The economics only works when there is a region wide ban so that the owner doesn't need to compete with smoking restaurants.
Of course, the truth is not everyone will benefit from this law. In some establishments, smokers may make up a considerable portion of the customers. A smoking ban will weaken or eliminate these establishments.
Not if there is an accross the board ban.
The major chains are using the power of government to eliminate competition. Do you not think that is wrong, and against the free-market system our country is supposed to have?
I never like it when the larger players run rough shod over the smaller players but that is how our system works. They larger more successful restuarants may be able to excersize more clout than a small restauraunt but the bottom line is that even the small guy is going to have better profits when there is an effective regional ban. So, its not likely that the owner, who is in business to make money, is going to be upset when the larger players get a rule set whereby the industry as a whole makes more money. That is pure common cents.
You just admitted that it takes the force of government for the 'no smoking' crowd to compete with the 'smoking allowed' crowd.
If they can't compete without government interference, is that a free market economy?