The proposition to be examined is that there should be no smoking in public places because of the hazards of second-hand smoke. The issue could be framed differently: should the government institute such a ban based on the data existing now? The answer is that the government should not get into this area of concern but should encourage action by the private sector, which is already addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis. Those who believe there is a problem may create a smoke-free area for customers or workers, or workers can demand that their place of business be smoke free. The government does not have to take actions because the people are doing so on their own.
American society has changed in its attitude toward smoking, and the government started the process of change, after being prodded to do so by medical evidence of the harm caused by smoking, by banning cigarette advertising on television. As Calfee notes, more recently the government has been asked to ban all cigarette advertising in magazine and billboard form. Calfee believes that such a ban is counter-productive and that indeed the earlier regulations on cigarette advertising have actually reduced health messages that were once part of the advertising. This misses the point that the ban had less to do with the message than with sending a new message--smoking is in itself a bad thing. Our society has apparently taken this message to heart and has shifted from a culture of smoking to a culture of non-smoking in only two decades or so.
Governmental pressure contributed to a trend already started by medical professionals and others convinced of the need. Business took up the cudgels because of the belief that it would be more cost-effective to do so. As fewer people smoked and the message proliferated, non-smokers began demanding more and more rights, more and more accommodations, and less and less smoke in their environment. Today, we are at a point wh...