Taxes don't cover all externalities.  :-)

When a taxed-out-the-wazoo cigarette is nevertheless being smoked in my
presence, there is still a negative externality being shoved down my lungs,
which I really don't care for, personally.  It's a real and tangible cost
to me, and no amount of taxation will prevent any specific individual
occurrence.

Only regulations to create smoke-free zones can do that, and that's not
about morality.  I assume that Marc is complaining about regulations that
prohibit smoking indoors in many public places, including offices and
restaurants.  'Course they have those in NYC too, not sure why he picked on
SF in particular, its common in many urban cities these days, AIUI.  I
really appreciate those regulations because it means I can enjoy entering
those spaces without risk of having to remove myself from the premises
before I finish whatever I'm doing there.

If smoking did nothing other than make the smoker sick (as well as
satisfying the addiction, or on rare occasions burning down the smoker's
house) I wouldn't care at all.  This is not a moral issue for me about the
smoker; if it's a moral issue at all it's about giving non-smokers who are
physically reactive to second-hand smoke like me the right not to be
attacked as such.

I guess "fairness" depends on where you smoke, er, sit?

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 11:06 PM -0400 3/22/11, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>Don't know what the policies are in SF with regard smokers and non, but
>i'm presuming it all is a sin tax 'cause really, there aint that many
>externalities that aren't taken care of already by taxes on cigarettes
>(that is, if these are taxed to the level they are in Canada) ....
>
>I'm all for *not* socializing negative externalities, don't get me
>wrong, but what Mr. Perkel points out are definite irregularities in the
>act of doing so.
>
>Nicolas
>
>On 3/22/2011 8:17 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> You had me until you went for the car in SF.  ;-)
>>
>> That's about negative externalities, which are not sins but impose costs
>> on other people -- you're just paying for the costs you impose on others.
>>
>> I work in SF but live outside -- I rarely drive in, usually drive to BART
>> and ride in.  There's just no room for all those cars.  Congestion has a
>> price, and congestion is the price of population density (which has
>> networking benefits).  It's all trade-offs.
>>
>> Not *everything* is about religion...  ;-)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> PS:  As a non-smoker, I can't really deal with other people's second-hand
>> smoke, makes me choke -- it imposes a cost on me when I'm forced to
>> breathe it (or try to hold my breath until I can walk away).  So part of
>> this is about who gets to impose what costs on others, and gets to prevent
>> costs being imposed on themselves.
>>
>> So ultimately it's about power, not morality, though morality is often
>> offered up as an excuse for power-driven policies...
>>
>>