This should come as no surprise.

[At McMahon's Brownstone Alehouse in Hoboken, NJ] the pub's owner, Francis McMahon, said many new faces are frequenting his bar - and a good chunk of them say they are there because they can smoke.

"This is a hard business, but the ban in New York [City] is helping us," McMahon said.

Too bad the New Jersey legislature hopes to put the kibosh on McMahon's good fortune. Soothsayers say that a Jersey smoking ban is coming down the pipe, and will probably pass.

Proponents of smoking bans, like Drew (whose permalink no worky), try to make the point that smokers will eventually get used to not smoking, and no longer care; a point that is not new to the debate. Drew, however, makes a false analogy to the smoking ban at his high school. I understand your point, Drew, but customers aren't rounded up for truancy when they choose not to go to a bar after work.

Even if people do get used to being oppressed, that doesn't make it right. When property rights are nullified, which is what a smoking ban does, business owners and employees both suffer the economic consequences. Something NYC Mayor Bloomberg calls, "a minor economic issue."

The bottom line of this issue is that nobody forces people to patronize, or work in, a bar where smoking is permitted. Employees can quit and go find another job, and customers can leave and go find another place to patronize. If there really is a huge demand for non-smoking establishments, market economics dictate that someone will meet the demand. If you think 90% of the people would prefer a non-smoking restaurant, then open your own damned restaurant and wait for the crowd to come pouring in.

It is just that simple.