>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).