VERY sad!
I understand the point you are trying to make, however, there is an important difference between selling bad food, and allowing customers to engage in a legal act (smoking). The first constitutes criminal negligence or intent that will defintely sicken or kill people, without their prior knowledge. This is something we as American generally outlaw.
However, the second situation is different. The owner of that property has decided to allow/forbid smoking - as he should be able to given that this is his property, given that smoking is a legal act on private property, without exception. The customers, if they are concerned about such a rule, can get full knowledge of this before they enter and patronize the business. The decision of the customer to endure cigarette smoke or not is up to the customer, and the business owner will benefit or suffer based on that choice. This is capitalism at its finest.
You, however, feel that "public health" should extend past criminal acts into "annoying" acts. Despite your arguments concerning second-hand smoke being bad for you, etc., etc., ultimately any second hand smoke that you endure is simply an annoyance. The "damage" to your health is laughable - you inhale more toxins walking on a city street than from one or two hours in a restaurant. But, because you are annoyed, and in the majority (non-smokers), you have enacted legislation to hinder poperty-owner's rights under the guise of "public health". I find that not only socialistic, but dishonest as well. Don't worry though, the only people that will have to suffer from this legislation are business owners without porches. And who cares about them? Or their tax dollars?
VERY sad!