It's not about smoking, per se, it's about private property rights. The article says 70% of the establishments were in favor of the ban, however, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? They don't need a total government ban in order to ban smoking on their own premises. The 30% not in favor are certainly within their rights to allow smoking if they choose. Customers who don't like it don't have to go there.
The article says 70% of the establishments were in favor of the ban, however, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? Because they believe having the ban be universal is the only way they'll get the business of smokers. They believe that other businesses that allow smoking are stealing "their" customers, and they want to stop that.
I am reminded here, btw, of a restaurant called the "Cream Top Tavern" which opened up across from the campus of University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. The owners were laughably inept, and when a popular restaurant, Randy's, was firebombed, people would joke that it was probably the Cream Top restauranteurs that did it. What's crazy is that the jokesters were right.
The owners of the Cream Top Tavern had indeed firebombed Randy, believing that it was responsible for their lack of business. They couldn't possibly imagine that they might lack for business because...
- University lunch breaks are not long enough for people to spend over an hour in a restaurant, even one directly across the street. Even though Randy's was over a mile away, people could still go there, get food, and return much faster than they could get a meal at the Cream Top.
- Customers who show up for dinner didn't appreciate that most of the items on the dinner menu are unavailable until after 10:00pm [yes you read that right--people who eat dinner at normal times were basically limitted to burgers].
- They were unwilling to accept any polite suggestions from people who would like to have a quick lunch, or have dinner at a 'normal' hour.
Needless to say, the Cream Top Tavern did not experience any meaningful increase in business as a result of their shutting down Randy's for a few weeks, even before its owners role in the firebombing was discovered (Randy's did reopen, and there's still a Randy's in Whitewater though I don't know if it's the same ownership). The owners believed that if they eliminated the competition everyone would flock to their door; somehow, though, that just didn't happen.
Returning to the subject of smoking: I would expect that the only restaurants which would likely benefit from the smoking ban are either drive-ins (a smoking ban for patrons' automobiles would likely be unenforceable), drive-throughs, or other takeout places. I would expect smokers would be far more likely to shift their business away from sit-down restaurants in general than to shift it to businesses which pushed for the smoking ban.
It's not about smoking, per se, it's about private property rights. The article says 70% of the establishments were in favor of the ban, however, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? They don't need a total government ban in order to ban smoking on their own premises. The 30% not in favor are certainly within their rights to allow smoking if they choose. Customers who don't like it don't have to go there.
Exactly! We do not need Government intervention in every walk of life in America! I guess some people can't think for themselves, so they need the Nanny Government to think for them. I do not! I was weaned from my Mother when I was a baby.