hmmm that's a hard topic to debate.
If you forbid smoking in public places, people won't stop smoking, they'll just go elsewhere... Smokers will stay, passive smokers will exist too. So, forbidding that's not the solution, because the goal isn't achieved.
Actually, I think the main problem about this is the thing that the GOAL isn't specified. What do they want actually?
Forbid smoking in generally? I don't see alternatives.
Stop passive smoking - assuring rights of non-smokers?
What about rights of smokers? They use legal product.
Personaly (non-smoker), I think government should deal with more serious problems, like drugs, violence etc.
They can't forbid smoking. If they do that, what is going to happen with smokers? Will they be stigmatized, banned on North pole, what? That's the only way that can solve the problem of passive smoking. And that ain't the right way.
Forbiding smoking in public areas is, on one hand, breaking smokers rights assured by the Constitution(free choice etc dunno the exact phrase). On the other hand, breaking the rights of non smokers (healthy environment etc)...
So, when they manage to made up their mind, in a way of determinating the goal, then they can talk about prohibitions and things like that. At the moment, they should deal with more significant (and growing) problems.