This will harm other people in their house. This is important, since small infants or babies would be in the houses that are not old enough to choose freely to smoke passively. Lastly, it would be impossible to ban smoking, like prohibition in the US, where the USA banned alcohol. Gangsters take advantage of the ban and would earn money by selling cigarettes at a higher price. The gangs increase in numbers which means an increase in government problems.
Even though there are many people claims that banning smoking in the public will bring many benefits to the society, however, this statement is only up to a certain extent. In fact, there are many arguments that disagree with the legalisation of banning smoking in the public area. Banning smoking would infringe a person’s choice and right and affect the business and economy of a country. The government should not implement the smoking ban in the public it is because banning smoking is an act of infringing a person’s choice and right. The government should not regulate a person’s choice and right just because smoking is harmful.
Studies show that when people quit smoking they spend their money in different sectors of the economy creating more jobs and economic growth. Tobacco consumption in countries that had a ban showed a dramatic decrease in consumers compared to countries that did not have the ban in place. The ban on tobacco only works if it is properly implemented and tobacco control policies are intact. The opposition of the ban contend that the government is overstepping boundaries by telling adults that they are not able to decide what is good or bad for themselves. Also they argue that individuals who smoke are doing so of their own free will and that they know the effects of smoking and decide to smoke anyway.
This situation gives the government an opportunity to raise revenues without jeopardizing its popularity that much. (Matton and Wetmore, 2015) Sin taxes are envisioned in discouraging users’ participation in such behaviors that society considers undesirable while at the same time raise revenues to help in compensating society for cost incurred from such behaviors. Sin taxes are also a case of a win-win scenario. Economics dictates that sin taxes are marginally more beneficial to society perhaps a reflection of why it is popular to most people. Prasad (2010) argued that few people will fight for low taxes on their booze the
Profit and money are the driving factors behind so many things, that people are not very motivated to eradicate something that earns them billions of dollars. Yes, legislation such as those to reduce secondhand smoke positively affect health outcomes, but I feel it is not enough. Tobacco is a legal substance despite its known negative, sometimes fatal repercussions. There is a plethora of research regarding the deadly and harmful effects of smoking and cigarette use, yet it is a legal substance used by millions. I think that the government needs to forget the profit aspect and focus on its citizens health.
As per the increase in the taxation, the price of the products will increase and can lead to lower consumption by the consumers and hence affect negatively on the company. (c) The Cable Television Network (Regulation) Amendment Bill, prohibits alcohol advertisements. Hence the marketing advertisements of liquor products cannot be aired on televisions, and restricts the company advertising campaign. 3. Economic Factors.
Moreover, the total money stock in circulation along with spending will decrease. As demand for goods and services drops, businesses will have to accept a loss on profit margins and absorb the high input cost and reduce the prices in order to encourage sales. On the other hand, tightening policy could be harmful to the economy if economic agents does not accept to loss profit and to absorb cost burden. 2. Price control - is another policy that can be used to combat inflation.
The myth that Systembolaget is only trying to make a profit can be debunked by the fact that alcohol and its effects create losses for the government. The government does receive large sums through VAT and alcohol tax but the cost to society due to abuse of alcohol is a lot higher. According to 2011’s Missbruksutredningen (Translated: abuse inquiry), alcohol creates a cost to society of 49 to 66 billion Swedish kronor ($6-8 billion). The government isn’t trying to exploit consumers but protect them and society from the effects of alcohol abuse. Price Elasticity of Demand for Alcohol Price elasticity of demand measures the responsiveness of quantity demanded of a good to a change in price.
This result can manifest itself in two ways. The first is political instability. "Although oil money may initially calm the population fluctuations, the rent of the situation that can drastically reduce the country's oil production, which in the country, reducing expenses." Regardless of price changes, these high levels of government spending usually can not be maintained in the long run anyway, due to the nature of non-renewable resources. As oil reserves sun rental situation, usually raises taxes on its citizens to keep spending.
For example the Philippine peso to US dollar would matter in this way- if the prices of dollars go up, Americans would invest in the Philippines because their money can do more investments. Or in the case of smaller exchange rates, it can mean getting cheaper labor but is also a ground for exploitation. The status of either being developed, developing and underdeveloped becomes an issue. While the Philippines as developing economy is certainly good for electronics market, however a country with a bad economy is where those gadget wizards would avoid as much as