Negotiation Planning on the Referendum for Banning Public Smoking

The main objective of the referendum is to ban public smoking in public areas to prevent people from harm caused by second-hand smoke that would lead to health issues. Various issues are surrounding the ban. One is that banning smoking in public areas targets a large population who isolates smokers who are regular customers in businesses located in the public areas, which will affect their businesses (Yang Et Al.2005). Secondly, smoking in public areas exposes people to second-hand smoke that is harmful to their health. Thirdly, even if the public areas have proper ventilation, the smoke would still spread affecting people's health.

In ranking essential issues, the impact of the item must be well assessed. The most critical issue is people inhaling second-hand smoke harming their health (Yang Et Al.2005). Secondly, there will be loss of revenues as most of smokers won't visit public places regularly; hence, businesses will not reap as much from them. The primary interest of the ban is to protect the public from inhaling second-hand smoke affecting their health negatively as they would contract respiratory problems, both short and long-term.

An alternative to the complete ban of smoking in public places would be securing some areas where smokers can do their smoking. This must be far from where people hand around to ensure that the second-hand smoke does not reach them. The negotiators must place stringent limits. It should be a clear law that no smoker should smoke in places where people are as this would harm their health. The opposers have their goals some which are reasonable while others are not. First is that they see this will make smokers feel alienated as they smoke regularly and will now be required to do it away from public places (Yang Et Al.2005). Secondly, they think that revenues will be lost as smokers will not be around public areas, which will affect businesses (Erazo et al. 2010).

The lives of non-smokers are also essential and must, therefore, the target is to protect them. The opening bid is that no smoking in public areas as this affects people who have no intentions of smoking. The negotiation that can be done is putting up secluded areas where smokers can do it without affecting the unintended smokers (Erazo et al. 2010).

The ban will affect smokers to some point since they will appear alienated, but it would be better this way than not to do it at the cost of the broader population. The freedom to smoke should not affect other people's prerogative not to smoke. The proposers of the ban are doing it on behalf of citizens as the ministry of health that is mandated to protect their health. It would be unfortunate to watch the rights of citizens to health infringed by smoking.

The aim is to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke and having considered both parties in the negotiation it would be best to ban smoking in public areas but have secluded areas where tobacco can be done without the smoke reaching other citizens.