Arthur Caplan points to a recent study suggesting that the health reasons for outdoor smoking bans aren’t backed up by strong data:
In getting these bans enacted three justifications were used: Smoking on beaches and in parks posed a health hazard to nonsmokers, especially children; cigarette butts were toxic to humans and animals and constituted an unacceptable form of litter; and public smoking by adults provided a dangerous model that threatened the future well-being of children and adolescents.
The problem is that the scientific evidence supporting each of these arguments is exceedingly weak. Consider the comments of some of the toughest anti-smoking groups in the nation about the best rationale for bans–the hazards of smoking in public to others. An official of the American Lung Association, concerned that efforts to ban smoking on beaches and in parks might deflect attention from more effective public health interventions, told [study authors Ronald Bayer and Kathleen E. Bachynski] in an interview, “I don’t think we should be making claims that are not supported by the data. If you try to tie it [banning smoking on beaches and in parks] to a health outcome, that’s where you get in trouble.” A representative of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was even more direct in another interview: “There is not a lot of science around outdoor smoking bans…. There is some science, but you have to be very close to the smoke in an outdoor setting…. The last thing we want to do is put our credibility on the line with regard to the science.”
The Dish 