Yes, it's a lot gentler. The anti-smoking movement has been going on for a long time, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-smoking_movement. If my "one century" estimate is correct, smoking will be more-or-less banned in progressive countries between 2040 and 2075; the high end of that range does not seem totally unreasonable, although I'm not an expert by any means.

Contrast prohibition in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_State...): the first thing most people noticed was probably a complete ban (1920), although there were already quite a few local bans in place by that point (equally abruptly introduced). Very little effort seems to have been spent on gradual introduction of the law, and it was introduced despite a lack of broad acceptance (contrast the "conditional bans" you complain about.)

It may well be the case that the anti-smokers will, like the "dry" people, eventually achieve a ban on the good in question. However, the anti-tobacco campaign is a lot more gentle than the anti-alcohol campaign, and denying that is just rhetoric.

Two notes: yes, I think an eventual tobacco ban is a good thing; and you may be amused to learn that the nazis were fiercely anti-smoking as well.