✔ 最佳答案
When a smoking ban is imposed is always a matter of pros and cons. This is never a matter of absolute virtue. It normally only refers the level that smoking can harm the health of others, and the free will of smokers should be considered. It is not such an absolute ban like drug abuse ban or ivory trade ban.
We need to examine the essence of harm of smoking done to the public. First harm is done on second hand smokers. They are not willing to smoke and still have suffer to respiratory diseases. There is an indirect cost to the society, which is increase of publicly funded medical expense on respiratory diseases. The other harm is air pollution. We study the later harm as a reason of ban first.
Few could propose smoking ban based on the reason of air pollution. This is a matter of proportional justice. Coal burning releases much more dirty gases than smoking, yet we seldom ban coal burning. Oil burning is much cleaner. Yet, the gases released by oil burning still pollutes more than smoking. There is no reason we ban smoking but not yet banned coal burning and other activities releasing dirty gases.
Harm done to second hand smoker made smoking ban in public area more convincing. However, because it is always a matter of give and take, not absolute virtue, we should first look at whether it is possible for the smoker to pay the price of health lost of second hand smoker. A good indicator is pubic medical expense. This is a big cost paid by the society. The problem is that, it is not even possible to raise tax high enough to cover this medical expense because of the problem of smoke trafficking. Therefore, ban is a must to allow non-smoker to protect their health.
The smoking ban should be imposed only to protect non-smoker, and it is not supposed to outlaw smoking as a whole. Therefore, it should be taken only on publicly accessible area. In private area, ban could be taken if ventilation system is so designed such that air is in fact publicly shared.