Just Smoking Ban?

Our governor, Jim Doyle, wants to increase cigarette taxes and ban smoking in most public places. What’s the right thing to do?

Well, if someone wants to suck the cancer stick, they’re as stupid as that phrase sounds. That’s not the question at hand, though. The real question is to what extent ought the force of the state dictate someone’s ability to suck said stick.

I like to use the just war theory when thinking about legitimate force. Others use it, but its key clauses are in paragraph 2309 here.

[For force to be justifiable], at one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Is the damage inflicted by the aggressor (Wisconsin smokers) lasting? Maybe. It depends on how you think about it. If by ‘damage’ we mean second-hand smoke, then the damage may be lasting. However, doesn’t the second-hand smokee bear some responsibility to discriminate among places to work and shop, also? I’m on the fence here.

Is it grave? Definitely. Public health is at stake, if not people’s lives.

Is it certain? Yes.

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

This clause clearly does not apply. Smoking rates consistently have gone down through the means of public education.

- there must be serious prospects of success;

Given the inelasticity of tobacco demand, I would peg this clause as dubious at best.

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The term ‘arms’ doesn’t apply, but the means of force (taxation and banning) I think would mean for this clause to apply.

Put it all together, and I think that this would not qualify as legit use of force by the state. I’m open to what others think, but I’d probably go ahead and vote no.