In many countries, the sale and distribution of cigarettes are subject to severe restrictions. Laws strictly regulate cigarette advertising and limit the minimum age and places for smoking. A significant part of the population accepts such restrictions as a given and does not consider this issue’s moral aspect. In fact, there are several ethical positions by which one can discuss the validity of such prohibitions.
One of the critical responses to tobacco use in ethics is the procreative liberty argument. The basic idea is that making moral judgments about people’s decisions is inappropriate as long as those actions do not harm others (Collier & Haliburton, 2021). This idea is derived from the philosophical tradition of negative liberty. The crucial aspect here is the harm principle, which means that there is a kind of red line that separates the freedom to act freely and actions that harm others.
As for smoking cigarettes, on the one hand, this practice harms the health of a particular person. However, this is a free choice made by a person who is aware of the consequences, so no one has the right to violate a person’s negative freedom. To do this, in many countries, authorities are forced to detail the negative health effects that smoking can cause on cigarette packages. At the same time, underage people may not have enough experience to make the right decision. From this point of view, the prohibition of sale to people under 18 years of age seems reasonable and does not violate the principles of proactive liberty. Finally, cigarette smoke can negatively affect non-smokers, especially people with asthma. Therefore, restrictions on smoking areas do not violate the harm principle either.
Reference
Collier, C., & Haliburton, R. (2021). Bioethics in Canada: a philosophical introduction. Canadian Scholars’ Press.