Laws which restrict certain actions provoke controversy so it's up to us to know the evidence. (Notice I said 'restrict certain actions' not 'curtail certain freedoms' - words matter. As scientists we should try to remain as objective as possible and 'freedom' is one of the least objective words in the dictionary.)
This is low grade evidence but it's an important question. England and Ireland have passed strong smoke-free laws; in the Netherlands the laws are weaker. So that sets up a natural experiment to compare comprehensive versus partial legislation. The data in this paper are from annual surveys of a cohort which (if I have read the report correctly) maintains response rates over 75%.
The statistical handling is complex, with 'generalised estimating equations' to handle the problem of repeat analysis on the same set of people, and also as the authors point out, of the central question:
Of key interest in this study is the period by country interaction, as it allows for formal testing of whether quit attempts and/or success evolved over the two time periods differently in each of the three countries.
Comprehensive legislation also seems to create more support among smokers than partial bans.