Playing Devil's Advocate, I think most libertarians and the like are upset that they banned smoking in restaurants and other private establishments. It's one thing to ban smoking in public establishments and places where people don't have to be, but as a restaurant I should be able to decide if I want smokers in there, and if other customers/staff don't like being around them they don't have to go there. The problem is, of course, that when it was legal pretty much all restaurants had to allow smoking to stay competitive, and even with smoking and non-smoking areas it wasn't uncommon for people to still have to deal with it when going to more or less any restaurant. Beyond that, they started banning it in outdoor areas, smokers had to move from outside the doorway to farther out and many colleges and workplaces require people to go pretty far lengths- many times no matter what the elements are- to get away from places where people MIGHT be, even if they're not there right now.

It's become a movement that was once focused on just making sure non-smokers didn't have to deal with carcinogens no matter where they went, but now the anti-smoking laws and movement seem to have the goal of trying to over-tax and inconvenience people into quitting. Taking the libertarian hat off, they would probably have more success in funding more broad-based quitting programs, the various treatments can often be quite expensive and Quit-Smoking lines and other programs only really give significant assistance to the poor.