The case for banning cigarettes

Abstract

Lifelong smokers lose on average a decade of life vis-à-vis non-smokers. Globally, tobacco causes about 5-6 million deaths annually. One billion tobacco-related deaths are predicted for the 21st century, with about half occurring before the age of 70. In this paper, we consider a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes and find that such a ban, if effective, would be justified. As with many policy decisions, the argument for such a ban requires a weighing of the pros and cons and how they impact on different individuals, both current and future. The weightiest factor supporting a ban, we argue, is the often substantial well-being losses many individuals suffer because of smoking. These harms, moreover, disproportionally affect the disadvantaged. The potential gains in well-being and equality, we argue, outweigh the limits a ban places on individuals' freedom, its failure to respect some individuals' autonomous choice and the likelihood that it may, in individual cases, reduce well-being.

The costs and benefits of a cigarette ban

“…A cost–benefit argument in favour of a policy that does not consider potential alternatives cannot be an argument that the policy is justified, and so cannot show that ‘the case for a complete and effective ban on the sale of cigarettes is very strong’ (ref. 2, p300).…”

“…So despite Grill and Voigt's claim, the debate about tobacco control policy is not advanced by considering ‘the principled argument for a perfectly effective ban’ (ref. 2, p293). In effect, that argument simply comes down to the claim that it would be better if no one smoked even if some people still wanted to.…”

“…This makes the search for policies to reduce or eliminate tobacco use a pressing one. In ‘The case for banning cigarettes’, Grill and Voigt2 argue for a complete ban on cigarettes. Their argument takes seriously the restrictions on autonomy that such a ban would involve, and claims that the substantial health and equality gains of a ban would justify those restrictions.…”

“…Second, they compare a completely effective ban to the status quo, rather than to a range of policy alternatives. Grill and Voigt claim that these simplifications ‘bring into focus the fundamental normative issues’ (ref 2, p293). Far from bringing the normative issues into focus, however, the simplifications serve instead to obscure them.…”

What's the point of tobacco control? Comment on Dan Halliday, ‘The ethics of a smoking licence’

“…Moreover, any such pleasure is not necessarily outweighed by the risks of smoking, once we take into account that these risks can vary substantially depending on how much and for how long individuals smoke 2 i . Crucially, the presence of risk does not by itself make it unreasonable to smoke.…”