Perhaps, while you're at it, you might think of a way to fine people who fart, have bad breath or body odor. Maybe you can ban perfumes which aren't liked by all.
Personally, I don't mind putting in the hands of restaurants and other privately owned businesses the ability to decide if they wish to allow smoking or not. It's a matter of civil liberty.
The amount of liberty we have is inversely proportional to the number of laws we have. Any law that prohibits someone from doing something inherently reduces liberty.
Everyone has a right to dine at a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. It seems that non-smokers wish to dine at ANY restaurant and not smell smoke. They feel it within their rights to define how a business owner conducts business, who they may serve, and what they may allow in their business. Smokers are simply the new people of color.
Non-smokers hear the food is good somewhere, but because smoking is allowed, they feel the need to outlaw smoking just to eat there in comfort. You know what? You don't HAVE to eat there. People CAN find other places to work.
If smokers wish to quit, they may try. If they don't want to, they sholdn't have to. Anti-smoking laws are intrusive and hurtful pieces of legislation that HINDER civil rights rather than promoting them. Do you seriously think that a whiff of smoke in a public place is somehow more harmful to you than fumes from a diesel truck? Do you think it is more likely to make you sick than standing near someone with the flu who coughs?
I'm not a smoker, but I really hate the no-smoking elite who think they are doing the world good. They aren't. It's nothing more than prohibition was early in the last century in the U.S.A.
If people smoke where you are, and you don't like it, don't go there.