Smoking bans are a tricky one. There's clearly a negative externality, and it doesn't seem to be something the market is capable of dealing with (why are there never any non-smoking establishments?), so how else might things be made to work without a blanket ban (which, as a non-smoker, I have to admit I love) ?
Of course there were non-smoking establishments before the law. That there were few indicates how little a restaurant has to gain in making them.
The argument for non-smoking in restaurants has always been a safety at work issue for the waiting staff. That is completely ridiculous as there is a market solution: get another job.
Smoking bans are a perfect example of small people getting some bureaucratic power and testing the wall of their box to see how far they can reach. People aren't complaining, so they just push out more and more.
Here in Austria, there are no restaurants and no bars, with the exception of McDonalds, that ban smoking completely. As a consequence, my wife and I go out very rarely - less than we would if Austria, like Italy, had a smoking ban.
What smells funny (ha ha) in terms of market failure to me is that I know that there are plenty of people like ourselves who don't smoke, and prefer not to have to bear the costs of other people's smoking habit (beyond health, if you choose not to believe in that, simply having to wash everything to get the awful smell out). You would think that there might be one or two places that would cater to that segment of the market. But there are none.
Consider a different element: loud music. The market provides a wide range of places to go, from the silent to the dull-roar where you can't hear yourself think. Don't like loud music? Don't go to those bars, then - everything works out just fine with no regulations.
Smoking doesn't work that way, though - perhaps the business of non-smokers might not be enough to keep a few bars alive, or the pressure of smokers in a mixed group of smoker/non smoker friends would keep them from going there, so restaurants/bars are afraid to even try. With a blanket ban, though, everyone is on a level playing field, and the smokers just go outside.
It's sort of like helmet regulations in sports like hockey or cycling: some people wore helmets beforehand, but since they hinder you in certain conditions, they were the exception rather than the rule. By making everyone wear them, they're all safer, and those who care about taking reasonable measures to keep themselves safe aren't at a disadvantage compared to those who are willing to take that risk, and thus the difference is, as it should be, athletic ability.
The bottom line is, what gives you the right to tell people how they have to run their restaurant? And to use violence to enforce it?
You quickly throw out the market, (and claim to understand economics? LOL!) but the reality is- if people preferred it, the restaurants were non-smoking.
Most people, however, don't feel the need to force others to comply with their whims, using violence. Unfortunately, those who do join the government.
"small"? The world has been under assault by these "small" (read socialist) people for the last 108 years... they've managed to murder 100 million people at least in that time period.
they are not getting some buro-cratic power-- they have been exercising the scyth arm for over a century.
Nobody complained when the nazis took over germany or publicly under soviet rule, but eventually both of these tyrannies were overthrown.
