An interesting way of looking at things.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007...conomics_and_smoking

The most fundamental principle of economics is the law of demand, which postulates that the higher the cost of a behavior, the less people will do of it, while the lower the cost, the more people will do of it. The law of demand applies to any behavior, and I'm going to apply it to anti-smoking behavior. First, let's get the health issue out of the way because it has no relevancy to the particular principle under examination, which is how people respond to the cost of something.

The cost to nonsmokers to impose their will on smokers, say, in a restaurant, bar or airplane, is zero, or close to it. They just have to get the legislature to do their bidding. When the cost of something is zero, there's a tendency for people to take too much of it. You say, "Williams, in my book, there can never be too much smoke-free air!" Here's a little test. Say your car's out of gas and stuck in a blizzard. You wave me down for assistance. I say, "I'll be glad to give you a lift to safety, but I'm smoking in my car." How likely is it that you'll turn down my assistance in an effort to avoid tobacco smoke? You might be tempted to argue, "That's different." It's not different at all. The cost of a smoke-free environment is not what you're willing to pay.

Say you don't permit smoking in your house. When I visit, I offer to pay you $100 for each cigarette you permit me to smoke. Instantaneously, I've raised the cost of your maintaining a smoke-free environment. Retaining smoke-free air in your home costs the sacrifice of $100. Of course, I could offer you higher amounts, and economic theory predicts that at some price, you'll conclude your 100 percent smoke-free air isn't worth it.

Air that's either 100 percent smoke-filled or 100 percent smoke-free is probably sub-optimal. At zero prices there will either be too much smoking or too little smoking. The problem in our society is that laws have created too much smoke-free air. To a large degree, it's the fault of smokers, who haven't created a cost to smoke-free air. My rule is by no means absolute. There are instances where I put up with zero-priced smoke-free air, and there are other instances where I don't. It all depends on the cost to me. I think other smokers ought to adopt the same agenda. Say you're asked to do some volunteer work. You might answer, "Yes, if I'm allowed to smoke." This strategy might also be a nice way to get out of doing something without saying no. Just ask whether smoking is permitted.

The economic lesson to extract from all of this is that zero prices lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and it doesn't just apply to the smoking issue. How would you like zero prices at the supermarket or clothing store? If there were, what do you think you'd see on the shelves when you arrived? If you said, "Nothing, because people would take too much," go to the head of the class.



Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.

Yet another super, common sense filled article by Mr Williams.

Outstanding.

If I'm interpreting his "economics" correctly, he's telling smokers its time to make "smokefree" costly to governments and businesses by not spending our money where such laws/rules exist. When it costs the state loss of tax revenues and businesses loss of income in sufficient amounts, they will reconsider whether the loss is worth the smokefree air. If only smokers would join forces for a total boycott, what a difference it would make. Unfortunately, no such national movement has ever been successful. Yet. Maybe they'll finally get fed up enough to do something about it.

yes, his economics is exactly that...
if you build the smoker free whatever-We The Smoker Will Not Come..

I'm doing my part. Since DC enacted a total ban on January 1st, I haven't patronized any bars or restaurants there.

As I've stated MANY times on various websites-you HAVE GOT to have as much sheer hatred for them as they do for YOU, and keep it fanned, otherwise, yopu'll get over the bans, and just bend over and take it. I've been chided for my attitude, but it's nonetheless true. Hatred is a good thing IF channeled properly. At least, that's the way it used to be in this country. Now it's not PC to do it-unless you rabidly hate smokers, of course.

I go further than refusing to go to bars and restaurants in DC. I no longer go to any retail establishment of any kind also. My office is in DC but I now spend $0.00 in this city. I used to spend $30-$50 a day here. My daily vote is the space I no longer occupy at the cash register since the gay/black alliance of this city council said they did not want my money. They eagerly voted for my discrimination. No problem, my wallet opens very wide in Virginia.

I think the country is paying a cost for smoke free air, not that they realize it. As fewer and fewer people attend venues those venues have to increase prices to support the venue. Eventually they price themselves out of the market and close. At that point there is smoke free air in a vacant venue.

The same is true of industry. If over time, people are working less then they have less to spend on not only entertainment, but cars, homes, appliances, computers, etc.

Smoke free air also limits productivity of those of us who rely on smoking to keep our minds working properly. As our minds wonder we are no longer being creative, we do what we must for as long as we must and then leave. Our imaginations are turned off and enhancements we might have created are left for someone else to make.

Look at the imagination of the current television schedule or on movie screens. How much reality Television can we watch, I can't watch any. There is some imagination coming from writers but mostly they work alone.

What innovative software has been introduced since the California Smoking Ban? What has been the real benefit of anything coming out of Microsoft lately? What is the benefit of dual core processing, two cpus on the same chip?

This country and the world are lacking in imagination to solve any of it's problems as the creative people have had their minds turned off.

Society is paying a price for smoke free air.

Bang on, Bruce! Innovation and creativity do not flourish in repressive environments. This is one of the two greatest costs of suppression. The other as the failed efforts of Prohibition and the War on Drugs show, is the loss civil liberties.

Unfortunately not even as able an economist as Dr Williams cannot cost out the effects of lowered innovation and lessened liberty. All that can be said is that these intangibles are far too costly over the years yet to come to be tolerated.

What can we do? Organize (something the smokers in NM didn't do). Withold our money from any location or business which supports or perhaps even acknowledges the existence of a ban.

Bostonray, it's been a while - good to hear from you.

Everyone is right - we MUST stop spending anywhere that is "smokefree". Look what happened to Six Flags; they went smokefree, and have suffered huge economic losses.

As for Virginia, it is teetering on the brink. The legislature passed a compromise (banned in restaurants unless a "smoking permitted" sign is prominently displayed) and the governor - one man - with the stroke of his pen can turn it into a complete ban. I find that scary in the very state where American liberty had its birth.

Folks, it's time to fight back. Big time.

quote:

As for Virginia, it is teetering on the brink. The legislature passed a compromise (banned in restaurants unless a "smoking permitted" sign is prominently displayed) and the governor - one man - with the stroke of his pen can turn it into a complete ban. I find that scary in the very state where American liberty had its birth.

Folks, it's time to fight back. Big time.

Indeed, VA is on the brink. Please call/write/e-mail the governor - the more he hears from us the better. Like its been said here many times, our silence has made us invisible. Tell the governor that the "threat" of second hand smoke is a LIE and if it is banned, we will stay home where we can eat drink and smoke for less money. The difference will stay in our pockets and they can raise the prices for the non-smokers. This has actually happened in many places where smoking has been banned. Local smokey dives with cheap beer have been replaced by brightly-lit yuppy places that charge $15 for an avocado sandwhich and $8 for some obscure microbrew beer. The dives always had their loyal customers but the smoke-free sterile places that have replaced them rarely have more than a few customers there at a time-they can only last so long.

Since my last post on the VA subject earlier today, I spent some time searching the media. From all the reports I gather that Kaine is depending on the lower house of the VA legislature to protect citizens against the results of his political zeal.

He changes the legislation on his desk to a total ban. The upper house goes along. The lower doesn't. The antis boo the bums, cheer the gov. At least that's the way it looks to an outsider who has never lived closer to the Old Dominion than its neighbor to the south.

At least here in NM, the Gov took the heat directly without any attempt to shuck the responsibility for sanity as well as the political heat from the antis on to a segment of the Legislature. Our Governor Bill might be other than the brightest bulb in the sign but at least he is willing to take the heat.

Kaine made some outlandish statement about why he modified the bill passed by the assembly to require restaurants that allow smoking to post a "smoking permitted" sign into a total ban in restaurants. He said that he was still opposed to a widespread ban but only wanted to target restaurants, their employees and patrons. Given that freestanding bars that don't serve food don't exist in Virginia - this is exactly a widespread ban and Kaine is your typical double-talking politician. we can only hope that the assembly will kill this legislation since it is not what they voted for. Then again, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded anits have been hard at work here since last year when they got the senate to pass a ban after lobbying them to vote on it twice (it failed the first time) - something that doesn't happen often, especially in Virginia which has a very short legislative session. With money anything is possible. Kaine also pushed for requiring the cervical cancer vaccine that Merck has been lobbying for, so we know who's pocket he is in.

We are working equally hard to defeat Kaine's ban; his staff had little interest in hearing our opinions, particularly regarding the bogus science. He is a governor of the well-heeled special interest, not the people of Virginia.

During his campaign, he said he was against a ban. If it passes, I hope all those workers and businesses owners who lose their livelihood will remember his promises are worth nothing should Kaine decide to seek another office.

quote:

During his campaign, he said he was against a ban. If it passes, I hope all those workers and businesses owners who lose their livelihood will remember his promises are worth nothing should Kaine decide to seek another office.

I have learned not to trust any politician who says he or she is against smoking bans. Too many have and then end up giving in to the antis.

How true they end up siding with the antis, Nick, how true. That's why Romney, McCain and Huckabee would never get my vote for President -they enacted total smoking bans in their states or, in McCain's case, supported anti-tobacco politicians. Huckabee, of course, signed the Arkansas smoking ban in cars with children.