Is the government right to ban smoking in public places?

Should there be a third option? I believe neither in a ban nor in a free-for-all.

On the basis that minimization of coercion and respect for property rights are two of the most important factors in maximizing social cooperation (which ought to be the ultimate objective of society's rules), I believe that others should not inflict their smoke on me without my agreement, but that I should respect others' property rights, which I take to include the choice of who is welcome and what activities are acceptable within their property.

That is enough for the easy cases - you shouldn't smoke in my house if I don't want you to, but if you choose to smoke in your own house and I don't like it, I should leave. Smoking should be banned in publicly-owned places, because it is not easy to divvy up the communal property-rights attributable to smokers and non-smokers (yet another example of why communal ownership is usually a bad idea), in which case I fall back on the first basic principle, that smokers should not inflict their smoke on others without their consent.

The complications arise in the case of privately-owned properties to which there is an assumed general-right of access. In particular, that covers licensed premises and workplaces. One could take Rob's hardline approach and stick rigidly to the property-rights principle - if the owner (landlord, chef de maison, boss, etc.) wants to allow smoking, that is their choice. If you don't like that choice, don't work, eat or drink there. It's a perfectly defensible and intellectually-consistent position.

But I think there are problems in practice. You may live in a village in which there is only one pub. If the landlord decides to allow smoking, should non-smokers who find smoke offensive have no option to go out for a drink without driving? Of course, the reverse (removing the landlord's freedom to choose the rules of his premises, and banning smoking in such circumstances) would also intrude into people's freedoms - in that case, the smokers' and the landlord's. The same might go where local employment opportunities were limited - should non-smokers have to put up with others' smoke if they want a local job, but should smokers have to go without, in order to ensure that non-smokers have equal access to opportunities?

To me, this is a grey area. I am no fan of weighing the rights and wrongs of issues by democratic evaluation. I would rather try to deduce the best course of action by applying rule-utilitarian principles. But where freedoms clash and principles do not provide a clear guide, I can see an argument that the will of the majority may be the least bad way of deciding the issue. As far as I can tell (though one could not be sure without a referendum) that would mean banning smoking in these circumstances.

But to the extent that we can minimize the imposition on the minority of the will of the majority, without undermining the latter's objectives, we ought to do that before falling back on the democratic decision where no satisfactory compromise can be found. It seems to me, in the case of licensed premises at least, that there is an opportunity to respect the freedoms and objectives of both majority and minority, through use of the licensing regime. That regime could be extended to include the smoking policy of premises. The licensing bodies would be tasked, where several bars or restaurants exist in close proximity, with ensuring that a minimum proportion are non-smoking premises, but approving the remainder to accept smoking on their premises if they choose. That would seem to offer most smokers and non-smokers (at least those who live in conurbations large enough to strike this balance) the opportunity to live their life as they choose without greatly inflicting their choice on the other side. 

It may be possible to devise something similar for the workplace. Perhaps bosses should be obliged to ensure that a minimum proportion of the area for each activity in the workplace is smoke-free. (Not non-smoking, mind, but actually free of smoke; i.e. no division of a continuous space into notional smoking and non-smoking areas - smoke tends not to respect those hypothetical boundaries.) For smaller workplaces, this would probably mean going entirely smoke-free, but for larger workplaces, it may be practical to provide separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers. So long as non-smokers are not obliged to spend time in the smokers' rooms in order to carry out their duties, this should be an acceptable compromise. But one can see how this latter test may be hard to satisfy. I am not convinced that this sort of compromise is practical in the workplace.

The long and the short of it is that I come down for a smoking ban in publicly-accessible locations, where it is not possible to provide smoking and non-smoking options. But where it is possible to provide those options, we ought to do so. And I say that as a rabid hater of smoking.

On that basis, I cannot figure out which of the two options I ought to vote for.

I place no reliance in the above arguments on the health issue. There are two sides to the question of smoking and health - self-inflicted harm to the smoker and harm inflicted on others by secondary inhalation. The question of harm to oneself ought to be irrelevant. It is only because we pay for each other's healthcare that it is not. While this remains the case, James has a point. But in my view, we should pay for our healthcare directly rather than through taxes (with the safety-net being provided by a Basic Income incorporating an allowance for a minimum level of healthcare, rather than provision of free services), in which case it would be none of my business whether smokers chose to kill themselves faster. Their increased risk would simply be reflected in an increased cost of cover, and if they are prepared to pay it, that is their choice. After all, if we are going to ban things on the basis that they incur health-risks on the participants, we will be banning a lot of sports and other dangerous but enjoyable activities.

Damage to the health of non-participants (e.g. non-smokers) would be a different matter. To the extent that secondary smoking is a real risk, it would reinforce the arguments above for not inflicting smoke on those who do not want it. But it would not justify greater constraints than are already required to protect people's freedom. And I have to admit that I am less convinced that this is a significant risk than I am of the direct risk to smokers themselves. I suspect that many people use this as cover for a more general dislike of smoke. They feel that there is more force and less subjectivity in relying on medical impacts than on simple discomfort. I would rather be candid. When I sit in a room with a smoker, I resent the physical assault on my eyes, nose, throat, hair and clothes, not the small increase in my risk of contracting certain forms of cancer. I don't need to make great claims about the threat to my life - it is enough that your smoke is causing discomfort to my body and possessions. It is not different morally from if you came up and punched me - neither probably represents a significant threat to my life, but both cause me discomfort in the short-term that you had no right to cause. No one questions the prohibition on physical assault. The physical impact of smoking puts it in the same category, without reference to health risks.