As per the statement of Philip Hensley, Jr. posted on Karen's blog: Even if the NC lawmaker could prove to Philip that patronage did go up, I think there is another issue that also needs to be addressed on this matter.

As David Gordon pointed out to me when this topic came up a few years ago, there is the issue of the loss of freedom of personal choice when these bans are enacted by the force of government. Libertarians believe that it is up to each individual to make decisions about the well-being (or not-so-well-being) of his or her own body and property. If a business owner believes that banning smoking from his establishment would increase patronage, then it is his decision to ban it. If a customer doesn't like a smoke-filled environment, no one is forcing him or her to patronize the establishment.

A person forcibly (read: government force) requiring another person that they are making a voluntary exchange with to alter the product or service they want before they will buy it is a contradiction. If you don't like the service or product that is being offered, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Of course, simplicity is a concept that is foreign to the bureaucratic workings of government.