I believe you are confusing the government's right to regulate behavior with the government's right to regulate negative externalities[0] caused by certain behaviors.
I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified.
This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years.
For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue.
Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case.
In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified.
So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create.
> The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified.
The problem with considering issues involved from the point of view of 'Externalities' is how you measure 'externalities'. Can you be sure that you have measured all the possible externalities?
The regulation of the behavior curtails the rights of a number of people. You don't seem to consider that a significant externality (probably because you aren't one of those people).
You also present a false dichotomy. The question is no 'to regulate or not regulate, which is worse?'.
The question is 'How do we solve this problem while protecting as the rights of the people involved as much as possible?'
There is a tendency to want to regulate away issues rather than trying to understand the needs of everyone involved and craft solutions that actauly work.
I know I said I was done being off topic...but apparently that wasn't true.
>Smoking harms others and provides no benefit to anyone other than people who suffer nicotine addictions.
You might feel that way, but other people feel differently. There is a fair amount of evidence that nicotine is often used as a form of self medication for both anxiety and depression. It also has a long history of being enjoyed socially by a number of different cultures.
I regularly encourage and support my friends who are trying to quit smoking, I did so even back when I was a smoker. My biggest issue with the anti-smoking activists is that they assume that because they don't like something, nobody can like it.
> Furthermore, smoking bans are bar none the most effective way to reduce public harm from second hand smoke. They indeed "actually work".
They might be the most effective, but they are not the most fair. By your same logic, completely banning cars on public roads is the most effective way to reduce pedestrian fatalities.
Smoking bans trample on the universal right of individuals to to pursue happiness as they see fit. I think it is possible to protect this universal right while also protecting the rights of those who wish to be free of the harm caused by second hand smoke.
I think the unwillingness of anti-smoker to work to accomodate this is as callous as the unwillingness of some smokers to take the effort to avoid exposing people to their second-hand smoke.
And to bring this back to the discussion at hand:
Banning something for the public good is rarely fair and often has ignored or unvalued externalities. This is especially true when the ban comes at the expense of a minority of the population (such as a ban on panhandling).
I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified.
This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years.
For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue.
Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case.
In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified.
So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality