"But, the same could be said of mine workers. If they don't like the conditions, they're free to find other work. The government has no business telling mine owners how to run their mines. Right?"
Um, yes, at least at the federal level. The only thing government intrusion has done is caused a sense of security that just can not exist. It is impossible to make mines 100% safe for the worker, but with government intrusion the worker, and society, can think they are safer than they are. As a result, they don't get true market driven wages. Wages that reflect the risk they take.
Government intrusion has harmed the mine workers, more than it has helped them. The same will happen in the restaurant/bar business.
Then let's confine your answer to the state government. After all, that's the subject of the thread.
Any smoking-ban opponents who say, in effect, "any workers who don't want the risk (no matter how serious it really is) can go find another job" are simply shooting themselves in the foot. They're ignoring or even conceding defeat on the bigger issue, that being whether secondhand smoke really poses a serious health risk.
Because, if you give the 'nazis' a pass, and let them call it a serious health risk, if you're going to say concerned workers should just find another job, you'd better be ready to say the government (at all levels) should abandon all its efforts in the area of worker (and consumer) safety regulation.
Now, while that very well may be true -- hey, I'm a big proponent of 'caveat emptor' myself -- that's going to be a VERY difficult sell to the 90% of Americans to the left of me, the hardcore right-wing zealot. You'll be a lot better off focusing on disproving the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. If secondhand smoke does not rise to the level of a serious health risk, even the most casual conservative will agree government has no business regulating it in the workplace, and you'll have a much easier time convincing the mushy middle.