That's answering a quetsion with another question, but I'll try to answer anyhow. They can lobby all they want, but whether such a ban should be enacted is a different matter entirely. Just because 50% + 1 of restaurant business owners want such a ban does not mean that such a law is allowed.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, we're a republic not a democracy. In order for such a ban to be enacted, it should have to pass muster based on the state constutition. If the state constitution gave the legislature such a power over restaurant business, then I would agree that a ban like that would be allowed. Not the right thing to do, mind you, but allowed.
Now that I've given a shot at answering your question, please take a stab at mine. What's wrong with letting the restaurtant owner decide if his establishment is to be non-smoking, have a non-smoking section, or allows smoking? Isn't this the free market in action?
Now the thread is complete. And the parties who agree with each other never seem to vary. Great stuff,,,LOL
PS, the subject matter of the thread is about to change.
Nothing, I support this. However, NY changed the issue. The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them. Therefore, these private property owners have made their decision and its not favorable to smokers.