The contradiction I've seen in business and law is what confuses me in this matter. The "free market" solution should have worked something like this: people eat where they want at various establishments. Some of those places permit smoking, some allow it on certain portions of their property, and others do not permit it altogether. People, over time, select which places they want to go to and some select them based upon the smoking/some smoking/no smoking. Whatever people like, people pick, the end.
What is strange about this is that, here in Florida, few people selected places based upon smoking permission. Chains that allowed smoking didn't see non-smokers go elsewhere and places that prohibited it saw smokers still walk through their doors time and time again. Based on where business went and the places people went, you'd swear no one gave a big shit about smoking in private businesses.
...and then the restaurant ban came up for a vote. Not only did it pass, it passed
hugely. Based on the vote, clearly people did not want smoking in restaurants. Not only did they desire a ban, they wanted it so badly they
amended the state constitution. (Noo... this isn't an abuse of founding state documents, is it? Just like
protecting the rights of pigs wasn't, either, but that is a different story!)
The backlash? I spoke with the owner of a local bar shortly after the law went into effect and she said business was miserable -- the place was dead quiet. (Bars are exempt under the law, but this "bar" sold enough food that it qualified as a restaurant and was forced to ban smoking.) She feared her drinking regulars would never return, the business would fail, and that the money, logically, would go to "true" bars where her thirsty customers could puff away to their hearts' content and still get their drink.
Weeks later, a return visit and everything was back to normal. Regulars returned, business resumed, etc, and the owner commented two weeks was all it took. Did the smokers take their drinking habits to where they could also smoke? Nope, they simply step outside.
My problem: if smoking was a big health hazard and people hated it so much as to vote for it, why didn't places that permitted smoking see a loss in money and cave in to business demands by banning it themselves? Why did people that hated smoking in restaurants continue to eat at the establishments that permitted it? Why didn't the magical free market solution reflect the vote and popular opinion?
My other problem: if the smoking ban is a big deal, why didn't smokers take their business to "true bars" or stay at home? Why did businesses not suffer anything beyond the temporary dip?
To make matters even stranger, plenty of exempt businesses used the ban as an
excuse to prohibit smoking on their property. Tampa Lanes, a bowling alley, switched on the same date as when the ban went into effect. So did several nightclubs in the area. Guess what? Smokers
still go to these establishments, sometimes selecting them over places that continue to permit smoking.
What the hell?