The death toll from tobacco is staggering: it might contribute to one billion premature deaths over the course of the 21st century. In ‘The case for banning cigarettes’, Kalle Grill and Kristin Voigt argue that the well-being and equality benefits of a complete ban on cigarettes more than justify the restrictions on autonomy that such a ban would impose. Their argument depends on two crucial simplifications: an assumption that the ban would be effective and the restriction of the analysis to a comparison with the status quo, rather than a broader range of policy options. I argue that despite the authors’ claims, these two simplifications make it impossible for their argument to ‘bring into focus the fundamental normative issues’ surrounding a possible cigarette ban, since they dramatically overstate the benefits and obscure the most significant costs of such a ban.
- Substance Abusers/Users of Controlled Substances
- Public Health Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter Follow Mathieu Doucet @WM_Doucet
Funding Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Insight Development Grant).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.