I do have a slight discomfort about broad-brush bans. Perhaps more so when the effects are skewed towards particular socioeconomic groups, though I don't think this case gives much to worry about there upon a full consideration.

But, well, it's not a harmless pleasure (even ignoring the effect on the smoker): as such I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate it to reduce the harm it causes. I think time will tell whether the decision here was a good one or was heavy-handed.