It is always disappointing to see agendas being rationalized by what passes for "research". A good example occurs in this article examining the impact of smoke-free laws in rural or urban businesses.
Of course, it is never quite clear what the impact was anticipated to be, since there are clearly no alternatives to customers (given state-wide bans). In essence, the argument is simplistic by arguing that smoking is likely to be higher in rural areas, so it was anticipated to have a greater impact on business.
It does illustrate how little the researchers understand economics, since the only way to assess such a situation would be if there were actually consumer alternatives available. It is also interesting to see how the rationalization shifts from "found smoke-free legislation does not negatively influence local economies" into "smoke-free laws are good for business".
It is obvious that smoking is the current evil, so it is fine to rabidly apply laws under the guise of protecting individuals from the demon smoke. Given the climate against smoking, perhaps the researchers can finally dispense with the faux research and just focus their missionary zeal on some new civilization-saving objective.
