Purpose - Public smoking bans are becoming more prevalent, but not without controversy. Consumer attitudes about the effectiveness of service provider imposed smoking/nonsmoking separation have changed. Arguments against bans often center on the belief that patronage at restaurants and bars will decline, leading to declining entertainment sector revenue and the elimination of privately owned establishments by public policy. This paper aims to investigate consumers' beliefs and behavioral intentions concerning a proposed smoking ban.

Design/methodology/approach - The study presented involves a typical US city facing a vote by their city council for a public smoking ban (including restaurants and bars). In 2007 consumers' beliefs and behavioral intentions concerning a proposed smoking ban were investigated. Current study findings were compared to a prior study about consumers' beliefs that smoking/nonsmoking sections were effective at separation, and hence did not support public smoking bans. The authors applied logistic regression to determine if consumers' beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking/nonsmoking sections influenced their support for public smoking bans.

Findings - The comparison clearly suggests that beliefs have changed. The majority of consumers in this most recent study do not believe in the effectiveness of separate smoking/nonsmoking sections. Consequently, this majority of newly enlightened consumers is in favor of public smoking bans in restaurants and bars. To further address the economic impact argument, the authors offer a conservatively based argument that restaurants and bars could expect economic gains

Originality/value - There will always be some winners and losers with new policy, but it is found that the overall restaurant and bar sector can expect increased patronage and economic gains from a smoking ban.