Number 1 - They can ALREADY do that simply by making their business 'No Smoking Allowed' and letting other business people make their OWN decision whether or not to allow smoking, spitting, cussing, etc.
Number 2 - What about the business man that does NOT request that they be subject to a smoking ban? Are THEIR property rights to be trampled on simply because a majority doesn't want to enter their business if they allow smoking? (Not that I think a majority wouldn't enter simply because a business owner allowed smoking)
If this was the case the 'smoking allowed' businessman would go out of business shortly after the 'no smoking allowed' business person banned smoking from their establishment.
Not feasible unless they all "disarm" at the same time. Otherwise they can lose customers.
Number 2 - What about the business man that does NOT request that they be subject to a smoking ban? Are THEIR property rights to be trampled on simply because a majority doesn't want to enter their business if they allow smoking? (Not that I think a majority wouldn't enter simply because a business owner allowed smoking)
Yes, his rights were "tampled on" but they were trampled on using the political process. So long as the laws were followed, he has no recourse.
But lets change the scenario somewhat to "what if all the restuarant owners in SmokeFREE town decided they no longer wished to serve smokers. They have a problem even if they all banned smoking at the same time because they would create a new opportunity for a new restaurant. So they call on their town officials to enact a town wide ban. No existing property owner is harmed.