by Simon Wright

Created on: February 23, 2007   Last Updated: February 19, 2010

Smoking bans have been introduced in the UK and in Ireland and have generally been lauded as a success. There were several reasons why the smoking bans were introduced, which will be relevant to considering whether such bans should be extended to the United States and other countries.

Why smoking bans were introduced in the UK and Ireland:

Smoking is an anti social habit that directly impinges upon the health and comfort of others and which imposes strain (and cost) upon a nation’s health services. Health professionals, consumer groups, and pub/restaurant workers campaigned for the introduction of the smoking ban, with smokers and pub owners opposing it. The move to ban smoking in public places also fits in with the governments’ ongoing efforts to reduce addiction to cigarettes, to improve the health of their citizens.

Civil liberties arguments and justifying the imposition of a ban:

Liberal societies should, in general, be very cautious about restricting the rights of its individuals. However, we all recognise that some restrictions are morally justified. For example, no-one would argue that it should be legal to go around killing people. Similarly, most would agree that there should be age-related restrictions on certain activities such as driving a car or having sex, although there might be disagreement upon at what age one sets the restriction.

The key for governments is to make such decisions based upon sound principles, rather than just chasing votes by following the latest trend in consumer attitudes. With regards to restricting the liberties of individuals, the best principle to follow is “The Harm Principle” as first outlined by John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle:

Mill argued that the sole purpose of law should be 'to stop people from harming others'. In other words, if someone is doing something that causes harm to themselves but to no-one else, then they should be allowed to do it. An example is gambling.

With smoking, however, it has clearly and irrefutably been proved that smoking causes harm to others who are exposed to it. Disease and death caused by passive smoking is a fact.

Under the harm principle, therefore, it is perfectly justifiable to ban smoking in public places to reduce the harm that other people will suffer if exposed to their smoke. You could also conclude from this principle that smokers should be allowed to smoke on their own (perhaps in the comfort of their home or perhaps in smoking cubicles).

The economic argument:

One group who have continued to oppose the smoking ban is pub owners as they have seen a loss in revenue, despite the fact that smokers are allowed to smoke outside of pubs. However, if one looks at the economic argument in its bigger context, then the smoking ban should prove beneficial for those countries that introduce it, as the burden on their already stretched health services will fall.

Summary:

It is perfectly justifiable to impose bans on smoking in public places, and such transitions have been proven to be remarkably smooth despite the vehement protests of smoker lobbies in the run up to their introduction. 

Learn more about this author, Simon Wright.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.