Not in my home

I never let people smoke in my home. A dinner guest who needs a quick puff has to go and sit out on the balcony, with closed doors shutting them and their filthy smoke out of my home. But I welcome them back in when they have finished getting their drug hit.

The article "Smoking bans cut asthma and premature births by 10%, study says" (2014) says that, although there is opposition to the proposals for stronger bans on cigarette smoking based on the research, laws that have limited smoking in public places over recent decades have significantly benefited not only adults, but also unborn and newly born babies, who are particularly at risk of long term harm from exposure to cigarette smoke.

I can't imagine that there is anyone today who thinks that cigarettes are harmless. Like that other very popular drug so many people regularly enjoy, alcohol, whether Singha beer, French champagne, Johnny Walker whisky or a nice bottle of Merlot, the serious harmful effects, both on the drug user as well as on other people and society, are well known. I don't think there is any need to debate this, but for those who might be in any doubt that cigarettes are seriously harmful, the expert opinion is clear: cigarettes might be much less harmful than alcohol, but they are only a little less harmful than methamphetamine (yaa baa) and cocaine ("Scoring Drugs," 2010).

So, what is a rational and just (morally right) response? Obviously, many people think that our response is obvious: things that harm other people (and the users?) must be banned or at least restricted. Cigarette smoking harms people, therefore, it must be banned or restricted in various ways. The authors of the study that the BBC News reports appear to accept this argument. But if you accept an argument in situation A., you must also rationally accept the same argument in situations B. and C. if those situations are relevantly the same. When we look at our argument, it has two parts that lead to the conclusion that we must ban or restrict smoking:

1. If something is harmful to people others, it must be banned or restricted in public places. 
2. Cigarette smoking is harmful to others.
   These two premisses lead to the conclusion that 
3. Cigarette smoking must be banned in public places. 

Now, alcohol drinking is also harmful to others. When people drink, many become violent, leading to fights, and even murders, as well as domestic abuse of wives and children. The conclusion from our argument is clear: alcohol must be banned in public places, so no more white wine with your fish, and no more beer at the pub. This ban on alcohol will protect innocent non-alcohol users from the harmful effects of alcohol. It is also likely to have serious results for hotels and clubs! In fact, according to expert opinion, alcohol is much more harmful than heroin, cocaine, yaa baa and every other popular drug of addiction, which means that for rational, moral people, the punishment for the sale and use of alcohol must be much more severe than the punishment for the sale and use of every other drug human beings enjoy using. 

Slightly less obviously, a similar argument bans eating sweet foods in public places: the sight encourages and tempts other people to eat the sweets, which harms them, causing obesity, heart disease and other serious health problems, and therefore must be banned or restricted, so no more desserts in restaurants, and no more ice cream at McDonalds. 

Are you starting to think there is something very silly in this sort of argument? So, where is the silliness? Is the idea that cigarette smoking is harmful to other people silly? I don't think so. It's just a statement of fact. That means the silliness must come from the other part of the argument, that if something is harmful to other people, it must be banned or restricted in public places. But if we throw this out, what reason can we have for banning cigarette smoking in public places? Either we think that things that harm others should be banned in public places, or we do not. We can't just use this premiss sometimes and ignore it the rest of the time. 

Can you help us to solve the problem here? What might we need to look at? Or must we really ban ice-cream, champagne and chocolate cake from public places? 

__________

Reference

Scoring drugs: Drugs that cause most harm. (2010, November 2). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Smoking bans cut asthma and premature births by 10%, study says. (2014, March 28). BBC News Health. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26770009