“Free markets work, you know.”
I live in a community that really favors it’s hole in the wall bars. Within walking distance of my house, there exist 4 bars. One is very smokey, one is midrange (meaning that they do a very good job of seperating the smoking and non-smoking sections) and one is smoke free. The 4th I have never entered as it seems to be a biker bar, as a result I can not speak for their environment.
As a smoker, the smokey bar is my favorite, but I do frequent the midrange bar for their great food and good specials. I used to go to the other bar, until they went smoke free. The only one that has an empty lot, when I am in the area and can directly observe, is the smoke free bar. In fact, they are the only one that runs specials and ads in the neighborhood “circulars.”
I am not questioning your statement, rather, I am showing that there is no real “market” for smoke free bars. As a result, the nanny’s can’t exert their control over that market and so they turn to government guns to enforce their preferences on that market. The result is that the number of bars, within walking distance for many folks, would greatly be reduced with mandated bans on smoking. I would imagine that of the 4 bars, 2 would cease to exist. The biker bar would probably survive as they would probably disregard the law and the bar with the great food specials would probably survive based on their food sales.
My favorite bar and the non-smoking bar would probably go out of business. The non-smoking bar is already on the verge, so I don’t see that thet smoke free customer is really desiring to go to the bar and the average customer at my favorite bar would just stop for 1, get sick of it and go home and drink there. Maybe they would invite other folks from the bar over to their house.
Of course, that would lead to disturbances in residential neighborhoods, requiring further legislation to eliminate large gatherings at private homes.....Nanny staters will never quit!