[From "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: The Real Costs of Smoking Bans & Tax Increases
"
by Frank Seltzer]
This year, the drumbeat for smoking bans across the country will continue to get louder. The advocates say that bans protect people and come with no cost to the city or state. They will cite studies showing that business increases after a ban, and will also argue for more taxes on tobacco to help balance budgets. And, they contend, the taxes offset health care costs caused by smoking. The trouble is, this is not true. A look at the facts may help stop the rolling tide.
Just before Christmas in 2008, like lemmings worldwide, the Dallas City Council met with a preordained idea to expand the city's smoking ban from just restaurants to any enclosed space, meaning bars would fall under the ban effective April 2009. (In 2003, under a different mayor but one just as antitobacco as the current one, the city banned smoking in restaurants.) The ordinance as presented by staff and pushed by Mayor Tom Leppert was said to be able to be implemented with no cost to the city. No cost? That's what the nonsmoking zealots will tell you—that this can be done and the city or state will have to bear no cost. Except on that winter day in Dallas, buried deep in the analysis was this statement: "The additional cost for the enforcement of the ordinance is estimated to be $271,000." Wait... what? I thought this would not cost the city anything; guess a quarter of a million is nothing to politicians. But nonsmoking advocates say that this can be made up in fines. Not so much. In the first year since the ban went into effect, a Dallas newspaper reported that the city wrote a total of 163 citations. Assuming none of the citations were dismissed, that would translate into a whopping $32,600. Wow, what an investment; spend a quarter-million and reap a return of about 12 cents on the dollar. Sign me up! Unfortunately, it does not stop there.
From "Energy Efficient Madness:
How Many Congressman Does It Take to Screw the Light Bulb?"
by Sam Kazman
The man at your door appears to be either a salesman or a home inspector. He's got some brochures and a clipboard, and he's saying something about saving you money. The last time you had a visitor like this, he was from the municipal recycling authority, and he'd come to inform you that cigarette and cigar butts were now to be placed in your recycling bin rather than in your trash. You thought he was kidding— until he pulled out some study on the use of tobacco-butt extracts to protect steel against corrosion. That'll teach me to question authority, you might have said to yourself.
But this guy is different. "I'm talking about things that will save you money," he says. "They might seem pricey at first but, in the long run, you'll profit."
You offer to take a brochure and think about it, but he won't leave. You try to thank him for his concern for your financial well-being, but he still won't leave. Persistent guy, this Mr. X. You begin to gently close the door on him, but he blocks it with a strategically placed foot. And before you know it, Mr. X is in your living room, taking over your coffee table with his papers and clipboard.
Mr. X acts like he's here to stay... and he is. He's a government agent. He's preaching the gospel of high efficiency. You don't have a choice in the matter because he's here to tell you what's coming, like it or not. In fact, a lot of it is already here.
