My comment was an inference from the tone of the article which, as you'll no doubt agree, is generally dismissive of SHS research in general. (And at least some of it is, in fact, quite poor.)
The meaning of the very last line, that SHS research is just "blowing smoke in your eyes," is ambiguous, but easily interpreted as a claim that SHS research is junk science: that there are no ill effects from it. Hence my comment.
There are no doubt data available -- for example, correlations of the absences or medical costs -- that would show whether or not there was a significant difference between when smoking was, and was not, allowed in the workplace.
Actually, that data is what is conspicuously missing.
I grant what you are saying.
I think that the reason for what you observe is that the proponents of junk science are also the proponents of junk regulations.
I see a similarity to "global warming". The proponents of global warming are typically motivated by their desire to solve the problem in various ways. This is sometimes referred to as "jumping to a solution".
Those of us who believe it is premature to redesign the world based on global warming that may or may not be happening by modifying behavior which may or may not solve the problem (if there is one) find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to prove that there is NOT global warming and that redesigning the world's economy will NOT reverse global warming.
When one points out that the "solution" is immensely expensive, the proponents will accuse us of being uncaring about the environment.
This, really, is the root of all "political correctness". To believe that it is tyranny to expel a six-year-old from school for using a bit of chicken as a mock gun, makes us subject to charges that we are soft on discipline, don't care about children, and are the main contributors to future Columbines.