History Repeating Itself
In 1978, the Tobacco Institute, a trade organization of cigarette manufacturers, commissioned a study of public opinions about smoking.  Excerpts from the study are below.  The most intriguing are the strategies the study recommends the tobacco industry use to combat the trend of "no smoking" laws.  Sadly, the proposed tactics in 1978 are those being used today by opponents in city council meetings,state legislative hearings and online postings over 30 years later. 

A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking, prepared for the Tobacco Institute (1978)

"Nearly six out of ten believe that smoking is hazardous to the non-smoker's health, up sharply over the last four years. More than two-thirds of non-smokers believe it, nearly half of all smokers believe it.  This we see as the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred."

"But if the anti-smoking forces are successful in convincing non-smokers that their health is in danger, it's at least as likely that the sentiment for segregated facilities will be strengthened . And if segregated facilities do not accomplish the anti-smoking forces' desire of making segregated smoking so untenable that smokers will give it up, the next step could be an outright ban.  If nonsmokers are by then convinced that it's their health that is at stake, the present sentiment for separate facilities could become support for a total ban."

"The strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking issue is, as we see it, developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful to the non-smoker's health."

"While that should be the fundamental objective of the tobacco industry in our opinion, this study suggests that there are some short term tactical approaches that may slow the efforts of the anti-smoking forces and buy the industry the necessary time to develop what we see as the fundamental evidence needed to reverse the trend. But they are tactical and short term in character . Among these short range tactics are the following:

-Where outright bans on smokinq are proposed and appear likely of passage, the industry could propose separate facilities (as the lesser of two evils).

-Where New Jersey-type legislation appears to be a real possibility, the industry might propose that operators of restaurants, cabs and other public "institutions" be permitted to establish whatever smoking policy they desire--"Smoking permitted anywhere," "NO smoking permitted," "Separate facilities for smokers," or "Separate facilities for non-smokers"--but with the requirement that the smoking conditions that apply be posted outside the premises for the convenience and protection of smokers and non-smokers alike.

-Several questions in this study suggest that where there is substantial support for government action against cigarette smoking, there is a discernible decline of such support when people are made aware of the other government intrusions that might follow. "Where will it all end?" might be effective in blunting anti-smoking regulation.

-Another short range tactic is suggested by the question concerning "fumaphobes." The findings suggest that there is the possibility of dividing those who are relatively unexcited about the passive smoking issue from the anti-smoking zealots, by portraying these zealots as people with an unreasonable fear of cigarette smoking."

"The issue, as we see it, is no longer what the smoker does to himself, but what he does to others."