How is 'pollution' from one person's second hand smoke, the possible negative health benefits of said pollution, and the freedom of people to breathe 'clean air' to be addressed from a Libertarian perspective.
The Libertarian Party of Missouri published an editorial on this issue. I won't suggest that it represents the global view of all Libertarian platforms, but it is at least illustrative of how Libertarian candidates and parties are thinking about this.
- A person has the right to choose whether they smoke or not.
- A person has the right to choose whether people smoke on their property or not. So it is reasonable for restaurant owners (or others) to institute bans which are applicable to their property.
- The government has the right to institute smoking bans for government buildings.
- The government should not institute smoking bans for non-governmental buildings (because that infringes on the rights of the property owner).
How about the health or environmental aspects of smoking? The problem arises that smoking could harm nearby people through second-hand smoke. Although I did not find any official or unofficial statements from a Libertarian Party source, an opinion piece in the New York Daily times suggests that since smoking produces negative externalities it is fair for the government to regulate it (to protect the rights of non-smokers who would be harmed by others' choices).
I have previously seen a number of libertarian sources (e.g. this blog) convincingly argue that imposing second-hand smoke danger on others constitutes a violation of non-aggression principle and therefore banning smoking is a valid libertarian approach.
It may be a bit murky in regards to people who have a choice to not be near a smoker, e.g. a patron of a private business who can choose to take their business elsewhere - in which case the freedom of smokers and of business owner may outweigh the non-smoker's freedom. But it seems much more clear-cut in regards to people who do NOT have such an easy choice; for example employees of smoking-OK restaurant; or neighbours of smoking-OK building; or people visiting public spaces.
As such, a government action to ban smoking can be argued to be a legitimate libertarian approach, as defense of victims who suffer from someone violating non-aggression principle - including in private businesses for the sake of their employees.
(you can think of it, for simile's sake, in terms of "is the government allowed to ban hitting you with a stick?").