It wasn't shame. It was age restrictions, banning smoking in most public spaces, addiction acknowledgement and smoking cessation resources, public health awareness campaigns, and increased taxation. "Shaming" smokers was just the cultural byproduct in the change in smoking, and arguably a negative one.
In Australia at least there's been a government sponsored advertisement campaign "Every cigarette is doing you damage" that rather obviously conveys smoking as an unpleasant "shameful" habit, while graphically describing the health impacts. I very much doubt the "shaming" part of the campaign would work on its own, but whoever made the ads were obviously attempting to make cigarette smoking look as unappealing as possible.
More importantly, given the article this thread is supposed to be discussing, I'd be wary of assuming what works in helping reduce the usage of a "soft" drug like nicotine by a significant percentage of the population would work with hard drugs used (and abused) primarily by marginalised individuals. In fact we have had similar advertising campaigns against heroin/ice
etc. (*) but I'm not aware of convincing evidence that they've really done all that much to help reduce problem usage.
