|
I am opposed to smoking bans, but at this time they are necessary. The "free market" concept wasn't working. Almost every restaurant had smoking sections (as if the 2 feet that seperated the smoking section from the non was some magic force field), every bar allowed smoking. In exceptionally rare instances, you might find a non-smoking restaurant or bar.
But most people don't smoke. So it was readily apparent that the concept that the free market would work out the issue on its own by providing something close to proportionate representation of smokers desires and non-smokers desires simply wasn't working. There was no premium for non-smokers, even though they made up the majority of patrons.
I attribute this to the history of smoking being essentially a non-concern. Potentially, after a few decades of a smoking ban, when society has become accustomed to a lack of smoking in restaurants and bars, society will be ready to handle the responsibility on the matter. If so, we will see many restaurants that do not permit smoking and many restaurants that do - and the clientele will associate themselves with those types of restaurants, respectively.
|