[VRWC_minion]

But, if your assertion is true (that the bans are not harmful for business), the bans will at least stay in place, and should not have any exceptions carved out (e.g., for hotels to accomodate loss in convention business, etc.).

I believe that if a national ban were to take place there might be some lost business but the amount lost would be more than offset by increased profit margins. Catering to smokers adds labor and maintenance costs. In addition, if the hard core smokers/drinkers who dropped a lot of cash in bars stayed home the savings to the owner in liability insurance and to us in car insurance is a welcome offset to the lost business as well as the boost in income to the liquor store owner would yield an uptick in the economy.

[Cboldt]

I believe that if a national ban were to take place there might be some lost business but the amount lost would be more than offset by increased profit margins. Catering to smokers adds labor and maintenance costs. In addition, if the hard core smokers/drinkers who dropped a lot of cash in bars stayed home the savings to the owner in liability insurance and to us in car insurance is a welcome offset to the lost business as well as the boost in income to the liquor store owner would yield an uptick in the economy.

Why would a national ban be necessary to produce savings in the form of reduced liability insurance, reduced car insurance, etc.? Already, we nonsmokers have the benefit of reduced health and life insurance premiums. Likewise, the savings you recite in the form of labor and maintenance caused by catering to smokers should appear even in a local ban.

Happy New Year to you!