I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise:
less smoking ads -> less smoking
Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.
Maybe, and so what? Let other people do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect you.
Unless of course you're the standard do-gooder who can't bear to see others do things you have decided is wrong for them. If that's the way your brain is wired, there nothing left to say.
>less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).
It don't think it's obvious at all.
A smoker polluting other people with their second hand smoke is a smoker infringing on other people's freedom and right not to be poisoned.
And this is one rare area where government are actually supposed to be useful: defending your freedom not to be subjected to other people's stupidity.
That can perfectly happen without preventing people to poison themselves should they decide to.
You're not responding on-topic. People can still smoke, their "freedom to poison themselves" is fully intact. Ironically, stopping advertisements for cigarettes would give the consumer more freedom of choice free from corporate influence.
Less people smoking means less second-hand smoke. Also just fyi smoke residue clings to interiors so when things get sold the new owner inherits a gross smell and some carcinogenic exposure :)
It's not just people blowing smoke in your face outdoors
It seems all but impossible to fully "ban" second hand smoke:
* how do you prove it?
* how do you measure the amount in case you've proven it?
It seems such a minor individual offense that courts would hardly accept cases.
So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.
Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness.
Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers.
Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.
less smoking ads -> less smoking
Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.
Note: I am implicitly assuming that:
less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders
is true (which it obviously is).