The Pros And Cons Of A Smoking Ban

enjoying food when compared to enjoying food in a bar”. Now, if I were to take this as a reason, then the very idea of a smoke ban can result in a positive impact on the restaurant as more non-smokers would enter restaurants which improve employment. But, on the other hand, a bar which is primarily known for smokers and drinkers and only as a secondary room for food will definitely have a negative impact on its employment. Another possible example which we can give is: assume there are 10 friends of which 6 of them are smokers and the other 4 are non-smokers. Also assume that they frequently visit a bar to smoke and drink. But, if I were to impose a smoke ban, it would desensitise them from visiting them because of their inability to smoke

I had earlier explained about how a ban is simply not a strong enough incentive for smokers to quit. There is always a possibility of them identifying other methods to continue smoking. It is true for one to ask can’t they not substitute tobacco for something else? As earlier pointed out, I am treating smoking as an essential good only on the basis that it is addictive which is very similar to the idea of salt being treated as necessary good which cannot be substituted. To conclude this reason, a policy maker will have to do more than just a ban on smoking as I had earlier stated that a simple ban will not have much impact. But, it is still important to understand that I don’t intend to say that there will never be a reduction in the number of smokers through anti-smoking laws. It does. But, as we saw from the 1st graph, we can see that the number of people who stop smoking reduces through awareness rather than taxing the smokers. As a policy maker, the aim would be to shift the demand curve and the increase in price or a ban does not shift the demand curve. A shift in the demand curve has a higher impact when compared to just a change in the

This answer is pretty obvious when it comes to any kind of ban. A ban in general would affect the economy of its country and if another country depends on a particular product which is banned, then its economy also gets affected.

For instance, the classic example is the ban on export of crude oil in the United States. First, let us see why lifting the ban (I also mean to say- non-existence of ban) has an impact on the economy. In case of lifting the ban on crude oil would result in gasoline becoming cheaper by increasing the world supply of crude oil and also that is the price set in the international market. Now, this is clear evidence on why international community gets involved. In Mankiw’s principles of economics, trade makes everyone better off. This means that if a country depends on one product which is banned in another country, the one depending on that product would be worse-off which can affect the economy in turn. What I am saying is that: A ban can result in a chain of events which can affect the global economy. The lifting of ban can also boost economic growth for the U.S as well as raise employment, wages among others. It can also result in reducing global price volatility by increasing the supply. It enables US allies to no longer depend upon Russia and China for other sources. It can end up enhancing world energy security and also create foreign policy