Smoking Ban in Boston
Smoking Ban in Boston
Click 4 Top Sports Stories
Smoking Ban in Boston
On May 5, 2003, the “Workplace Smoking Regulation” was implemented in the city of Boston. Smoking is prohibited in all workplaces and the owners and managers are responsible for complying with the smoking ban and enforcing its rules. This regulation falls under the category of property law since it establishes what people may and may not do with the resources they own. Moreover, the economic effects of such a regulation have been extensively discussed in a number of studies as restaurateurs and bar owners feared that the smoking ban would have negative effects on the profits of their businesses.
To begin with, “the legal conception of property is that of a bundle of rights over resources that the owner is free to exercise and whose exercise is protected from interference by others” . However, when externalities exist, the only restriction that owners face is that their use must not interfere with other people’s rights. Externalities refer to situations where there is an “uncompensated impact of one person’s actions on the well-being of a bystander.” In the case of smoking, the effect on bystanders is negative. Apart from having to deal with the nuisance of the smoke, second-hand smoking can be also damaging to the health. Since smokers are not required to compensate others for these negative effects, there is an overproduction of smoke and this smoking regulation has as a main purpose to allocate the responsibility to the party that can bear the burden with the least cost. According to this rule, smokers have the right to smoke in places that they privately own (e.g. their homes, cars) or in open air areas where their actions have no impact on bystanders. However, in public places, such as restaurants, bars, clubs, offices, movie theaters etc., the bystanders have the right to clean and fresh air. In other words, third parties have the right to prevent this nuisance from occurring.
When entitlements are clear, efficiency can be achieved. There are two ways to allocate rights, either through bargaining or through court decisions and legislation. In the case of smoking, entitlements could not be distributed through bargaining because of high transaction costs. There were a very large number of parties, these parties very hostile to each other in most cases, the behavior of some was unreasonable and the rights were not clear and simple. Legislation put this regulation into effect and property rights were established.
The main concern, however, is whether this regulation is Pareto efficient. “A particular situation is said to be Pareto efficient if it is impossible to change it so as to make at least one person better off without making another person worse off.” As a result of the smoking ban, employees’ exposure to second hand smoke is reduced and smokers have an incentive to quit since they feel alienated and inferior when they go outside in order to have a cigarette and then everyone can smell it. Moreover, productivity also increases since fewer days are lost due to illness and capital costs decrease because there is no need for frequent and extensive cleaning. In addition, surveys have shown “that restaurants in localities with smoke-free ordinances sell for a higher price than comparable businesses in areas with no restrictions on smoking” . Because of the restaurateurs’ and the bar owners’ concerns that the smoking ban will reduce their profits, a number of studies have been conducted. Within the first three months, their “predictions” were not brought to fruition. It was observed that the number of patrons present in bars and restaurants did not diminish.
Overall, it can be said that this regulation has brought about a Pareto efficient outcome. If this law is revoked, society’s welfare will decrease because the benefits mentioned above will be washed away and the smokers will have no incentive to cut down or even quit. Given that the profits of the businesses were not harmed, there are no other economic costs that can trigger a reassessment of the smoking ban.
To sum up, despite the fact that the “Workplace Smoking Regulation” has given rise to numerous protests, its implementation has led to an efficient outcome. People do have the right to choose their actions but in doing so they have to take into account the consequences on bystanders. Since such an externality exists, these entitlements internalize the effects of the overproduction of smoke. What is really attention-grabbing is the decision of the government to interfere so drastically. It is comprehensible, however, since the first measure the government took (division of areas in smoking and non-smoking) did not remedy fully the situation.
Disclaimer
The above essay was written by a college student and merely states opinions of a college student. However, if you feel strong about responding to the opinions stated, please write to articles@directorym.com and express your concerns.
Educational Content
Home