A Paradox in the Justification of Public Smoking Restrictions

Jurgen De Wispelaere, Trinity College Dublin

Abstract

Following recent legislation in the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere, radical smoking restrictions have become a controversial topic in political and public health circles. Despite wide support for anti-smoking legislation it remains a matter of considerable contention whether a conclusive argument in favour of prohibiting smoking in public places has been offered, or indeed can be offered. This paper investigates an intriguing paradox that arises in the debate between public health advocates of radical smoking bans and their civil liberty/libertarian adversaries. The paradox is the following. If smoking is considered a voluntary act, as maintained by libertarians, smokers are effectively responsible for the harm they cause, and comprehensive smoking restrictions appear justified. If smoking is not a rational act but an addiction-induced habit, a view held by the public health lobby, smokers cannot be held fully responsible and radical restrictions are unjustified because unfairly burdensome to smokers. The “paradox” then suggests that both public health advocates and libertarian anti-ban lobbyists are caught in defending arguments by insisting on behavioural assumptions (free choice vs. addiction) that cannot possibly lead to their preferred policy outcome. This paper investigates the background considerations leading up to this paradox, and briefly discusses several strategies that might offer a way out for tobacco control advocates.