Both are and I am a big cheerleader of smoke free environments. However existing restaurant owners should be compensated for the loss in value of their business.
So, the market forces are a good thing, unless you have to smell something you don't want to smell. If you think that at some time in the future, somewhere, you might have to sniff something poo-poo, then no financial suffering on the part of a fellow citizen is too big a price to pay to spare your delicate sensibilities.
Smelling cigarrette smoke while I eat is about as objectionable as smelling crap while I eat. Either way I would reward both the crap free business as well as the smoke free business.
You don't have to live these business owners' lives, pay their bills, or scramble to survive because you got blindsided by the tsunami of lawyers, otherwise unemployables who got no-heavy-lifting jobs working for "smoking cessation" Jihadi organizations, and their useful idiot delicate flowers who get the vapors when they venture out into public and decide the rest of the world has to conform to their narcissistic demands.
I said that laws bannning smoking (unless they were state wide) should result in existing restaurant owners to be compensated in one cash lump sum for the decrease in value of their business resulting from the regulation. I further said that I would be willing to pay my proportinate share of that in taxes.
This used to be a country with balls, no more. The effete sissies, and their Machiavellian masters have put a tutu on Uncle Sam.,
You take a stand toward wanting places to be smoke filled and I take a stand toward wanting places to be smoke free. How is that being a sissie for either of us ?
Oh really, exactly where did I say I wanted places to be smoke-filled, besides in your mind?
You want the government to negate private property rights, period.
Give it a rest, you've become really tiresome.