Background
There is a growing debate on whether the government should make it illegal to smoke in public places. Those proposing for its ban argue that smoking has harmful effects on both the smoker and non-smokers as well as to the environment. However, those opposing the ban maintain that smoking helps relax and making smoking in public places illegal would amount to infringement of personal rights. A smoking ban refers to a public policy prohibiting smoking in public places. Cigarettes contain more than 4,000 different chemicals and at least 50 of these contain poisonous carcinogens (Hudson 24). The first reports of adverse health effects of smoking were published in 1964 (Hudson 35). This led to the passage of the first law requiring labeling of cigarette packages , followed a few years by bans on cigarette advertising on radio and TV (Pampel 78).
Argumentative Dialogue on banning smoking in public places
Jim: I think the government should ban smoking in public places
Mark: But why does it seem that many people are still smoking?
Jim: You know, some people are not aware of the negatives effects of smoking on themselves as well as non-smokers around them.
Mark: But I do not regret my smoking habits. I have smoked for more than five years, yet I have not experienced any problem with my habit.
Jim: I am aware that some people smoke for the whole of their life and never experience any problem. However, all cigarette smoking in public places should be banned because of the adverse effects of “passive smoking” on non-smokers.
Observation
Jim: I guess my main observation here is that smoking in public expose innocent non-smokers to harmful substances that will cause disease and well as harm the environment.
Mark: Just a moment. The first sentence of your argument might be an observation, you cannot not observe the rights on non-smokers. This sounds like value judgment.
Syllogism
Jim: You are right. So consider this argument: we should ban smoking in public places because a portion of such cost is borne not by smokers themselves but by the public at large.
Mark: to some extent, your argument seems to sound right, but I do not agree with it, probably because we hold different understandings on what are rights are important here.
Jim: if you think that it true, we need to consider our differences in opinion. Nevertheless, before we embark on that, I would like to know what you think about smoking in public places. In my opinion, we should try to share our proposals instead of just analyzing mine.
Mark: Good idea. I think we should address the problem of smoking as a health problem, rather than a banning smoking as a solution.
Jim: What do you mean by “health problem”?
Mark: I view smoking as a health problem because only a few smokers suffer from the negative impacts of smoking.
Jim: OK, so what do you think we should do with this health problem?
Mark: Well there are probably other ways of solving this problem, but I would propose that the government should isolate places for smokers to avoid contact with non-smokers. We could dedicate some parks or smoking zones, for example, to protect non-smokers from coming in contact with the dangerous smoke.
Jim: So are you sure, this would help?
Mark: Sure, why not. Designating places to dump waste helps keep our environment clean. My observation is that designating places for smokers would discourage some from smoking because they will have to locate these places, and they will not be in contact with non-smokers.
Jim: That may sound true, but the smoke will still find its way to the atmosphere and pollute the environment. You are aware that smoke also have their rights.
Mark: Yes, I am aware of this, but this don’t you think that enjoying this right would infringe on the right of non-smokers to clean environment?
Jim: Up to this point I agree with you, I would have to assume that whenever people have their rights, they should enjoy it. But, don’t you think that non-smokers also have a right to a clean environment, and I don’t think banning smoking in public places would make their rights less than other citizens.
Mark: Consider this, we buy condoms from shops but we have to look for a secluded place to use them, how do you see that?
Mark: I don’t think that applies to this case.
Jim: Well cigarettes are sold in public places and they can smoke it wherever they please.
Mark: Let me ask you a question. If you were a smoker, would you want the government to tell you where to smoke it?
Jim: I don’t think I would have any problem with that.
Mark: do you think the government has the right dictate when and where you should smoke?
Jim: that sounds like a violation of individual rights to freedom.
Mark: So why do you think government banning cigarette smoking in public places good for citizens who smoke?
Jim: I guess I am assuming they have less rights when government control their smoking habits.
Mark: Yes, I think you are, and here we seem to disagree.
Jim: Let’s see how position fare in light of the different ethical approaches of purpose, principle and consequences.
Ethics of purpose
Mark: Well, the issue of banning smoking in public places is the responsibility of the government, so whether they can be justified or not depends on whether this will provide an effective means of protecting non-smokers. It seems to me that the government should aim a creating responsible and caring communities.
Jim: I guess my intention was about how to address the medical concerns that result from smoking. We expect the government to ensure a healthy country, so that would seem to support banning smoking in public places.
Mark: I think we should consider the bigger picture. Smoking helps people calm their feelings, and to reduce tension during stressful situations. After all, smokers do not manufacture cigarettes, the manufacturers do. So it would make more sense to focus on them instead of innocent citizens.
Jim: Let’s view it this way: The government wants to ban smoking in public places due to the externalities of the habit. Many people suffer from lung cancer without being exposed to smoke. Why would we require the government to ban smoking in public and not advice non-smokers to avoid smoking zones? If producers stopped manufacturing cigarettes, then we would have no problem. I don’t think it is too much to ban manufacturers from producing cigarettes.
Ethics of principle
Mark: Let’s see what happens when we apply an ethics of principle. The implicit principle of your proposal would be that the government should tell people when and where to smoke. Do you think that should become a universal moral law?
Jim: Well, I certainly would not want the government to dictate to me when and where I should smoke, so I guess I would have some issues in making this idea universal. Maybe we could if smokers want to kill themselves with cigarettes, let them and if you don’t want to risk your health, just avoid smokers.
Mark: I would not disagree with that, an ethics of principle also demands that we make sure that we treat other people with respect, as autonomous moral agents. Do people have the right get cancer if they chose to?
Jim: that would be fine if their decision did not affect others. However there are social costs. Also, one can universalize the principle that people should pay for the harm they cause.
Ethics of consequence
Mark: Yes, but what about the consequences? People who smoke are just getting by. The consequence of banning smoking in public places would make things worse for them. People who smoke can still look for other places to smoke, including their homes where they will still expose their families and friends.
Jim: Ok, let us review the purpose of the government. We want a healthy and caring society. It is apparent that focusing on individual behavior would not help that much. Instead of banning smoking in public places, we should enact laws that eliminate much of cigarettes from our markets. What would be the consequences of that?
Mark: Well, we are aware that smoking is harmful to our health as it causes many diseases and pollutes the environment. Banning smoking in public places would help improve public health. The question is how to do it. Maybe we should see how reduce exposure to smoke.
Jim: Well, I can now see that focusing on banning public smoking to improve society is not a good idea. I guess that if we want to reduce the risks associated with smoking, we should not target smokers to make the desired changes. We need to find a more comprehensive approach that considers the whole system. Thank you for giving me your valuable time.
Mark: Thank you too. I actually considered some of my own opinions. Nice time.
Work cited:
Hudson, David L. Smoking Bans. Chelsea: Chelsea House Publishers. 2008. Print.
Pampel, Fred C. Tobacco Industry and Smoking. Infobase Publishing. 2009. Print.
