We are pretty much in a greement with each other, except for one small point. You speak of the wants of the smokers and the non-smokers, but what about the wants of the owner of the establishment.
One of the very vocal opponents to the statewide ban in Delaware owned a very popular restaurant and bar, that was totally non-smoking. His argument was that the proponents of the ban were going to take away the market he had created for himself. He was correct.
I suppose that in the presence of such a ban, he would need another way to attract customers. Again, the market should decide this; if his biggest draw is that his establishment is smoke-free he should provide better food, beverages, and prices, for example. Similarly, establishments that were previously smoking establishments now need to attract more people to compensate for the business that they lose. It goes both ways, though that is an interesting point.
I should specify that I mentioned the distinction between public places and private property is an open and very difficult question. That’s why I try to take care not to contradict myself. As far as the people deciding, I also make the distinction between a voter majority directly voting on something and elected officials voting on something. As you know it is quite possible for government to vote on something (and approve of something) that is not supported by their constituents or even a majority of the country as a whole.