changed?
I once asked my 6 year old neighbour if she had ever agreed to be bound by traffic laws. An old man once looked at my 8 yr old boy and said, “Don’t ever sign away your freedoms.”
Where do the cops have jurisdiction anyway? If I don’t agree to be bound by these laws, if we’re truly born free, from whence comes the right of one to arrest another for anything? If there is no damage to anyone, and thus no violation of law, what gives anyone the right to force me to comply to any statute, let alone all of them? Or if religion became illegal, what would bind me to comply?
If democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner, then a republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. Sadly, I don’t have an aircraft carrier.
We can pretend we’re living in either state, but in reality, it appears more that we live in Northwestern Spain under the English occupation of King Henry VIII. We can think whatever we like about freedom, but while I’m magically bound to regard statutes to which I’ve never agreed it appears more that we’re feudal serfs hoping for a benevolent dictator.
Sorry, but I think Wills is spot-on here. Laws don’t exist to protect you from yourself (unless you being an idiot then places a cost on the rest of society), but rather to moderate interactions between people. Your pizza example is a perfect example.
You think that people “magically” get in line, even though there isn’t a law otherwise. But if there weren’t laws, what prevents me from pushing everyone out of my way? Perhaps you’d argue that everyone would fight back and so the potential of getting beaten would stop me, but what if I was in line at the senior center and happened to be a professional football player? Can I give the old lady in front of me the Heisman?
In the case of driving, laws are precisely what allow you to make that mindless trip from point A to point B. If everyone weren’t on the same page, we’d either be running into each other or at least suffering some serious gridlock. You have anecdotal evidence that in your 29 years, no one’s crashed on your street, even though they bend the rules. Congratulations. I could tell you a story about how my friend flipped his car (with three passengers inside) because he took an off-ramp at too high a speed. Anecdotes are useless when writing policy.
You also mentioned that when the power goes out, people being cautious at intersections don’t cause delays. Where are you from again? Everywhere I’ve been, they’re a major hassle and I’ve seen plenty of close calls.
Just my two cents.
Welcome to McFloogle, Neel. We really appreciate comments, especially if you disagree. I’ll try to respond to all your points…
You say, “If there weren’t laws, what prevents me from pushing everyone out of my way?” Is there a law that says you cannot cut in line at a pizza store? There might be some local laws somewhere that prevents you from cutting in line, but I do not know of any. I almost never see anyone cut to the front of the line. I’m also a pretty big guy. I wasn’t good enough for the NFL, but I did play defensive line in college. The reason I don’t push old ladies out of a line isn’t because it is illegal, however, it is assault, I don’t think I made an argument to legalize assault. I’m surely not in favor of it. I brought up the pizza shop argument because I was thinking of a situation that is not regulated by law, and is not complete chaos. If you were the owner of the pizza shop, and you saw a big guy push a lady out of the way to get to the front, how would you handle it? Would you refuse to serve him? I know I wouldn’t serve him.
My argument that is it a mindless trip is supposed to say it is not safe. People don’t look for oncoming traffic because they expect it to stop. If there wasn’t a light, people would look before they procede. If for some reason all traffic laws disappeared tomorrow, do you think people would suddenly drive on the left side of the road? The reason I stay on the right isn’t becuase it is illegal to drive on the left, it is because traffic is coming at me on the left. That was the point of the pizza shop example. There isn’t a law that says to get at the back of the line, we all still do it, and we all know that is the way it works,
Of course I only have anecdotal evidence. These are my opinions on my blog. I have a full time job, an hour commute, a fiance to spend time with, I go to the gym, I play sports, I have a life. I am not a professional economist of sociologist. I do not always have time to do my own research, and I especially don’t have time to do original, independent research. I could take some time in the next week to do some research on this topic, but I like getting my thoughts out and getting the conversation started.
If that is a true story about your friend, that is awful, and I hope they are all ok. However, what does your friend flipping a car have to do with speed limits? I mean, I’m sure there was a speed limit where he flipped the car, he clearly ignored it anyway. No law can stop people acting irrationally. They’ll act irrationally whether they have a law or not. I take the PA turnpike everyday to work. I have no idea what the speed limit is on the on ramp. It basically takes me 360 degrees to get on the turnpike and I never once took it too fast. It is rational to slow down. I also never argued to get rid of all signs warning people of dangerous curves or road conditions. I think you make my point stronger, the speed limit law did not prevent him from flipping the car. If he took the turn at 20 mph instead of the 15 mph speed limit (I’m using an arbitrary number here) should he have been fined if he made it around safely for drive 5 mph too fast?
Don’t worry, I’m only writing a blog, not policy. I have no desire to run for any office at any level, so the only policy I’ll write is on this blog here, and it has no affect on anyone’s lives…It doesn’t matter how much I’d like you to be able to live your life the way you want to without interference, I can’t do it!
I live in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. The last time the power went out was during Hurricane Sandy a little over a month ago. I live literally a mile outside the city limits, it is a densely populated area, and I had no problem getting around.
We appreciate the 2 cents, check back in soon.
Hi Slappy, sorry for being a no-show. I enjoy calm debates like the one we seem to be having, so I will try to check in from time to time. I’m in the middle of studying for my medical school Step 1 exams, so I haven’t had any time for blogging of late.
Let’s start at the top with the pizza parlor. We have to understand that it is only a microcosm of the traffic example or of legislating national affairs. Thus, the shop owner is essentially legislating for his constituency (the patrons). When you push to the front of the line, he lays down the law by not serving you. He made that policy because if he didn’t, everyone would push to the front. Similarly, the government (take whatever level you wish: local, state, or federal) needs to legislate in order to keep people in line.
Regarding speed limits, I will agree that laws in and of themselves hold no power–it’s the enforcement of the law that gives it it’s bite. And should going 20mph in a 15 zone be fined? We can debate just laws vs. injust laws as well, but that’s a bit different than saying laws don’t need to exist. (For the record, I think it should be fined: if you’re not going to fine them, set the limit higher.)
I think my point is that when a population reaches a critical mass, you can’t trust people to behave rationally, especially not in a spur-of-the-moment decision. (Some may argue that critical mass is 1, i.e., no one acts rationally. I would not argue.) Laws such as traffic laws exist so that people don’t have to be weighing out the pros and cons on a second-by-second basis. That would be incredibly inefficient, and likely unsafe.
So you think that the only reason people do not push to the front of a line is because they won’t get served? I cannot disagree more. I am twice the size of most people in any given room I enter and the reason I don’t push people out of my way to get what I want has nothing to do with not getting served. It is simple respect for other people. I am not alone in this matter, Everyday I see complete strangers opening doors for me, holding evelator doors open, or letting me into traffic lanes. What is their motivation? They could let the elevator door slam in my face and they would still get to their destination (more efficiently, mind you) and continue on with their day without penalty. I see more people looking out for each other than taking care of #1 first when it comes to these situations. So much so that it is obviously when they do not. So I do not believe there would be all out chaos without these laws. I think the same consideration for others would exist with or without the laws.
Surely you don’t think that laws exist just to tell decent people to keep doing what they’ve been doing? Laws are there to protect decent people from those of us who are less than respectful toward others. And suddenly, if the miscreants started getting away with bad behavior (and it was proving to be advantageous), I do believe that more people than you might expect would follow suit.
How about I turn up the ante? Say you’re at the hospital and your mother is sick. She’s been coughing up blood for the past hour, let’s say. You’ve just come into the emergency room and the nurse has triaged you. A guy comes in with what seems to be a bad hangover. He ignores protocol and just waltzes into the ED and finds an open bed. Your mother’s condition is worsening. Her respiratory rate is falling, and her blood pressure, too. Too bad the other guy got to the bed before you. You snooze, you lose, I guess. Without a law, it’d just escalate into a brawl, because there’s no right or wrong here–he had the bed first, it was your fault for not taking it when it was open.
Maybe you’d still wait. I don’t know. The point is not to find out what your personal breaking point is. The point is that order has a very important role in a functioning society, especially as the number of people involved and the severity of the potential consequences goes up. So far, we’ve come up with laws as a way to maintain order. If you’re suggesting an alternative, I’m all ears. But I don’t think we can function (neither efficiently, nor equitably) without regulation.
Neel, you seem to be begging the question that laws exist only if they are legislated by a government body. I can make it a law that I will use physical force against you if you try to steal from me. Regardless of whether or not my law is sanctioned by any government, I’m going to follow my law. No government regulation does not mean that chaos would ensue.
To use the pizza parlor as an example, the owner can create his own laws as well, and he’s completely within his rights to do that. Afterall, the restaurant is his property. So how is that different from government laws? I can choose not to ever enter into his pizza place if I do not like his laws. The same applies to anyone who wants to enter my home or use any other property of mine. The government, on the other hand, associates itself with everyone, just because they were born within a geographic location. I’m subject to its rules and laws whether I like it or not. I’m subject to the penalties of the government if I break any laws whether there is a victim or not. Because of this, the government creates for itself a monopoly on laws and rules. If I don’t like the laws where I live, including laws that were enacted well after I’ve taken residence, I’m either forced to follow them or suffer the consequences. There’s no “Sorry, that rule’s not for me, so I’ll be on my way.”
Admittedly, there would likely be traffic laws if all of the roads were owned privately. But since there wouldn’t be a monopoly on transportation, the owners of the modes of transportation would have to compete for my business. Their modes would have to be efficient, reasonably priced, and safe. It’s no different from the people who want to sell me food, a computer, a cell phone, etc.
Without government laws, there’d be no way that a hospital would allow someone with a hangover to take a bed over someone who is about to bleed to death. If they allowed that, they’d go out of business very quickly.
And we don’t need someone acting as an overlord to make sure that this order is maintained. People will act in their best interest and will cooperate with each other to achieve this. My alternative to government regulation is non-aggression and freedom of association. This involves self-ownership, private property, and the rejection of any moral acceptance of aggression behavior against any peaceful individuals.
As a related aside, I worked an internship one summer in college in my state’s Department of Transportation. Those yellow speed signs that you see near hazardous road conditions are not (at least in my state) legal speed limits. They’re suggested speeds. I’ve done the work to determine that suggested speeds. Some people determine the safe speed and then take off another 5 to 10 mph “just to be safe.” So if you’re a driver and you consistently see these yellow speed signs that are way off, you’re going to start ignoring them. That’s fine until there’s a sign whose suggested speed is actually the safe speed. At that point, you give yourself some serious issues. Because of this, I usually read the road around curves, bends, hills, etc. in order to determine on my own how to safely navigate. You have average, everyday people determining these conditions. People who make mistakes. You should see some of these horrendous construction jobs that get done on government roads. I’ve looked at drawings that looked NOTHING like the actual road in the field. This of course could happen on private roads, but you shouldn’t necessarily feel safe on government roads because you feel that the government has your best interest in mind.
Neel, I am enjoying this discussion and since you said you are a to-be doctor perhaps you can provide some more insight to the hospital example. My first question about the scenario you described is “Is there a law that prevents that from happening?” I am not familar with one, but I am also not a doctor so perhaps there is one you know of.
Fortunately I have not spent much time in a hospital. I did have to go in for emergency surgery one time though. And they asked me some questions in the emergency room to get to know what was going on, as well as check for any allergies and get my insurance information. I would like to think that if I just jumped into a hospital bed in front of someone’s dying mother, that a doctor or nurse would come in and tell me I need to go to the emergnecy room first so they can follow protocol. I doubt he would immediately tend to me and perform surgery based on no information, while ignoring the dying mother waiting in the ER.
I guess my question is, what would you do? You are (or will be) a doctor, so how would you handle the situation if there wasn’t a law telling you what to do (although like I said I am not sure there is one). Would you tend to the hung over college kid who just jumped in a bed or would you follow protocol and treat whoever the ER has deemed “next up”.
I agree with Rollo that a hospital that would treat the hung over guy simply because he jumped in a bed first wouldfn’t last very long. Just because there isn’t a law telling doctors what to do, I would imagine they would still have rules and protocol inside the hospital walls. Afterall, doctors tend to be bright people who chose to help others as a profession. I think they would figure it out without a government telling them what to do.
Goodluck studying for your boards and we can push this further when you have some time.
You guys have written some great, long comments that I unfortunately can’t do justice to right now, but I did want to quickly chime in with what I’d do in that situation (assuming talking to the patient doesn’t work): simple, call security. I am not about to get myself involved in that situation any more than I have to, I don’t know his mental state, I don’t know if he’s going to be violent or not. We have a way of handling people who are in the ED that aren’t supposed to be there; I have no interest in taking matters into my own hands.
And my point wasn’t that the hospital would actually treat the guy or not. It’s that they can’t treat your mother until he gets out. And if he’s staked his claim, and we have no system that we have all agreed upon beforehand, well, we’re going to end up in a messy situation quickly.
Just as a teaser for when I am able to give this all more thought. I’m not saying that laws are INHERENTLY fair or have everyone’s best interest at heart. But making up rules on the fly is going to get you in really sticky situations whenever things aren’t cut and dry. That’s the thing, we’ve been dealing with pretty simple scenarios here. If I have a dying patient with no living will, no durable power of attorney and who is unable to communicate his/her treatment wishes, there is a system in place for who gets to make decisions. If we tried to just come up with that as we went along, and just assumed everyone would behave rationally, how do you think that would turn out in 90% of cases?
Calling security is the best course of action, I think we’d all agree about that. Since it’s the hospital’s property, they would be allowed to remove anyone from the hospital that they want.
I won’t write another long comment, but if you find the time, here’s a great video by David Friedman called the Machinery of Freedom. It describes how those rules would occur without a system being set in place by a government.
I’ve been doing some thinking on this issue and came up with a few points in support of traffic laws. First is DUI. I don’t know the statistics on how effective these laws have been in deterring drunk driving, but I have to believe that the large fines and license suspensions make this offense less palatable than simply speeding. The other point is in regard to probable cause. I used to patrol an area known for its high volume of drug trafficking. After a few months I was able to familiarize myself with the “usual suspects” and hot drug spots. On many occassions, I observed people behave in a fashion that was consistent with purchasing an illegal substance. If the individual entered a vehicle and drove away, I commonly used minor traffic infractions as probable cause to conduct stops. This lead to solid arrests and seizures of drugs and weapons.
Just found this blog via a link someone posted elsewhere. I am inclined to agree.
“The reason I stay on the right isn’t because it is illegal to drive on the left, it is because traffic is coming at me on the left.” I’ve often had the same thought.
“Neel, you seem to be begging the question that laws exist only if they are legislated by a government body.” Proper use of “begging the question”! Beautiful!
The problem with speed limits is that they cannot really approximate the actual safe speed in any given situation with any reasonable accuracy. Safe speed depends on a huge number of factors: the driver’s skill, attention, state of alertness, etc.; the capabilities and condition of the vehicle; the weather; the surface; etc. etc. etc. The breadth of range and the number of permutations make it almost impossible to determine a speed that would be reasonable relative to the upper end of possible situations and safe relative to the lower. An indifferent driver on medication for a fever in a meagrely-maintained 1985 Oldsmobile might be unsafe at 15mph in the same environment in which an alert enthusiast driver in an oft-wrenched-on Lotus 7 clone might be safe at 75mph.
Most of us would be somewhere in between. Where does one peg the limit? Do we all drive at the same speed as the guy with the thermometer in his mouth? Would that be reasonable?
In light of this the speed that feels safe really becomes a useful determinant. I should generally have no objection to trusting it.
One problem is that traffic engineers tend to design roads that feel safe at speeds beyond the capabilities of many. This is one of the reasons I tend to favour encroachment/consensus-based public space (even if maintained in a somewhat patchwork manner by diverse agencies) a la Roderick Long et al over private roads a la Walter Block et al. I’m all for patched and potholey roads, given both the right and the opportunity to be very clever with suspension.
From Merriam-Webster: “law: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”
I’m not begging the question so much as sticking to the definition. You and I can set up any sort of rules for ourselves, but those aren’t laws.
Rollo can make it a *rule* (or, I suppose, a law for his country of one) that he will use physical force against someone who steals from him. Great, more power to him. The problem is that no one else has to recognize his “law.” That’s where things get messy.
Again, to everyone, I’m happy to continue this discussion at length in roughly a month. For now I just felt the need to jump in, since I’ve been called out twice now for something I don’t believe I’m doing.
Understand your lack of time to give better answers, Neel. We’ll be patient. It’s been fun debating, so it’ll be worth the wait. In the meantime, I’m going to pick one or two things that you said…
“I’m not begging the question so much as sticking to the definition. You and I can set up any sort of rules for ourselves, but those aren’t laws.”
By your own definition that you gave, a law is “a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized or enforced by a controlling authority.” Do I not have the right to make laws (given that definition) regarding my property?
“Rollo can make it a *rule* (or, I suppose, a law for his country of one) that he will use physical force against someone who steals from him. Great, more power to him. The problem is that no one else has to recognize his “law.” That’s where things get messy.”
Sure, someone can still steal from me, just like someone can break traffic laws. Breaking either of them entails the threat of violent action as retaliation.
If you do want anyone smoking in your house, what do you with someone who walks into your home and lights up a cigarette?