When smoking was banned from the indoors based on health concerns, it was not a given that the problem would be transferred to the streets which escalated the amount of smoking on the streets, especially in groups.
A "given"? Perhaps not. A reasonable assumption that occurred to a fair number of people beforehand, yes. It didn't take genius - I thought of it when I read the first article I saw on the subject. Where else could people go?
Actually, the origins of much of the anti-smoking legislation was because of non-smokers who could not move (such as restaurant and bar workers) and the related public interest. These were groups that were spending extended periods of time in close quarters with smokers, and were experiencing unusually high rates of smoking-related diseases. Because these are groups that tended to be uninsured, the high healthcare costs were being footed by the tax-paying public, and so municipalities started getting involved.
Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......