Your position is based on your own subjective preference rather than any objective fact.

We’ve gone from “your actions are having a direct negative impact on my health”, to “I’m not particularly fond of what you’re doing.”

Far from being the same, your position is actually very different conceptually.

The personal preferences of some aren’t valid reasons to ban things in public places for all. In most cases that would be a gross violation of human rights.

In my city the vast majority have a strong preference against pan handling. But it’s been made clear time and time again the pans handlers have every right to sit in public and ask for money, whether people like it or not. Moreover if they like they can also smoke a cigarette or bang a drum.

There's a lot of stuff that's gross and obnoxious that isn't banned by the FTC or FDA.

I‘m sure some people find your breath and/or your body odor/perfume gross.

So should they be able to force you to wear a mask or keep a distance of say at least 6ft at all times?

Completely different concept.

That's personal preference vs. a potential health hazard.

Great example - masks. You may have had a personal preference not to wear a mask during the height of the pandemic, but that 'personal preference' puts others at a proven health hazard.

In this case, your 'personal preference' is irrelevant.

If second hand outdoor smoke really did have the affects you initially used to back up your point, then that would be a 'health hazard', and therefore important to the greater whole, and something to be considered taking legal action on.

Since you reduced your argument to 'I don't want to smell it', the underlying concept completely changes, and your statement is completely irrelevant.

I change a couple of words and suddenly your reasoning sounds absurd.