Sometimes it leads to survival (i.e., don't play on the freeway). Other times, as in the case of smoking, risk-aversion very often leads to increased life span, and/or better health.
But the point is that that private property that welcomes the public is still private property.
And the point is also that harm on private property is still harm. One can probably make a fair argument for allowing smoking in a restaurant or bar.
OTOH, suppose it's a home, and that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking -- are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?
The "private property" claim is not the only one in play here.
You're assuming that I'm accepting the second-hand smoke myth.
The "for the children" argument is such screamingly, laughably politically-correct received wisdom, I'm embarrassed for you for even presenting it.
I can keep repeating just as long as you do.
Prove that there's "harm."