Comments on: Bureaucratic Agencies Reach ‘Compromise’ on Victoria Tobacco Signs http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2008/05/bureaucratic-agencies-reach-compromise-on-victoria-tobacco-signs/ Journal of a Successful Internet Entrepreneur Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:51:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Giuseppe http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2008/05/bureaucratic-agencies-reach-compromise-on-victoria-tobacco-signs/comment-page-1/#comment-8024 Giuseppe Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:06:58 +0000 http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2008/05/bureaucratic-agencies-reach-compromise-on-victoria-tobacco-shop/#comment-8024 Being libertarian-leaning myself, I totally agree with you. However, there's a valid argument as to the negative externalities of smoking. That is, people are negatively effected by others' smoking, who aren't compensated for it through the market or otherwise. Those people are the ones who have to inhale people's smoke, people who's property is near that of *other* people smoking, and people who have to pay the taxes that go towards our public healthcare system (which is another issue entirely). The main problem with most of these "bad areas" is the externality factor. Pollution (businsesses aren't adequately "charged" for the negative effect they lend to others - because we don't know how to measure / price it), smoking, and even the balance between taxation / freedoms and crime. It's very difficult to strike a balance to "cover" the costs of the externalities, without creating new ones, or sacrificing a range of inalienable rights. That said, as for the *advertising* of a legal substance, I don't have a clue how that legislation ever got passed. That's up there nearly as dumb as mandating that gas stations close their doors and use a transaction window at 11, or the mandated pay-before-you-pump "don't let me run my own business" crap that they're doing now. Being libertarian-leaning myself, I totally agree with you. However, there’s a valid argument as to the negative externalities of smoking. That is, people are negatively effected by others’ smoking, who aren’t compensated for it through the market or otherwise. Those people are the ones who have to inhale people’s smoke, people who’s property is near that of *other* people smoking, and people who have to pay the taxes that go towards our public healthcare system (which is another issue entirely).

The main problem with most of these “bad areas” is the externality factor. Pollution (businsesses aren’t adequately “charged” for the negative effect they lend to others - because we don’t know how to measure / price it), smoking, and even the balance between taxation / freedoms and crime.

It’s very difficult to strike a balance to “cover” the costs of the externalities, without creating new ones, or sacrificing a range of inalienable rights.

That said, as for the *advertising* of a legal substance, I don’t have a clue how that legislation ever got passed. That’s up there nearly as dumb as mandating that gas stations close their doors and use a transaction window at 11, or the mandated pay-before-you-pump “don’t let me run my own business” crap that they’re doing now.

]]>