From the Dec. 3, 1907 NYT:

Women who smoke cigarettes in public are still generally accounted vulgar, if not actually wicked, in a land where the prejudices of Puritanism still survive...

No thoroughly sophisticated American woman of good breeding would think of lighting a cigarette in a New York restaurant, because she would know that the men puffing cigar smoke in her face would consider the act unladylike. When you are in Europe you may do as you please...

Perhaps a few years more the last traces of our Puritanism may disappear. Perhaps not. There may be a revival of old prejudices and beliefs. Meanwhile the managers of our hotels are to be commended for prohibiting cigarette smoking by women, because they are acting in accord with public opinion.

Nevertheless, everybody who knows the ways of the world at all, knows that women smoke cigarettes nowadays, and knows also that the cigarette habit is no worse for them, morally or hygienically, than it is for the men. We are no better than the Europeans, and they know it; wherefore our pretenses make them smile.

Customer-based discrimination may have been a reason to ban smoking (at least of women) in 1907, much like it seems to be a reason to ban smoking in 2007. However, the key statement is that the bans were voluntary on the part of the restaurant and hotel managers; the bans were not legislated by local, state, or federal officials.

I would wager that most of today's temperance movements, whether directed toward narcotics, cigarettes, smoking, or trans-fatty acids for that matter, would not admit to "Puritan prejudices." However, the similar outcomes of yesterday and today, i.e., limiting the actions of other people, offer food for thought.

Is there another source of temperance movements beyond "public opinion"? Or has it always been "public opinion" but this "opinion" is "formed" by different organizations or incentives in different eras?