The difference between my view and most smoking bans differ, however - I still say don't outright ban smoking, but require a waiver. As I said before, opt-in rather than opt-out. With the opt-out of smoking system, we have very few restaurants without smoking because of fear of losing business. This law is a catalyst towards clean air that will help my kids and yours live longer.
No I won't "chill". I own a business (not restaurant related in any way) and unless you've been there you have NO idea how tough it is to make a go of it. We (business) don't need you self righteous people telling us how to run it. As I stated, this is not a "hidden" thing. Open the door if there's smoke and you don't like it don't go in. Should all Italian restaurants be closed because tomatoes give ME heartburn?
Bovine excrement. There was no law saying that the establishments had to allow smoking to begin with. Where were the nonsmoking restaurants then? THAT was opt-out, where the owner just had to say NO. But most of them didn't - which is why the gnatzies (supported by people with your point of view) had to attack!
The exceptions - which WILL end one day - are designed to decrease the pain of complying with the law. In other words, the gnatzies temporarily feel the restaurant/bar owner's pain. TEMPORARILY! Because, eventually, the non-smoking places will complain that the establishments with "waivers" have an unfair advantage.
BTW - you need to bone up on the true science about second hand smoke. You're sadly mistaken, apparently willing to swallow the garbage pushed by the gnatzies whole-hog.
Try as I might, I just can't understand the mindset of the statist.