Interesting question.
I think that before long the operators would soon be hanging up on the smoking calls...which would highlight the fact that even the government acknowledges that second hand smoke is nowhere near the threat they hold it out to be. As for the use of deadly force, according to the antis, surgeon general included, second hand smoke is lethal, it merely acts more slowly than a bullet. According to the banners, my smoking in a public park is every bit as much a hazard as my taking my M1 and cranking off a few rounds, not at anyone or anything in particular, but just shooting at random. According to their logic, my second hand smoke might kill someone, and dead is dead...just like a stray bullet might kill someone. If the smoke is potentially fatal to others, why does it matter how long it takes to kill? If a bullet kills in a fraction of a second, is that any more fatal than poisoning someone to death over the course of a week? a month? a year? decades? Is it any worse than embezzling $1 million all at once, or over the course of years? If smoking puts another person's life at risk, should they not be permitted deadly force to defend themselves? I'd like the liberal-logic answer on this, but doubt they would ever address it. Of course it's an absurd notion, but it's the logical conclusion to the path on which we've embarked.....