By "taxes don't cover all externalities" and your related argument, you 
surely mean that "price" is not to be regarded as a good equivalence for 
all things "utility", and by extension, cost cannot be a  good 
equivalence for all things externality.

I will grant that i believe this to be true also. However, it is 
sometimes necessary to run with the postulate that price is a good 
indicator of value, and that costs should account for negative 
externalities. It would take a specially trained mind in the doctrines 
of the free market to contend that prices naturally reflect such things 
as negative externalities, but in the example at hand, we deal with 
taxes and so with a regulated price.

The banning of smokes in restaurants, for example, is not about dealing 
with negative externalities in the sense that we usually ascribe this 
concept. I submit that in the example you provide, with a high tax on 
cigarettes, all externalities are meant to be covered, and if some are 
left unaccounted for, it can only be delt with by an increase in the 
degree in taxation and not by a change in the kind of regulation. A 
change in the kind of regulation does some good for your non-smoking 
humor, but it has nothing to do with taking negative externalities into 
account.

As you so aptly stipulated, the medium overseeing such a change in the 
kind of regulation is power. If coupled with equity and a neutral moral 
stance, *and a desire to keep the strategy of individualizing negative 
externalities in the cost*, power would deal with complaints of 
non-smokers like yourself by creating both smoke-free zones and some 
free-of-smoke-free zones *in the same category of establishment*. If, as 
a public policy, an administration would say that 30% of restaurants in 
every restaurant category will hold a smoking permit (have them rotating 
every five years or some equivalent equitable mechanism), then and only 
then does this kind of regulation becomes devoid of the sin-factor.

Nicolas

On 22/03/2011 11:49 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> 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...
>>>
>>>