[kenty]

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.

Note: I am implicitly assuming that:

less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders

is true (which it obviously is).

[ur-whale]

> less smoking ads -> less smoking

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.

[drekk]

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

[nix23]

>less smoking ads -> less smoking

Can you proof that or is that the same hoax like "same salary for men and women"

Hint..have a look at France.

[kenty]

I can't prove this part which is why I've explicitly stated the assumption.