Yes Brendan, but health organisations have successfully lobbied that the right to a healthy life of others supercedes the choice of smokers. Non-smokers do not have the choice not to breathe in second-hand smoke, therefore, they are technically being coerced into an activity that is not only unhealthy for them, but also one of which they have no control.
Blanket legislation is appropriate as it shows a level of social responsibility on a dangerous habit that has serious cost to the individual and community. Currently 2 of our National Health priority areas of cardiovascular health and cancer. Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer, strongly linked to smoking. Smoking also significantly increases the chance of developing cardiovascular disease. By limiting the occurence of smoking in public, we limit the risk of these diseases and reduce the spending associated for their medical care. I wish it only had an element of permanency about it
Despite the Utilitarian overtones, this legislation is for the greater good and entirely necessary, i don't think as a nation that we can continue to passively warn smokers of the risk to themselves and others. If this issue was put to a public vote, i think a blanket ban would be overwhelmingly supporrted. This is not a punishment, it's an act of social responsibility