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.
But the wuaestion remains, why should either establishment, the non-smoking or smoking, be forced to change their particular business model that had been working for them by something other than the free market?
I understand your point in regard to who is doing the voting, however it still comes down to a matter of why should you have the right to vote to decide my clientele?
Chimney people, please listen
You don't know what you're missin'.