Introduction and Context
Recently, Alejandro Faya, a colleague from El Universal, penned an insightful article titled “Prohibido prohibir,” which examines the justification of four recent bans: vape pens, genetically modified corn, bullfighting, and junk food in schools. Faya concludes that some bans are more justified than others.
In this piece, I aim to add another perspective: what’s the point of a prohibition if there isn’t an authority to ensure compliance? This question becomes particularly relevant when considering the complexities of enforcing certain bans.
Ease of Supervision: Tauromachia and Genetically Modified Corn
In the case of bullfighting and genetically modified corn, supervision appears relatively straightforward. Bullfighting venues like Plaza de Toros México charge admission fees, making it easier to monitor these activities. Genetically modified corn, though, grows slowly and remains stationary in fields, making it somewhat easier to supervise. However, this doesn’t guarantee perfect compliance; illegal cultivation of prohibited crops like marijuana, poppies, psychedelic mushrooms, and peyote (banned under Article 198 of the Federal Criminal Code since at least 1926) still occurs.
Challenges in Supervising Junk Food and Vape Pens
Supervising junk food and vape pens presents more significant challenges. Both are mass-market consumer goods, with consumers and sellers who can easily move around and remain unidentifiable. Informal vendors selling sweets and chips outside schools illustrate this point. While junk food can be banned within schools, students might still have easy access just outside school grounds.
Enforcing a vape pen ban would necessitate inspectors in almost every restaurant, bar, and nightclub across the country. This level of enforcement seems daunting.
Economic Implications of Prohibition
The economic effects of prohibition mirror those of price regulation. Prohibition equates to imposing a maximum price, creating a “black market” due to scarcity. This results in higher prices for the good and potentially lower quality, as unregulated goods may not meet minimum standards.
Moreover, prohibition eliminates the possibility of taxing the good. Such taxes could fund public health and education services aimed at reducing long-term consumption. For instance, Mexico’s College estimates that regulating instead of prohibiting vape pens could generate 7 billion pesos in tax revenue.
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Alternatives
Before implementing a prohibition, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should consider additional factors. For example, does banning genetically modified corn increase consumer prices in other markets using corn as an input, like beef and chicken? Could a vape pen ban lead to lower-quality, more harmful e-cigarettes? Would a bullfighting ban force worse treatment of bulls in less-known venues? To what extent can junk food school sales be controlled if vendors can simply sell it just outside school premises?
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: Does banning genetically modified corn raise consumer prices in other markets? A: Yes, it could increase prices for beef and chicken, which use corn as an input.
- Q: Could a vape pen ban result in lower-quality, more harmful e-cigarettes? A: There’s a risk that unregulated vape pens could be of lower quality and pose greater health risks.
- Q: Might a bullfighting ban lead to worse treatment of bulls in less-known venues? A: There’s a possibility that bulls could face harsher conditions in less-monitored venues.
- Q: How effective can junk food school sales bans be if vendors can sell it just outside school grounds? A: Limited, as vendors could easily circumvent the ban by selling junk food just outside school premises.
