Two things:
1. "anti-smoker" is not the same as "anti-smoking"
2. That's an exaggerated, if not entirely baseless, generalization.
If someone is trying to use the democratic process to take away a property owners tight to allow consumption of a legal commodity, it doesn't matter if you say pumpkin or punkin.
They're both the same.
That's an exaggerated, if not entirely baseless, generalization.
Which? That the anti-smokers say that or that the nonsmoking population will make up for the number of smokers?
Almost every smoking ban that has passed in the past 2 years, the controlling authority has been warned that the ban will be bad for business. Almost every time, the anti-smoking cabal has told the controlling authority to, in effect, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
The net result is that mom&pop establishments that have been in business for years go under leaving only the corporate establishments in business because they can afford some fall off in business. It's a tax writeoff.
Once the mom&pop establishments are out of the way the corporates come back up to normal only because they are the only game in town. A portion of the people that otherwise would have gone to a mom&pop establishment now have no other choice. They must frequent the corporate establishment if they want to go out at all.