This argument does not work, because you can choose to drink, and not affect someone else. However, if you choose to drink and kill someone while driving drunk, you ar egoing to jail. You can not smoke indoors without affecting others, so that changes the issue. What you choose to do to yourself is one thing, when it affects others health also, it is another.
Look at the statistics. In california, when the smoking ban went into affect, buisness decreased 20%, but then retuned, and in many places got stronger. There are less smokers than non-smokers, so it makes sense from a buisness stand point to be non-smoking.
People have a choice to go places they want to or not. However, I really don't understand the "I wont go there because it is non-smoking" on principal idea. You can always go outside and smoke, but someone with asthma, allergies, or simply health concerns cannot go into a smoking establishment and not be affected. It just makes sense to do the smoking outside with all of the strong research showing how much 2nd hand smoke affects people.
