Argument: Restrictions benefit the health of third parties

This argument is built on the premise that a ban or higher taxation in practice will lead to less smokers, especially protecting the families of smokers and other non-smoking citizens from potential health risks and premature death.

Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called 'passive smoking' is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Especially when it comes to homes and families there is a high likelihood of "passive smoking". Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Recent research even shows, that according to the Journal Archives of Pediatrics, children living in households of smokers are more prone to mental illness, depression and attention deficit disorder (ADHD)1.

So because restrictions on smoking prevent harm risks to families of smokers and third parties we should highly regulate or ban them.

1 Anits M. Schimizzi, 'Special Editorial: Smoke Signals How Second Hand Smoke Can Impact Your Child's Mental Health, Child-Psych, 10 August 2011, accessed 6 September 2011

Candidate 1: "Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with

Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society.

This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves.

The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom."
Candidate 2: "First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes.

Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.

Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option."
Candidate 3: "Democratic systems should educate on smoking rather than restrict it

The principle of democracy is to let people make their decisions and to ensure, that the decisions they make are as informed as possible. Due to the maximization of an individual's happiness the government should only have the possibility to give information to their citizens and let them all decide, how they want to make use of their freedom of choice.

One of the options is a targeted campaign against smoking and information on smoking harms. Actually, the National Bureau for Economic research states that there has not been enough investment in counteradvertising, which is designed to reduce consumption and also fits into the framework of a response function."The counteradvertising response function slopes downward and is subject to diminishing marginal product. The levels of counteradvertising that have been undertaken are small in comparison to advertising. The empirical work finds evidence that counteradvertising does reduce consumption."1

So before limiting the citizens freedoms the state should try the "soft line" with informing their citizens.

1 Henry Saffer, The Effect of Advertising on Tobacco and Alcohol Consumption, The National Bureau for Economic Research, published Winter 2004,"
Candidate 4: "How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is?"
Candidate 5: "Regulation harms safety and the poor population

Cigarettes are so common that there is hardly any chance all the people will stop. What will happen is that policies, regarding tobacco regulation or banning will mainly restrict the possibilities of the poor.

In 2009, in the US, a law to triple the federal excise tax on cigarettes was signed, which meant that the federal tax on cigarette jumped from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 today. The administration projects, that such a "sin tax" will bring in at least $38 billion over the next five years. Smokers, usually coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds (getting welfare, unemployment or disability checks instead of paychecks) still pay the whole cigarette tax, while they do not get the same amount of funding as others. Anyone concerned about widening income inequality should have second thoughts about this distribution of the tax burden1. Effectively this means, that while a higher financial burden might not cause problems to high and middle class smokers, it will cause the poor smoker, to either limit the freedom of choice by not buying cigarettes or either make sure other necessities, such as food, other supplies will not be provided. In fact researchers estimate that in Bangladesh 10.5 million people are going hungry and 350 children are dying each day due to diversion of money from food to tobacco2.

The current situation is that poor turn to "shag" or rolling tobacco for self-made cigarettes, which may then be more harmful as the state cannot control it's ingredients as thorough or in the end even turn to the black market of tobacco farmers, where there is no control"
Candidate 6: "While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks."
Candidate 7: "This will open up a black market

The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband.

A case of this is India, where the contraband trade of cigarettes consists of the international brands that are smuggled into India and the duty evaded cigarettes manufactured domestically by small and unscrupulous manufacturers. "With steep duty increases over the last few years this segment has grown exponentially," the Tobacco Institute of India states1.

Not only is there a case to be made for a flourishing black market, countries lose with this control over the products and can harm their citizens even more with not controlling the consumed substances.

1 Ashish Sinha, High tax on cigarettesmaking contraband market flourish, The Financial Express, published 11/05/2010,"

First of all, a ban on smoking might just lead to people deciding to turn on to the black market for tobacco, not solving the problem of passive smoking or any other effects. Same also goes for the possibility of higher taxation, people might just choose a relocation of funds due to higher prices of cigarettes.

Further on, if we do accept the premise, that smoking will maybe decrease, the evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer.

Also it is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option.
