Then, each year after implementing smoking bans (at least for the first three years, the longest period studied), smoke-free communities have an average 26 percent decline in heart attacks, compared with those areas that still allow smokers to light up in public places.

...

Nonsmokers have a 25 percent to 30 percent higher risk of heart attack if they inhale smoke at home or at work....

The new research suggests that a nationwide ban on smoking in public and workplaces could prevent 100,000 to 225,000 heart attacks each year in the U.S.....

If I ran an interior painting company, and it was discovered that my employees had a 25% higher chance of having a heart attack than the general population, politicians would leap on the opportunity to pass regulations to make the work environment safer. If banning interior paint would prevent 100,000 heart attacks a year, it would be illegal (and wallpaper sales would likely go up). But...

"Opponents have argued that smoking bans drive away customers.

How is this even seriously on the table? There is a major health risk here! According to the American Heart Association, about 35% of heart attacks end in death, so we're talking about 35,000 to 78,750 people dying ever year! Many of these people know that smoking is dangerous, so they don't smoke! But they need a job, and working in smoking-allowed business may be the only job available, or the only job that actually pays enough to feed their family. You're killing thousands of innocent people because you don't want to drive away customers!

And it may not drive away customers!

"Study results have been mixed, with most indicating that the impact on bars and restaurants is neutral or may actually improve business, says Schroeder.

I expect that businesses on the edge of any ban take a hit as smokers move a bit further out of the ban area. Of course, this means that as smoking bans get wider and wider, the number of businesses on the edge shrinks. At a state level, relatively few get hit. If we pass a ban at the federal level a smoker needs to bring his passport to move outside of the ban zone.

Some smokers will decide to pass on going out at all. They'll refuse to exchange a few hours of not smoking (at least not without heading outside) in exchange for socializing and drinking at a bar. They'll decide to have people over at home, or to socialize less. But people like going to bars, and I'm guessing the number who significantly cut down on their visits will be small. Also, some people who hated smoky bars or in some cases were actively made ill by them will be willing to go. I suspect the end result will be nearly a wash once the transition period is over.

A smoking ban in indoor, public spaces where people work is a good idea. We already ban a wide variety of useful materials (like asbestos) that present a serious risk to worker health. We will save innocent lives. We will cut medical expenses that we all pay for.

I at least hope that anyone against a smoking ban in workplaces are consistent enough to also argue that we should eliminate OSHA, allowing businesses to knowing endanger their employers in a wide variety of ways.