I've got to take issue with David Aaronovitch - for once. Waking up in a smoke-free Scotland, he can't think of a reason for faulting a blanket ban on smoking in public places. As he himself puts it:
What I couldn't do... was to construct an objection on the basis of political philosophy. In other words, I couldn't proceed from a generalised concept of the relationship between the individual and society in order to solve the question: "Should people be allowed to smoke in public places?"Like David a former smoker - and one who now doesn't much enjoy inhaling the fumes of others - I'd like to help. I'll do so by noting that he ignores the first rule of putting together a convincing argument against a viewpoint you disagree with - namely, that you find its most powerful points and try to rebut them. David doesn't do that here. He just identifies some weak pleas against a blanket smoking ban and knocks them down.
True, it's 'anti-scientific garbage' to pretend that the evidence on ill-health and smoking is anything but overwhelming. And it's altogether feeble to plead 'diversity' on behalf of smokers while passing over the unpleasant effects for everyone else of their smoking in public. And if there's anyone out there claiming that public opinion is on the side of the smokers, then it's relevant to point out that this isn't so: that 'nearly three quarters of British people supported a ban on smoking in public places'. David deals with all these points, no sweat.
But nothing he says meets the argument that needs to be met: in a nutshell, that smokers are entitled, just like others and whatever the majority may think, to make risky choices for themselves, provided these respect the principle of not harming other people; and that some public areas could be reserved for them to smoke in, on condition that no one else had to use or service these, other than voluntarily. Hitler doesn't come into it; on quite standard liberal assumptions, preventing people from smoking anywhere in public, even if they could do so harmlessly vis-à-vis others, is paternalistic and illiberal.