Restaurants are limiting smoking—not always because of state intervention, but because customers demand it. If anything, local “no smoking in restaurants” ordinances are anachronisms before they hit the books.The article in question has several glaring economic mistakes (what articles don’t?), but it offers a nice summary of how the market for restaurant meals has evolved. More and more restaurants are offering smoke-free environments, and they aren’t doing so because of government intervention. They’re doing it because allowing smoking in the main dining area hurts business.
Of course, it would have been nice if the Taco Bell representative had been completely truthful about their reason for eliminating smoking in their restaurants. It wasn’t just a “health initiative.” It was a good business decision: to the extent that there is a competitive market for smoke-free fast food meals, they would’ve lost money had they continued to allow smoking—public health concerns notwithstanding. Good job, Taco Bell: you’re providing people with quality products at reasonable prices, and making a lot of money doing it. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.
