Initiative 901 would ban indoor smoking virtually everywhere in Washington state. No more smoking in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and casinos. No more designated smoking areas at work or other places open to the public. Stepping outside to grab a cigarette could even become a hassle.

Depending on how the issue is framed, it can sound pretty bad: Should government interfere with the rights of private business owners to run their establishments as they see fit?

Or, it can sound pretty good: Should people be exposed to potentially harmful secondhand smoke when they leave home? Should the hospitality industry be exempt from workplace health laws and smoking bans that are in place elsewhere?

The private business formulation is compelling until you consider that society has already made that determination. Businesses don’t get to choose whether they will abide by public health laws related to general cleanliness, food storage and preparation and the hygiene of its workers. They also don’t get to choose which workplace safety laws they will follow.

The smoking ban is a logical extension of the 1985 state law that banned smoking in retail outlets and a 1993 law that extended that ban to offices. And it dovetails with the state’s aggressive anti-smoking posture in the form of a high cigarette tax, which is designed to get people to quit smoking because of the burdens smoking-related illnesses place on overall health-care costs.

There will be winners and losers if the initiative passes. Taverns and other businesses frequented by smokers could see a decline in business. Some might even close their doors. Opponents fear that a ban will drive customers into tribal businesses, where they can smoke without interference.

However, there is encouraging economic news from cities and states that have already imposed similar bans. People who were fed up with smoky bars and restaurants are returning. An estimated 80 percent of Washington residents do not smoke. That might be why the Washington Restaurant Association has taken a neutral position.

An estimated 225,000 people work in the hospitality industry. Many are rooting for a ban, so they no longer have to inhale secondhand smoke.

The most troubling aspect of the ban is the 25-foot outdoor buffer. The idea is to keep smokers away from doors, windows and ventilation systems, but such a wide swath will make it difficult for smokers in congested areas to find an outside haven. The difficulty in enforcing such a buffer may serve to mitigate its impact. We doubt public health officers will be dispatched to patrol sidewalks.

Initiative 901 imposes a ban that is inevitable. We might as well hit the fast-forward button and reap the benefits now.