Heh, this option: "Even though there would be both smoking and nonsmoking places if the ban were repealed, I'd still go out less."
Would be interesting to watch. The only people one would ordinarily expect to choose this would be those who'd say, "Well, without the ban I might walk into a smoking place by mistake and pretty much die." or "Without the ban service staff might smoke while cleaning late and night and thus I'd die the next day when I came in from the invisible traces of smoke in the air."
But in BOTH cases, the hypothetical extreme Anti would encounter FAR less smoke on the street(s) while going to the place! So even THEY should "go out more" or the same after a relaxation.
The only other exception would be an Anti who currently regularly and/or ONLY hangs out for some unknowable twisted reason at a place which is heavily populated by active and resentful smokers who would force the management to relax the ban after the gvt ban was relaxed.
If *any* of that final category actually exists, then it is indeed possible they'd go out less after a gvt ban was relaxed, although with the great reduction of smoke-encounters out on the sidewalks, even THIS rare category might go out more because they'd enjoy walking along the sidewalks and finding new and interesting bars, diners, and shops to spend their money at.