Not for any smoking ban

Although the proponents of banning smoking in bars and bingo halls would have us believe otherwise, what they are proposing is absolutely nothing other than expanded government dominance over individuals' lives.
Eliminating individual choice is certainly nothing new, but the claim that that's not what is being proposed now is simply not true. Arguments put forth by the proponents are contradictory.
They argue on the one hand that "studies have shown" that banning smoking in bars will increase the number of patrons, but on the other hand argue that all three local government entities have to ban smoking or none of the ordinances will take effect so as to not "give a competitive advantage" to some bars.
If the "studies" were right, that would be the last thing that would happen.
Also, if the "studies" were correct, why does it fall to government to ban smoking? Wouldn't an entrepreneurial bar owner realize that there was an unsatisfied demand for a smoke-free bar and open one voluntarily? Can anyone actually cite one of those "studies"?
Several articles and letters to the editor have talked about the "studies" but I have yet to see a citation. I'm beginning to wonder if the "studies" actually exist or if proponents simply think if they repeat those statements often enough people will just believe them.
Finally, much is being made about "protecting" the employees. The last time I checked, no one is forced to work anywhere. If someone didn't want to work in an environment where there is smoking, they could quit. But wait! Why would someone who was bothered by smoking apply for a job in a bar in the first place?
I urge all three local governments to reject the proposal and allow individuals to live their lives the way they see fit.