Yeah, and that establishment of smoke-free zones is what I was talking about.

If OTOH Marc is talking about actual taxing of cigarettes, that may be
about external health effects (measured by health care costs) as opposed to
the simple annoyance factor.

In any case, I take a purely utilitarian view toward these policies,
completely devoid of "moral" content.  Which was really my point to Marc:
not all policies are about morality, even if/when morality is sometimes
used to sell the policies to a general public (which is indeed quite
common, but that's driven by "what works" in public discourse as opposed to
any intent to justify policy rationally -- I think it's useful to
distinguish these things).

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 10:58 AM -0400 3/24/11, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>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...
>>>>
>>>>