The New York case though does not come near this because clearly the means initiated by the government are just and proper. The end or overall utility is not only to prevent non-smokers from the ill effects of second hand smoke but lessen the smoking of smokers. Overall, the end result sees a healthier population and between the rights of the smokers and their health and well-being, the goodness of the action is maximized. It is not even a choice between the "devil and the deep blue sea" but a choice between a bad habit (smoking" and a good one (non-smoking or minimizing it). From the deontological perspective, which can be differentiated from utilitarianism wherein deontology calls for the rightness or wrongness of the action as opposed to utilitarianism's rightness or wrongness of the ends or consequences. By and large through, banning smoking in bars and restaurants can be deemed as correct because it aims at preventing a harmful action from having ill effects. There is actually a rightness continuum based on the deontological approach because the ban serves to protect everyone and ends up benefiting everyone as well. Never mind the arguments of those who feel that their rights are being trampled on because with their smoking, they are also stepping on others' rights also.

The law may not be perfect or provide satisfaction of everyone but such is the case of any contentious issue. Nonetheless, it "represents a huge step up from the free-for-all that existed before, allowing customers to know where they could have smoke free fun (Solish, 2009)." Besides, taking a closer look at the law, it is not despotic to the point that it criminalizes or complete prohibits smoking. Rather, the law limits the venues where smokers can smoke. There exemptions thereto and establishments can apply for exemption provided "smoking is limited to 25% of seating in a single contiguous outdoor dining area. An outdoor dining area is defined as one with no roof, overhang, or other ceiling enclosure (The City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006)." If the concern again is with regards to the affects...

This is a win-win solution since there is no dearth of smokers who can work at smoking areas of bars and restaurants.
The overall positive effects brought by the smoking ban in New York City's bars and restaurants do not benefit only the health and welfare of the general public. From the economic viewpoint, "some restaurants and bars say that business is fine -- even thriving, as the economy improves -- particularly in places where food is a main draw. Further, a vast majority of New Yorkers have said in recent polls that they are happy with the new law. One survey shows that many regular restaurant goers see a smoke-free environment as an attraction. (Hu & Farmer, 2003)" These should already be looked at as real incentives for continuing the program and thereby, the extension of the ban to open public spaces means continually looking at the overall all health and well being of people. Smokers might find themselves losing ground as to where they can smoke but this should be good news until they decide to quit this deadly and dreadful habit that provides no benefit to anyone at all.

Bibliography:

The City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (2006, December). New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2002. Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/tc5.pdf

Graziano, R.G. (2010, October 20). On normative ethical theories: Some basics. Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://cla.calpoly.edu/~rgrazian/docs/courses/231/instruction/normative.pdf

Hu, W. & Farmer, A. (2003, December 8). The smoking ban: Clear air, murky economics. The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/nyregion/the-smoking-ban-clear-air-murky-economics.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Solish, S. (2009, November 19). Six years after ban, smoking returns to NYC's bars and clubs. Retrieved June 8, 2011 from http://ny.eater.com/archives/2009/11/the_return_of_smoking.php