I don't necessarily think that smoking in public should be banned, but it should be strongly regulated. If you want to pollute your own lungs, fine, just don't pollute the lungs of those around you. That means respecting others, something that most people seem to have a problem with.
You can regulate "publicly owned" land all you want Cephus, but the Constitution stands between you and private property regulation, like it or not.
For instance, I think it is ridiculous to attempt to try to regulate open air areas, like parks. However, it is technically publicly owned property, so I can agree that since smoking is a personal choice that is dangerous to your health, it may not be allowable if you can prove a legitimate danger from smoke concentration levels in the areas in question. Courtrooms, Federal Buildings, publicly owned land, can be regulated.
Places owned by a private individual, whether open to the public, or private homes cannot be regulated against in such a manner. The land is private property, and the owner has the choice of specifying whether it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment or dwelling.
I am all about reasonable compromise, but not if it infringes my rights, or the limitations emplaced on government in the Constitution.
Is this not fair, reasonable and diplomatic?