Smoking bans might be better handled as a business decision rather than a legal action.

Many trends that start on the east and west coasts of the United States eventually work their way into the heartland, and the controversy over smoking in public appears to be one of those trends.

City commissioners in Salina agreed this week to put on the Nov. 5 ballot an ordinance that would restrict smoking in local restaurants. The measure would ban smoking in restaurants except in outdoor eating areas or between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.

The ordinance was approved by commissioners in May and scheduled to take effect this month. Active opposition to the law prompted the implementation to be delayed until September, then December. In the meantime, the opponents launched a petition drive that successfully forced the commission to either repeal the law or put it to a vote. Commissioners chose the latter course.

The ballot question will pit smokers against non-smokers in what is likely to be an emotional battle. Is there a better way to deal with this conflict?

The organizer of the Salina petition drive contends that businesses should be able to decide whether to allow their customers to smoke. Is there a way to convince more restaurants to ban smoking, not because the law requires it, but because it’s good business?

A survey done in Douglas County last summer showed that 42 percent of restaurants in the county already ban smoking in their establishments. Of the smoke-free restaurants, 33 percent said their no-smoking policy had provided a better dining environment; 47 percent reported no effect.

Many restaurants that maintain smoking areas fear a smoking ban would hurt their businesses, but the survey seems to show that often isn’t true. And in fact, some restaurants might find a smoking ban would make them more popular with diners. Many restaurants also are hesitant to ban smoking in their bar areas. While some people want to be able to smoke in a bar, it also seems there would be a market for smoke-free places where someone could enjoy a cocktail or beer.

Smokers are becoming an increasingly beleaguered group. With the increases in the state sales tax on cigarettes, it could be that most smokers can’t afford to eat in a restaurant anymore. It probably should be the right of restaurant operators to decide whether they want to cater to smokers or a non-smoking crowd, and a California-style law like the one being considered in Salina may be too drastic a move.

Given the current tenor of the smoking debate, eating establishments and even some bars might find the move to a smoke-free environment is simply a good business decision.