On the one hand you're telling us second-hand smoke is a killer, and smokers are a danger to non-smokers. On this basis you think it's perfectly ok for the government to control the use of public and private property to regulate its use.
Yet on the other hand you think smoking should remain legal? Your own reasoning argues against your position here. If it's dangerous enough to regulate its use on private property, why should it remain legal? Why would you oppose those who want to ban it?
This conversation is getting a little weird. Who said that I would oppose anything? I just don't care.