# FILE NAME: 00001489.soc
# TITLE: Should the government have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes? [4bcd2a0c957c98b54818ef4f0514c2e2]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group was of the view that such efforts might help to provide the balance to the harm caused by smoking, as it is acceptable for the government to prohibit people from harming themselves if they understand the consequences of their actions. A possible consequence of prohibiting people from harming themselves might include the use of enforcement, including fines and prison sentences.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of the government having the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes. The group felt that this was necessary as cigarettes are harmful to health and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. However, the group felt that the government should not ban cigarettes altogether, but should instead restrict where people can smoke. This is because the group felt that people should have the freedom to make their own choices and that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can and cannot do. The group felt that the government should also make a greater effort to educate people about the dangers of smoking and to discourage people from taking up the habit. The group also felt that this should be done in a non-intrusive way, such as through the use of advertising and education in schools, as opposed to more direct methods, such as the use of taxes to discourage smoking.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - The government should have the right to restrict the freedom of its citizens to smoke cigarettes.  The government should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and make efforts to discourage the habit, but should not ban smoking.  Smoking should be banned in public places, but people should have the freedom to smoke in their own homes.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - We generally agreed with the draft consensus statement, but, given the complexities involved, felt that this is a hard topic and that a consensus statement should best be reserved for a very different situation.  If they don't want to ban it entirely then  there should be more outside spaces that they can smoke in but not be able to smoke indoors, especially if children are present.  Smoking could also be encouraged on a more personal level, with people being paid to not smoke. Discussion: This seemed to be an appropriate time to discuss consensus more generally.
2: 1,2,4,3
1: 2,1,4,3
1: 4,3,2,1
1: 2,1,3,4