>>87931468If you want to, you can still smoke at home (if you own it) or in your car (in many places, though often not if there are children present). California's rules on landlords still have to be in the contract (ie if you signed before 2012 you're probably OK to smoke) and whether the landlord chooses to apply them depends on how they feel about the upkeep of their own property.
Smoking in public places has often been banned, and the health risks from passive smoking are significant (and have been known for a very long time). It's simply that it took a long time for communities to adopt legislation to control smoking.
These are often (in the case of local ordinances) rules or laws that have been brought in because of popular support: they are the standards of that community, in other words. Calling them draconian is hyperbole; smoking is not banned, sale of tobacco products is not banned, but there are rules against smoking in a way that harms others, just as there are rules against public masturbation, even on a nudist beach. They haven't been handed down by narrow interest groups, they've enjoyed popular support (even businesses which once threatened they would go under if smoking bans were enforced have often reported increased sales - apparently people enjoy eating without someone blowing smoke across the restaurant) and had no serious attempts at repeal.
While the reactionary stance is that this is the state dictating to the individual what they can do, the actual position here is the state enforcing the rights of the individual not to be surrounded by smoke. It's in line with your right not to be run down or beat up because someone feels they should be able to do that.
The long-term drift to legislate against them smoking in public (you haven't been able to smoke in hospitals for a long, long time, for example, because duh) is only symptomatic of that, it's not the cause; and worth remembering that smokers themselves may have voted for these laws.
