This paper analyzes how evidence is used in argumentation about a smoking ban in public space and how it is related to social constructions of target populations. In particular, the analysis is set in the context of Czech parliamentary debates that took place between 2003 and 2016. A frame analysis of deputies‘ and senators‘ appearances focuses on different aspects such as selecting, naming, categorizing, sense-making and storytelling. Moreover, we use Toulmin model of argumentation to understand the relationship between evidence (facts) and claims within different frames and how it has changed in time. Preliminary results show that medical evidence became uncontested and dominated the debate. It allows problems of target groups (non-smokers) to be socially constructed as important for the public and deserving solution in the form of a total smoking ban. The opposing frames based their argumentation on more contested evidence (such as economic effects on the hospitality industry and public budgets) or moral reasoning trying to procure exceptions in the ban.
