A philosophical question

Which is better:
A) to force someone to do something that they do not wish to do
B) to force someone to not do something that they wish to do, or to prevent someone from doing what they wish

The extremes could be seen as rape, murder, etc. for A, and sensory deprivation, imprisonment, etc. for B, but rather than playing with conceptual extremes I will try to ground it is some reality for you.

A few specific examples:
I thought about this a couple times in China where it isn't terribly uncommon for people to use their cellphones as very small stereos, playing their music out loud in a public place, such as on the subway. When I was in a van once with several people, a girl was playing her music like this. I asked her if she had any headphones and she said no. Then I told her that I didn't want to listen to her music. Was I right to feel that she should not forcibly impose her choice of music on others without consent?

At the juggling festival in Badalona there was a DJ playing reggae music. Reggae is not a kind of music that I usually enjoy, and this music was so loud I couldn't even ear my own music (techno and electronic are my genres of choice for juggling practice, if you are curious.) through my headphones. I felt that as long as I wanted to stay and juggle I was being "forced" to listen to the reggae music.

Far more generally, think of smoking. Those of us who do not smoke consider it perfectly acceptable to use our personal preference as a legitimate reason to force other people to not smoke. Think about that: we override other people's free choices. Ignore the health issues for a moment and think about the moral issues related to choice and opinion, the freedom to choose one's own actions. If I am sitting in a car with three smokers, it is okay for me to ask them not to smoke because I don't like the smell/taste of it? What are the limits of this? When is it okay and when is it unacceptable for a non-smoker to force a smoker to not smoke.

What do you think?