And many places went non-smoking WITHOUT government interference to correct that.
and they changed their rules to accommodate the larger group of spenders...the non-smokers...problem solved.
Yes, many did WITHOUT government interference, but that wasn't good enough for people like you, you had to get big brother involved so everything was to accommodate YOU.
When we were fighting the ban in Delaware, one of the most vocal opponents of it was a gentleman who owned a very popular (and upscale) bar and restaurant that he had decided to take smoke-free. He didn't want the ban, because he claimed it would cut into the niche market he created for himself. He was right, his business declined drastically following the ban.
As to your so-called larger group of spenders, tell that to all the establishments that lost business because of the ban.
The number one reason owners wouldn't go smoke free was because they would lose business to places that permitted smoking - and you can find that excuse in favor of government interference in news reports in every state the bed wetting anti-smokers descend up to impose their ways.
“...but that wasn’t good enough for people like you...”
Me?
<.......”The number one reason owners wouldn’t go smoke free was because they would lose business to places that permitted smoking - and you can find that excuse in favor of government interference in news reports in every state the bed wetting anti-smokers descend up to impose their ways”......>
We had a Burger Joint here...years and years in business...a greasy spoon type of place.....but the best Burgers in town! You’d smell like tobacco when you left....but everybody went there.
They actually put picnic tables outside for the “NON-Smokers” ..ha!
When the law demanded nonsmoking establishments they not only eventually lost the business...but their waitresses suffered in their tips as the smokers usually lingered for ahile and generally paid a good tip.