[VRWC_minion]

That is only your assertation, minion. I have seen no numbers anywhere to corroborate this.

It is simply not arguable that the costs for running two separate seating arrangments, the slower turnover of tables from smokers and the extra cost for equipment and supplies increases costs.

It is arguable that the effect on revenues is an unknown variable which may be different from one location to another. In that respect a ban on smoking area wide provides insulation from lost revenues.

As far as facts and figures, the best evidence is that the large chains are banning smoking. They have the ultimate responsibility to maximize profits and gain market share. If there actions lowered profits and/or market share the market would be creating smoking establishments FASTER than nonsmoking ones. In that this isn't the case, the numbers speak for themselves.

[Just another Joe]

As far as facts and figures, the best evidence is that the large chains are banning smoking. They have the ultimate responsibility to maximize profits and gain market share.

And THAT is what the "level playing field" is all about.
The "fact" is that when you take away a percentage of local consumers from the smaller establishments, they can't stay in business.
The larger chains can eat the drop and wait for the smaller businesses to go OUT OF business.
What a way to gain market share, using government force to make your competition go out of business.

And you condone this.
Shame on you.

There are no figures that say it is a cost savings to go nonsmoking. Period. Otherwise you would be touting them to the high heavens.

[CSM]

"As far as facts and figures, the best evidence is that the large chains are banning smoking. They have the ultimate responsibility to maximize profits and gain market share. If there actions lowered profits and/or market share the market would be creating smoking establishments FASTER than nonsmoking ones. In that this isn't the case, the numbers speak for themselves."

Yep, and their goal is to "shrink" the total available market in that community. The market contraction causes some family owned businesses to go under, therefore the lower demand is met with fewer businesses. So, in essence they advocate a policy that shrinks the market and then decide that they must lower the available businesses to meet that smaller market, they do that with government force.

Just like any socialist would do, and you support it.

[CSM]

"It is simply not arguable that the costs for running two separate seating arrangments, the slower turnover of tables from smokers and the extra cost for equipment and supplies increases costs."

Don't forget the revenue side of the equation. A restaurant or bar makes a much higher profit margin on alcohol beverages and deserts. Therefore, the customer that lingers over a couple of more drinks not only provides a higher margin to the restaurant, but they also end up tipping the wait person more.

Don't forget bars. The regulars that stay for a couple of hours and socialize of drinks and smokes will no longer hang out for a couple of hours, they will stop by and then leave quickly. Therefore, their revenues will drop dramatically.

Of course, your answer is to lower supply to meet the lower demand. How very "free market" of you.