I'm hoping that the law and law enforcement angle of smoking is on topic
enough that we can continue without getting into the pros and cons of
tobacco usage.
CS>*** Quoting Ron Taylor from a message to Rich Willbanks ***
CS>RT> If it were that simple, I would agree with you.
CS>RT> There are VERY few smoke free restaurants.  When there is one
  >RT> available, I will patronize it.
CS>Thats funny, I havent seen a place that allows smoking except in 
esignated
  > sections, in a LONG time.
In my part of the country, a totally smoke free restaurant is almost
unheard of.  At the one good seafood place that is smoke free, there is
up to an hour wait for a table most nights. On Friday and Saturday,
you'd better have a reservation.
As for "designated sections"... I've been to places that had designated
_tables_.  What the hell good is a "smoke free _table_" when the next
table is not?  One of my favorite on-the-road places is Cracker Barrel.
Their dining room is usually divided into three sections, two
non-smoking and one where smoking is allowed.  The sections are
separated by lattice slats.  For some reason, the smokers beside the
"wall" tend to blow their smoke TOWARD the wall.  I guess that that is
some kind of unconscious act of kindness to the others at their table.
Problem is, the smoke goes through the wall into the non-smoking
section.
A "non smoking section" is a waste of the establishment management's
time and a thumb in the nose to the non smoker when it doesn't provide a
smoke free environment.
The only effective "designated smoking section" is one that is
_physically_ separate and has a ventilation system that prevents smoke
from entering the so-called "non-smoking" section.  The ONLY places that
I've seen that have this kind of area are those whose owner's do not
smoke and can appreciate the inconvenience to non-smokers who have to
experience second hand smoke when they try to enjoy a meal.
When the smoking community realizes the difference in "non-smoking" and
"smoke free", and honors the non-smoker's wishes to be in a smoke free
environment, we won't have a need for laws to  ensure it.  Until then,
I'll have to stay on my soap box.
CS>California Law makes it all smoke-free.
I applaud them.  Some day, ALL states will follow their example.
  >Made a mess of the finances
  >and
  >many  restraunts folded because of it.  See, something like 20% of the
  >populace  smokes, and that 20% simply didnt dine out as often when they
  >changed the laws  there.  Restraunts, many of them, just couldnt survive 
n
  >almost 20% loss of  business.
With all respect Carol, I have a problem believing that.  Do you have
a cite to back up those statistics and the effects of the new law?
I don't question the 20%.  But I have a problem believing that that 20%
totally stopped patronizing eating establishments.  I really do!
How many restaurants actually closed, citing the smoke-free laws as the
reason?   What is the source of the statistics?
We travel extensively over the entire southeastern United States and eat
out approximately 60% of our meals.  If your scenario is accurate, why
is it that we nearly always have to wait for a smoke free area when
"next available" seating is available immediately?
---
 * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture.
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
1:135/5.0)
---------------