“That is up to the democratic process.”
Democratic socialist is what you mean. Hence, we are supposed to be a representative republic, where private property is sacrosanct!
“I voted against it on philosophical grounds,”
I am very aware of the electtion you referenced, and am glad to see that you did not support it with your ballot.
“does not seems to have done appreciable damage to bars and restaurants as businesses. It turned out that most people preferred not to eat or drink with the odor of cigarette smoke about them.”
All of that is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the cigarette, cigar, or whatever policy should only be decided by the owner of the property. The fact that we have somehow decided that this is now legitimate, simply means there there is no longer ANY private property rights.
I could ban all sorts of activities on any property now. I can also force behaviour anywhere now. We are seeing this exact thing with regards to gay “marriage.” The smoking bans gave them the tools, now we get to reap the whirlwind.
Welcome to “The Brave New World.” It is a well earned utopia.
We may yet find ourselves defending and losing freedom at the last ditch, but I am confident that we did not arrive at and fail that extremity when smoking was banned in restaurants. For sound reasons of public health, safety, and welfare, restaurants and other public places have long been closely regulated. The temperature of refrigerators, vermin in the kitchen and dining area, employees washing their hands properly, and so on are all intrusive but fully reasonable and necessary requirements. Banning cigarette smoking in restaurants because of second hand smoke is easily defended as such a regulatory measure.