Passive smoke calls for government intervention

I have read with interest the Voices letters on smoking and the banning of cigarettes. While a ban would have clear health benefits, it would be a blunt approach to the issue.

Despite the Government’s best efforts to discourage smoking and educate the public on the consequences of smoking, some will still choose to smoke. Putting themselves at risk is an informed choice these people make.

Whether it is right to take that choice away through a complete ban is debatable. What is clearer is that non-smokers should not be subjected to harmful health consequences owing to the choices of smokers. Thus, although the latter’s health is a concern, protecting non-smokers from passive smoking is more important.

If the effects of smoking were limited to smokers, then it might be analogous to bingeing on fast food, which is unhealthy to the individual but certainly not banned.

The difference is that smoking imposes negative spillover effects on non-smokers, hence necessitating governmental intervention.

A more targeted, balanced approach is needed instead of a complete ban. This could include expanding and improving on existing measures, such as the seemingly ineffective smoking areas within coffee shops.