I originally left this as a comment, but I wrote so much I decided to clean it up a bit and give it the full monty. Even though I'm a non-smoker, I disagree with the assertion that a patron's comfort should be of paramount importance with regards to smoking. While every business owner tries to appeal to the majority of customers, and while prohibiting smoking might please more than 50% of patrons, that doesn't necessarily translate into increased profits, for reasons that I'll explain.

When it comes to smoking, it is true that non-smokers may be more comfortable in a non-smoking environment. However, smokers seem to be more uncomfortable in a non-smoking environment than non-smokers are in a non-smoking environment. That is, smokers seem to be more fickle. (Addiction to nicotine may just have something to do with that.) In simple terms, that means that financially, you may be worse off appealing to a majority of customers (non smokers) if you're completely losing the minority (smokers). The reason being that although non-smokers prefer a non-smoking environment they aren't as likely to get up and leave as addiction-prone smokers are who barred from smoking.

That said, regardless of how the numbers work out, it should always be up to the business owner to decide which way he wants to cater his business. Having the government decide (or the majority) is tyranny. Even if the business owner wants to make a poor financial decision and cater to a niche (outside the mainstream) market, that's his business, not that of the government.