[DannyTN]

"And so because cheap b*stard non-smokers have no principles, they conspire with socialist control-freaks in the legislatures and city halls to have their way. Thank you for clearing up this matter. "

Thank you for your eloquent paraphrase.

But unfortunately, I think that's the case. It's a game theory scenario tilted in favor of smoking. An individual can choose to go to a non-smoking restaurant, but until the masses of non-smokers insist on non-smoking restaurants, he will have to pay a significant premium. And even if the masses insist, they may still have to pay some premium, depending on whether the non-smoking volume is enough to offset the higher margin liquor sales.

[CSM]

"depending on whether the non-smoking volume is enough to offset the higher margin liquor sales."

Your theory involving liquor driving the cost is flawed. A limited number of liquor liscenses exist in any given town or city and that number is far less than the number of restaurants. The non liqour restaurants find ways to survive all the time. Coffee shops find ways to exist all the time. If these places meet the demands of the market segment they are trying to capture, then they are successfull.

[headsonpikes]

Thank you for your eloquent paraphrase.

You're welcome. ;^)