I'm a very outspoken and vigorious anti-smoker.
But I'm more committed to freedom. I trust individuals to make choices best for themselves.
So, for a MUNICIPAL course - I don't like it one bit. Government should stay out of people's habits. Frankly, why do we even need municipal courses at all. There are plenty of private courses that are open to the general public. If a course can't stay open without tax subsidies, then it shouldn't exist. If it can, then it doesn't need to be run by the public, the private market will fill the void.
Now, for a PRIVATE course - they have the right to do whatever they wish on their property. Absolutely. All other things equal, I'd join a non-smoking course over the other - easy decision.
I consider these two views to be very compatible.
My bigger concern is that if they succeed in banning it at the municipal courses, how long will it be before they decide they have the power to invoke on private courses and similar businesses.........
I'm a bit confused by people that say it would be a bad business choice - It simply can't be a blanket statement. It all clearly depends on the locale so it's on a course by course basis if the gains in customers that appreciate the effort would overbalance the knee jerk reactions of some plus the smokers that are so addicted they just can't golf there at all.
Prior to the (completely unnecessary and violation of private business rights to make their own business choices) smoking ban on restaurants here in my area, it was clear when visiting most every restaurant around here that no-smoking policies would be greatly welcome - entering any restaurant with segregated sections would have packed non-smoking areas and nearly empty smoking areas - it was ridiculous - any business owner that didn't see that every single day deserved to go out of business. yet still, the state insisted on pushing their noses where it wasn't necessary or welcome.