So Mr. Ramadoss has finally banned smoking in public places.
As a non-smoker I must support the ban, but then is the ban effective? On the very first day that the ban had to be implemented news channels were showing railways and other government officials smoking away to glory on the small screen.
How does the minister go about implementing the ban? Use more of tax-payers money and increase the number of police recruits to go hunting for violators? As if they don’t already have enough terrorists on their hands! And won’t this create another opportunity for corruption? The point here is that the intention was good but the planning has gone all wrong. Why paint ‘yahan peshab karna mana hai’ on a wall when you can’t ensure that you do something about those who do so? Just another way for the common man to release the constantly building pressure by way of peeing on the rules! The pun is intended.
OK, enough said about what was done, or rather undone. Time for what should have been done.
Let us look at all the people involved here. First on the list are the smokers- those who’ll get directly affected if any action is taken. Second are the action takers, the government- the people’s representatives in the democratic state of India. Third, and maybe the most important, are the people who force the ‘democratic’ government into action. In this case the third category is that of non-smokers. But hey, why are they concerned if someone wishes to smoke his way to an early death? Well, friends and relatives definitely have a problem. And then there are those who are forced into passive smoking. These people want compensation for what is forced upon them for the pleasure of the first category of people. Does banning smoking in public places give the non-smokers their compensation? One might argue that past compensation should be forgotten, at least the new ban ensures that no further harm is inflicted upon them. But doesn’t that depend upon the implementation of the ban. Isn’t there any better way?
Sure there is- the free market! Why not substitute the ban with a tax on cigarettes? The intelligent mind asks a few questions-
Won’t those who have more money still manage to smoke?
What should the tax amount be?
What about the resentment from tobacco industry? After all it employs so many people in this country.
One by one I’ll take up all the questions.
First about this idea of a tax widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Well, don’t those who can afford to do so ride in the snazziest of cars? Don’t the rich enjoy more luxurious meals each day? More importantly don’t they have access to better medical facilities? Why not protect the poor from the harms of smoking? The gap is already there. Let it serve a better purpose for once. And this is not what I feel. The government approach is to discourage smoking. Why not work with those people first who cannot afford to undo the harm?
Next, the tax amount. Well the only way to find out is to introduce a tax. Think of free markets. Let those who have the will and power to spend expose themselves. The price of something is not its MRP. It is the willingness of a person to part with a certain sum of money. The more money someone is willing to part with, the more the price. That is how free markets work. If they are willing they’ll spend. If not then a change in patterns will be seen. A similar example is that of London where people’s traveling pattern changed when the authorities started charging a sum for traveling in the heart of the city. People gave up cars and started using bicycles and public transport. Car-pooling increased. The authorities had approached the situation with the idea of reducing congestion on the roads, thus when the congestion was reduced to optimum levels that value of the charged money was the price of traveling. It is simple mathematics. Two variables the amount of sum charged and the number of vehicles that hit the road. Both influence each other and the money raised is a multiple of both. Equilibrium is achieved when a change to any of the variables reduced the amount of money raised. This is how free market functions. The problem of smoking is similar. Now don’t ask me why the government shouldn’t levy a hefty tax and discourage one and all from smoking. The answer, some might not like this, is because the government needs money. Quitting smoking needs help of medical practitioners and is most effectively achieved in groups; all this requires money. More people will be willing to quit if government takes care of the cost of patches and chewing gum. The money can be used to set up quitting centers. There is another reason that will come into picture as I answer the next question.
About the tobacco industry- well, the tax will hurt them, but so does a correctly implemented ban. The only respite they have with the ban is the knowledge that it wont be correctly implemented. Believing that the government wants otherwise, the government does not give a damn about those who make a lot of money from tobacco industry. Tobacco can always be exported if the domestic demand falls. Thus the livelihood of many is not affected. Moreover some part of the tax money raised can be diverted to providing employment to those who lose jobs due to the tobacco industry taking a hit. Employment will be generated because the freshly set up ‘quit-smoking’ centers will require workers. Besides even a correctly implemented ban will cause employment problems, so it is fair to assume that the government has done its calculations. Thus these new centers will solve some of the employment problems of the country outside the unemployment caused by any step taken against smoking.
Thus, if a tax is implemented some people gain without others losing. This is called economic efficiency.
Recent Comments