Economics for Environment
Many states have approved laws for the enforcement of smoking bans. Besides these restrictions prohibiting smoking in “public places,’ they also ban smoking in privately held property, such as restaurants, bars, hotel lobbies etc. which is frequented by the general public. Supporters of this ban are adamant that these bans are absolutely essential to eliminate, or reduce hazards to public health and welfare, and to safeguard the privileges and rights of customers and employees who are non-smokers. Proponents of this ban assert that these bans are completely justified since smoking indoors invokes a “negative externality” a useless phrase that usually is used to justify regulations in surrounding areas.
Further, they contend that smoking prohibitions influence individuals against smoking, which in effect decreases smokers in the social order. Ultimately, supporters contend that bans on smoking are necessary and must be acceptable, because of the health risks that are inherent with breathing in mouthfuls of air that they refer to as “second-hand smoke”. The basic purpose of this measure is that government enforced bans are unjustified because of any inherent market failure, or as the measures for influencing the view that one person, object, or course of action is more desirable than another, or a choice based on such a view.
Enforcing smoking bans in public decreases public welfare since it divides public places into the most and least advantageous. A lenient and tolerant attitude is much more effective towards efforts to influence smoking in public places. “The Externality Argument, the standard rationalization for parameters of the outdoor air and water contends that this prohibition is necessary to contest the badly organized arguments that are an essential part of negative externalities. The idea of “externalities” is very perceptive, because basically it makes sense that the actions of someone could dilute the happiness or satisfaction of another person. A negative externality inconveniences people and enforces a price on someone else.
The thing is that governments seek to use the concept of externalities for formulating public policies. But the question is: do externalities really have significance in economics? The cost of negative externalities is usually not borne by the procedure or party that creates them. As an example the owner (s) of a factory that pollutes does not bear the expenses connected with the pollutants, such as waste, disgusting odor, which pose health hazards for the people living in adjoining and surrounding areas. When organizations and administration are responsible for negative externalities, they take advantage of invoking these negative externalities to the maximum, as they enjoy the full remuneration, but not the costs or damages of their activities.