You're missing the point here. Nobody is saying we should ban smoking all together, just where people who choose not to smoke would be affected by the second-hand smoke.
As for your nice little tirade about how everything fun is unhealthy and therefore should be banned. Those are the same arguments I here over and over again and they're not getting any more convincing. There's a big difference between the things you listed and smoking in public places. Those are all personal choices. You can do it if you want to and only you will have to suffer from possible consequences. If somebody smokes in a public place on the other hand, his unhealthy decision is forced upon me! Now some smokers would say "then simply don't go to that place", WTF? Why should I avoid going somewhere because of somebody jeopardizing my health or making me feel uncomfortable? That would be like me going out, farting all night long and then telling people who are complaining that they can leave if they don't like it. The only difference is that health concerns for farting are probably not that high. Demanding tolerance from non-smokers towards smokers is ridiculous.
Oh, and about that "smokers are putting more money into system than they take out" argument. I'm not so sure, Maybe, maybe not. I'm tending towards the latter. But then again, nobody is saying you should quit smoking altogether.
I highly doubt unhealthy food is nearly as bad as smoking. Again though, saying something else is bad doesn't make smoking any better and therefore cannot be used as an argument against laws that ban smoking where non-smokers are affected.
As for your second point, I know two people that died from smoking. In Germany there are far more people dying from smoking each year than from all traffic accidents, alcohol, or any other substance abuse (cocaine, et cetera) combined. I 'm talking about a two to threefold difference here, BTW. In Germany alone over 1000 people die each year because of second-hand smoking, people who did nothing wrong and who were affected by the bad choices of others. Deaths which could be avoided. This is not totalitarianism, it's protecting innocent lives from a minority. Just to put this in perspective, on 9/11 "only" ~3000 innocent lives were lost.... Another argument smokers like to use is that revenue of restaurants, bars and so on will drop dramtically once laws that ban smoking are in place. Countries which have already taken the step are proof this is untrue. Most smokers won't stay at home because of such laws. In fact, in some countries revenue has gone up, because now people who couldn't stand the smoke are going out more often.
Nobody in their right mind can be opposed to banning smoking in public places, at least indoors. I'm not some sort of anti-smoking nazi. But when it comes to to people defending their addiction and bringing forward cheap arguments against anti-smoking laws, I like to debunk them.
