Yup; the problem here is that while most people probably prefer smoke-free environments, heavy smokers are likely to be the heaviest drinkers, too. So the bar owners are incentivized to reward their best customers rather than the majority of their customers.
One in my old town of 2,500. It was quite successful until the smoking ban gave all of its patrons more choice of poison dispensaries. (Although the non-smokers weren't enough to keep all of the other bars in business).
You can look at it as utilizing the same power that prohibits employers from knowingly maintaining a workplace that contains dangers that are both mitigable and not intrinsic to the work being performed.
Or do you feel that OSHA & co.'s power to -say- require a warehouse operator to ensure that its shelving will hold the loads that are to be placed upon it and won't suddenly collapse and crush warehouse employees is an improper use of the power of coercion?
Edit: Upon further reflection, my last 'graph might sound a little too pointed. I ask the question because I've known many people who object in the strongest terms that everything that OSHA does is unreasonable and an obvious overreach. I have no way of knowing if you hold this opinion (or a similar one), hence the question.
Where I live, pubs were hellbent against smoking bans. Not a single pub was brave enough to go smoke free alone. They all scrambled to install outdoor beer gardens, but not all could do so for lack of outdoor space. Then when the smoking bans were introduced their patronage went up, as did their profits. Sure all their customers before the ban were smokers, but that was putting off non-smokers from becoming new customers.
How would that go for, say, the use of lead paint?
Certain societal decisions need a central consensus point. The already extant coercive power of the state is something we are unfortunately stuck with; we may as well use it for good.
