Do you agree with smoking bans for bars and restaurants?

I think it should be a business to business decision. Restaurant ban makes sense- there are kids in restaurants. Bars? Please.

Better would be to say for every smoker seat there is a requirement for a smoke eating/ventilation device amount. Amps for sqft or some such.

Oh, thank God, yes!

To be able to eat in a public area without a scratchy throat, itchy eyes!! To enjoy the taste of the food that I’ve paid for! To come home without having to take a shower to wash my hair and throw my clothes in the washing machine to get rid of the stink! Heaven!

As a non-smoker I like that law. It’s already in effect in California. I go to shows at bars and pubs all the time. I don’t want to be surrounded by smoke just because I want to see a show. It’s not like these places are well ventilated or anything. Cigarette smoke gives me a headache, it’s not pleasing to be around for hours.
They’re not asking smokers to walk ten blocks or anything, it’s just taking a step ouside for two minutes. It’s not that big of a deal in my opinion, and it makes life a bit more pleasant for those of us who don’t smoke.

It’s BS, I understand some people may not want to be around the immediate area where someone is smoking but it’s not like it is cyanide !!

@Pretty_Lilly

The averse health effects of second-hand smoke are pretty well documented.

I agree with it, I don’t really like smelling smoke or smelling like smoke. I am also hoping for the day when it becomes as uncool to drink as it is to smoke. There was an article in the paper yesterday saying police call outs for domestic violence, anti social behavior is usually double over the holidays because of alcohol consumption.

@Pretty_Lilly Actually….it is.

Yes. I don’t want to be eating a slice of cheesecake with a side of fat guy ciggar fumes.

It’s been a law in most of Alberta for a few years. I find I don’t mind at all and I smoke. I agree with everyone who doesn’t want second hand smoke, and then I don’t just smoke automatically.

@lefteh Nice link. I particularly like “Smoking cigarettes is probably one of the major sources of cyanide exposure for people who do not work in cyanide-related industries.”

But why the need to mandate it? To put the money into enforcing, fining and policing it? Why not let the bars/venue whatever decide how they want to run their own business? If a bar wants to be non-smoking then let them advertise as such and they will get more business that way.

Plus with the huge movement (and a great one) of less people smoking- wouldn’t the market drive towards non-smoking venues anyway?

I’d rather have the cops working on keeping me safe from muggers and murderers than going out all hours to write up tickets against bars.

Yes.

I’m a smoker, and I have mixed feelings about it. I think it is completely appropriate to regulate smoking in restaurants. I used to hate that the smoking section in a restaurant is just the other side of the same room- the whole place would smell like smoke. Before, non-smokers had no choice but to put up with our smoke. Now, smokers have no choice about smoking in a bar or restaurant. The laws in my area are just: No smoking, period. It would make more sense to give bars the option of having a separately ventilated room where you can smoke. I actually kind of like stepping outside for a smoke- it’s a chance to get out of the chaos of the bar and sometimes have a quiet conversation- but I’d like to be able to sometimes smoke inside.

I was thrilled when it happened in my area. I completely agree with it.

I smoke and I don’t mind the ban at all. However, for breakfast we go to this little cafe outside of town where people can smoke. That place is always packed, for that reason.

It’s a bummer that it applies to the bars too, tho.

It just means that I do my drinking at home, safer that way anyway, drinking and smoking are inseparable to me. I don’t mind smoking bans in restaurants as long as there is a covered place outside the entrance where I can smoke between meal courses. But if they start regulating that, all my restaurant food will be take-out from that moment on.

no

It will be hell on bar owners. It seems to me that the biggest drinkers (and tippers) are smokers.

I kind of disagree with the law as well. I say this as a non-smoking asthmatic.

I think it should be up to the bars (etc) entirely to decide whether or not they want it to be smoking or non-smoking.
Though, plenty of places will most likely not enforce the non-smoking rules anyway.

I won’t be rioting in the streets over these laws, but I am a bit disappointed.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land That’s definitely what I thought before they outlawed smoking in my area. In the DC area, Maryland and DC outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants last yeas, and the law just went into effect in Virginia a month ago. You’d think there would be a mass migration of smokers to Virginia, but people just put up with it and kept up their old bar-going habits. A smoking ban doesn’t act as a deterrent to going to bars for people who are really determined to go out. People just smoke out in the cold and sometimes grumble about it.

One downside of the ban is that before, bars just smelled like smoke. Now that the smoke is gone, you start to realize that there are… other… bar smells underneath. Yech.

To @Pretty_Lilly and everyone else who thinks second hand smoke isn’t like cyanide. To some of us it is, and it’s put us in a very serious respiratory situation to boot. It’s pretty callous of you to say otherwise. I can think of a few restaurants that you have to sit in a smoke filled waiting area before you can get to the non-smoking section. Not to mention the people who walk in to a restaurant of this sort and are on oxygen. Thumbs down to all you jerks who think this is not a health hazard.

There is a smoking ban here and a lot of restaurants (little pub places really) and bars are closing. There has been a big enough impact that there is consideration to undo the ban or to find a different solution. I think our smokers are lazier.

Yes I do. People who don’t smoke should not have to exposed to it.

Yes because second hand smoke has a negative effect on everyone’s health.

To the people who oppose the law: Is it really too much to ask of smokers to just step outside for two minutes? How long does it take to smoke a cigarette anyway? Not too long.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land :: I have lived in two cities when smoking bans in bars occurred. Once in Eugene and recently in Portland. The bars are doing just fine in both places. Most bare set-up outside places you can go to have a smoke and you can even take your drink with you.

I was a smoker when the one in Eugene went into effect. It sucked at first but I started to prefer it.

When I moved to Portland I was shocked that you could smoke in bars. My first night here I went for a drink at the dive bar down the street. I had to wash my coat a few times to get the stink out.

@Haleth The bar-ban has never really affected me, since I really don’t like company when I drink. Dining is a different matter. If I can’t smoke between meal courses it ruins my dining experience. I don’t have to smoke in the dining area but I demand a comfortable place to smoke. If I can’t have that, then it’s take-out and no tips for the waiting staff. They had better provide a comfortable place for smokers; I’ve seen some places where it is so extreme they won’t allow smoking near the entrance. Such a place loses my business except for phone-in take out and the food had better be ready for me to take out the instant I arrive. I have no intention of standing around waiting and not being allowed to smoke.

It’s not the idea behind keeping people safe from second-hand smoke that I am against.

Looking at this situation as a Smoking Is Bad! and looking no further into it is reducing this discussion to an echo-chamber.

Yes, smoking is bad. Yes, people should have the ability to chose whether they are around it or not.

I just don’t feel that making a law is the right way to go about it.

@gemiwing So what would you suggest?

Look at it this way:

We’ve known for how long that smoking kills? And how many restaurants are non-smoking as a result? Damned few. It’s the competition issue.

If all restaurants are prohibited from allowing smoking, they’re all on even ground. And they don’t even have to deal with irate customers. They can blame it on the government.

As smokers, you may not realize this (come on, you know your sense of smell is blunted!), but having a smoking section and a non smoking section separated by a two foot pane of glass does not keep the smoke and the effects of the smoke magically out of the non smoking section. It’s pervasive and persistent.

I’d love it if women who bathe in perfume were also restricted. Phew! How can they stand themselves? (Only semi-facetiously.)

@stranger_in_a_strange_land I really can’t wrap my head around why you think smokers deserve special treatment. “I demand a comfortable place to smoke”, c’mon. If you are going to inhale and exhale toxic substances, the least you can do is do it where you are not affecting anyone else. If that means take your ass outside, then that’s your problem. As far as not being able to smoke near the entrance of a building goes, that’s the busiest place of an establishment. Everyone passes through that area. A small percentage of those people would want to be bombarded with cigarette smoke.

@Allie It depends on the situation. I would say keep the smoking area in a separately ventilated space (ventilation amount to be dependent on sqft.) with no bleed-over to the non-smoking side. Then when people go light up, I won’t have to smell it.

Plus, this adds the benefit of making the duty of ‘policing’ and fining up to the same people who do tests on these places anyway. Health Department officials instead of how most laws are organized now- which involves calling the cops to come out and issue a citation/fine to the bar owner and the smoker.

This is for bars, yet in my opinion, it could work for restaurants too.

Buy smoke eaters, separate ventilation and have the smoking area be in the back or otherwise not in an area that non-smokers would have to walk through by necessity. It’s just the bare-bones but would satisfy both sides and keep the police from spending time away from catching criminals.

@Facade I’m a paying customer. They meet my demands or lose my business. I refuse to go smoke out back by the dumpster. As I’ve said, I can order take-out and the waiting staff gets no tip.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land You say that like they care.

@gemiwing As it is now in my state (California) the smokers do have a separate area where they can smoke. It’s usually outside on a patio and not near the entrance/exit to the main establishment. There are usually signs designating the smoking area for those who are interesting in doing so. This is the case for most of the bars I’ve been to. At some of the smaller ones smokers still have to use the main entrance/exit, but I’m willing to deal with that if it means they aren’t smoking inside.
In your state is this not the case?

@stranger_in_a_strange_land I think the main point is that people who don’t smoke shouldn’t be subjected to it. As it is now, it’s a health issue not a business issue.

It only hurt the bars in my area for a short time. People want the camaraderie they get at a neighborhood pub and we all go out to smoke in any kind of weather. Ahhh, Canadians, the only thing that might stop us would be extreme rain putting out the cigarette.

@Facade I’m completely indifferent whether they care, but it is a simple fact that if my demands are not met I will not patronize their establishment.

@Allie I think it’s nice that California offers a nice space outside. Here there is nothing like that. Smokers stand outside (we only have three months of nice weather) but not within a 100ft of a doorway. So where businesses are close together, some smokers don’t have a place to smoke for about a twenty block radius. It just seems extreme. There’s not supposed to be smoking on the property at all- in case a non-smoker wants to stand on the un-official smoking patio.

I just wish we could find a better compromise. I just don’t think it’s fair to legislate something that gives everything to one side and nothing to the other. Just doesn’t seem right- whether or not I agree with smokers.

@gemiwing :: I have never seen a smoking cop. My girlfriend is a bartender and has never seen anyone come to check. The cops might come if someone complained. But it isn’t like murders can run around killing since all the cops are busy checking bars for smokers.

@gemiwing I can understand that. I agree that if you’re going to ask people to not smoke indoors, then there should be a designated space where they can smoke. In the end, I do agree with the law that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars. It may not be perfect right now, but I definitely appreciate not having to breathe in smoke-filled air.

@johnpowell We have regular cops that issue citations on a per-call basis. We also had the ATF and local cops form teams to ‘check in’ during operating hours. It was the strangest two months I’ve ever seen.

@Allie I like not having to come home smelling like an ashtray too. I just wish our law was better and wasn’t apparently written by a five-year old.

I disagree with a ban of pretty much anything that doesn’t cause involuntary harm to people. Sure it is nice for a restaurant to be smoke free when it comes to atmosphere and taste of food, but it’s also really nice to enjoy a coffee and cigarette at a cafe on a cold snowy morning. As I see it, the preferences of different people shouldn’t take legal precedence over one another. There is a demand for both kinds of environments and it seems unjust that one should be man illegal in favor of the other.

I think where the real problem was, was in the fact that smoking had taken a foothold in most bars and restaurants and most business owners felt that it would be a disadvantage to them to rid their places of smoking entirely, so it turned out to be rather difficult for people to find a completely smoke free environment to eat and drink in. When information about second hand smoke came to light (though rather exaggerated) it was easy for non-smokers to build an force of righteous indignation who would argue that smoke free is the only way to go.

Sure smoke-free is nice, but there isn’t anything inherently wrong with a business that allows smoking as a part of its business model. No one forces a person to enter a smoking establishment, so no one is involuntarily put at risk by the environment.

I believe that a licensing system, like the one used for alcohol sales, would be ideal. This would break the ubiquity of smoking establishments, and make it easier and more attractive to open a non-smoking business, but it wouldn’t force smokers into the streets either. A town could limit new licenses given out each year and try to maintain a balance, in accordance with the sentiments of the people. This would also allow employees in the industry some choice of where they would like to work, which would most likely end up increasing the salaries of those who work in smoking establishments, as a sort of “danger pay” we give to many professions that inherently have some sort of risk factor.

@Smashley “There is a demand for both kinds of environments and it seems unjust that one should be man illegal in favor of the other.”
Yes, but one is illegal because it is still harmful to the health of people who choose NOT to smoke.

On the one hand, I think having a “No Smoking” section of a restaurant is about as dumb as having a “No Peeing” section of a swimming pool (and I wish that I could recall who said that first so that I could give proper attribution, but I didn’t think of that line), and I like restaurants and bars that don’t have smoke. But I’m opposed to legal bans of all kinds on otherwise legal behavior, so no, I don’t support these laws.

I agree that smoking is dangerous and unhealthy, that secondhand smoke is, even if it weren’t unhealthy, at least unpleasant to non-smokers, and that children especially should not be exposed to the hazards and (apparent) glamor of smoking. I also agree that if I were opening a restaurant I would make it non-smoking even if the law didn’t. But I’m opposed to the law.

(And before someone jumps on the “otherwise legal” qualification above, and suggests that smoking itself should be made illegal—and we’re getting to that point incrementally, if you didn’t already realize that —I strongly oppose all “drug laws” that will eventually make smoking as well as all other “optional and recreational” drugs illegal, including the ones already on the books. Not that anyone gives two hoots about what I think.)

I think there’s way too much money made from tabacco and booze (drug) for either to be made illegal.

I agree that there should be a totally smoke-free area in restaurants. Where I used to live, there was a city ordinance that stated that a restaurant could have a smoking area if is was separated by a wall and had it’s own ventilation system. (Bars were exempt unless they served food.)

However I’ve been places with far more draconian laws. CA banned smoking in bars as well, and WA doesn’t even allow you to smoke within 25 feet of the entrance to ANY building other than a residence (and that includes bus stop shelters too).

Now, if you can’t smoke in a fucking bar then the law has gone too far. Why not give the non-smokers our cars and homes too? Gift-wrap the whole planet for them? It is possible for smokers to respect the rights and freedoms of non-smokers, but it seems that the converse is less and less true every day.

@Allie If you own a car with an internal combustion engine, you are a hypocrite.

It’s banned here, and hasn’t made a bit of difference in business, except that people that don’t smoke seem to stay out longer, and people who do smoke go outside to light up, just like they do at work.

@PandoraBoxx That isn’t really even a legal option here. Granted, the police usually aren’t too strict about it, but by “not too strict” I mean that if you’re only 20 feet away they won’t break out the tape measure… usually.
It’s also a quick way to get fired so smoking at work can be a bit of a challenge as well.

Just out of curiosity, when are they going to do something effective about the air quality issues cause by transportation and industry? I mean, yeah, a cigarette can cause a bit of a cloud within a few feet, but I can’t even breath in Pittsburgh. Why single out a small problem when they should be dealing with larger ones?

@Allie People who choose to enter a smoking establishment are voluntarily exposing themselves to the risks of second hand smoke. No other person is directly affected by it.

Ahhh, when I moved to Indiana 4 years ago, they were in the process of calling their airport a “non-smoking” airport. But the drop off point was a long covered area that did not allow adequate ventilation for car exhaust, and it received a lot of traffic. On top of that, they allowed smoking there. After simply walking through the area (no other way to get to the car), I had a sore throat and felt sick.

Indiana is still in the dark ages as far as smoking goes. Their smoking policies in restaurants are archaic, and sometimes rediculous (having the waiting area in the bar), etc. I have noticed that many of the smokers in the outlying towns especially are very militant about their smoking “rights” and sometimes get down right abusive when I ask them not to smoke in an area designated by law as non-smoking.

@Smashley What about the people who have to work there? The wait staff? The bartenders?

Just this week I was watching a show on PBS that was about how the tobacco companies are surviving the increased marginalization of smoking in the US. They are turning to places like Indonesia, where there are no laws about smoking at all and are marketing to little kids.

Nonetheless, as a non-smoking asthmatic I greatly appreciate knowing which places I must avoid, and which I can enter freely. Thus, smoking bans in airplanes, restaurants and in bars within restaurants are something I support.

I am of two minds about banning smoking in bars altogether. I don’t go out drinking now that I am an old lady, so it really doesn’t bother me much personally, except when I want to go hear my brother’s band play. And I do wonder about the rights of the staff in such places.

I recently found out that my 16 yo niece has taken up smoking, and her mother, who publicly deplores her habit, gave her cigarettes in her Christmas stocking. My niece thinks it is a “cool” thing to do, and is totally unconvinced that it causes any health problems or that it is addictive. I suppose she will have to learn the hard way, but I wish she didn’t have to.

I have not read the above, so forgive me if I repeat what someone has already said.

First, I have a question. Will smoking be banned, or does a restaurant or bar have to choose? Many states have that the restaurant or business has to choose one or the other, meaning what has become against the law is having a smoking section.

I am completely in favor of laws banning smoking in public places. I am stunned (was stunned when I lived in NC 10 years ago) that there was still smoking sections in restaurants, and I was just in MI and they still have it also. I mean it as been YEARS in most of the country that restaurants are smoke free. I always figured the south was the last to give in because they grow the tobacco there, but then that does not explain MI.

In TN, where I live now, they only changed the law a couple of years ago, and you have to be carded to get into a place that has smoking, because they have gone from having smoking sections in every restaurant to not allowing children to be exposed at all in one fell swoop. Now, we do still have smoking in our Memphis airport in some restaurants, which I find odd. Seems the restaurants within the airport still have a choice whether they want to be smoking or not. If you land in Memphis you will hear on the loudspeaker which restaurants allow smoking along with don’t leave your luggage unattended.

I was thrilled to find outthat Marriott is all non-smoking. I wish there was a casino in Vegas that was non-smoking.

I actually am not very sensitive to smoke, but my husband is, he can’t stand it.

@JLeslie Not sure about this NC law, but the CA ban, the WA law, and the one in my old hometown were all no choice. The bar I used to go to in CA still allowed smoking, but charged a rental fee for ashtrays to cover the fines.

I think the ban in my area goes by how much food is served. If it’s just a bar, smoking is still allowed, but if it serves a certain amount of food or makes a certain revenue from food, then it can’t have smoking. That’s what I’ve had explained to me. I’m in the Philly area.

I just googled and it looks like NC it will ban smoking in all restaurants and bars, fines will be $200 for business and $50 for individuals. But, it looks like private country clubs, cigar bars, and non-profit establishments are exempt. Not realted, but this mademe think of it, when I lived in Raleigh the bars/clubs had this old throwback law that you had to belong to a bar to be able to get in. Typically a $5 annual fee…total bullshit that felt like a southern throwback to segregation. They should get rid of that law.

@JLeslie, that’s how “clubs” can serve liquor in “dry” counties in NC. The thing is (was, anyway; I haven’t been in NC in 30 years) you had to belong to a “club”. And in some “clubs” the “membership” was that you had to bring a bottle to the restaurant and drop it off at the “club room” ... and then they could serve you drinks from other “club members’” bottles as well.

@CyanoticWasp That is the word I was looking for—membership. So it is a loophole around dry counties, except Wake is not a dry county, so I don’t get why you still need the membership? Unless it is just a way to keep certain people out. The non-members. Not that I think they actually deny anyone, but that is how it seemed to us outsiders.

Texas did that same thing, until they passed “liquor by the drink,” when Houston was hoping to get one of the presidential conventions. It didn’t encompass the whole state. Instead it made it legal for individual localities to allow various degrees of “wetness.”

51 of Texas’ 254 counties are still completely dry. Until 1972, you could not legally buy mixed drinks anywhere in Texas, but now some counties have “wet” areas, and some are entirely “wet.” Those that are wet follow anywhere from 10 to 15 different ways to allow the sale of alcohol.

I just heard on the telly that in Queensland you can be fined $200 on the spot for smoking in a car with a kid under 16. Big brother!!!

Just as we have laws about exposing others to lethal threats associated with our pastimes or addictions, smoking bans make sense.

Laws restrict how we dispose of trash, toxic waste, radioactive materials, remains of dead animals, how and where we can use firearms or explosives. These protect the public from the harm associated with noxious or dangerous materials. These restrictions are reasonable
restrictions on certain behaviors.

We have no inherent right to expose others to harm.

@Dr_Lawrence So we have no right to cars? Either you are saying that or you see nothing wrong with sucking exhaust pipes.

Look at what cars do to the air.
Look how much of our air pollution is due to transportation.
When you start your car, you are putting a few packs for of cigs in the air every second.
Think about that ;)

Of course, you could walk or ride a bike. It’s a choice. Therefore, anybody with a car chooses to destroy the environment, and forces me to breath in the fumes of their choice against my will. I didn’t ask for the carbon monoxide!

I am a non smoker but do not mind being around people while they are smoking. However, I am in full agreement with the law (which has been in place here in the UK for years now) when it comes to child friendly places that serve food ie: most restaurants. As far as bars/pubs are concerned, I agree with others that it should be up to the business as to whether they allow smoking but they must advertise the fact if they are so that non smokers can make their own decision as to whether they are happy to be round smokers and second hand smoke.

Yeah, that’s one of the differences between the UK and the US. Here, you have to call or just take your chances. I remember walking into one very crowded restaurant in Indiana. The smoking section was on one side, the non-smoking was on the other side. The manager/owner asked me did I want smoking or non. I asked her what was the point, since it all smelled so bad anyway. I turned on my heel and left.

On rather a side note: Smoking, basically in city limits, has been banned. However, they’ve also apparently banned smoking in the wide open spaces at the lake (10 miles out side of town) since the lake is technically city property! That makes them look like fools to me.
Also, a couple of years ago they decided to put out a city ordinance that they were going to round up all all of the cats that had no collars! Treat them just like “Dogs at large!” I just wanted to write an editorial that said, “ROFL!! Can I watch???” and make a comment about how that would be a good way to up traffic at the local hospital!
Stupid.

There is no reason in the world to have smoking bans in this country..the land of the free.

Owners can hang a sign in their doors..
‘This is a non-smoking venue’

‘This is a smoking venue.

This gives owners and customers choices.

Isn’t this is what America is all about??

http://thetruthisalie.com

@snowbird We are the land of the free, but also a land of laws. Laws are there to protect our freedoms (of course we do not execute this ideal perfectly every time). Sometimes we protect others by infringing on the freedoms of others. It is not black and white, it is very grey and complicated. We can’t let everyone go off doing whatever the hell they want, because people make stupid bad choices. The laws are there to keep society functioning.

@JLeslie, at one time we also had stupid laws that protected slavery, too, and forced people to return “stolen property” to its “rightful owners”. People spoke in strong defense of those laws, too, “in order to preserve order and keep society functioning.”

@CyanoticWasp Just because those laws were wrong does not make all laws wrong. I am not even trying to say that the smoking law is “right” although I am happy about the smoking ban personally. All I am saying is the definition of freedom does not mean you get to do whatever you want. My sister-in-law said that when she came to live in America she was shocked at how many laws there are trying to control people, so many laws in an individuals personal life. I actually agree that we go overboard sometimes. But, anarchy doesn’t work, there has to be a logical balance.

It is actually interesting if you really think about it that the guy who smokes says he should have the right to do wht he wants, and if the non-smoker doesn’t like it he can leave. The non-smoker would say the smoker is infringing on his right to breath clean air. It is almost impossible to solve, although I do understand the argument that the shop owner should be able to do what he wants. The thing is if the law is that all restaurants must be smoke free then it takes the burden off of the owner. He does not have to worry anymore that he will lose business because the guy down the street has smoking. I think bars should not be forced to be smoke free, but should have to choose one or the other.

@Allie I did address that concern in my original answer. Employees are aware of the environment they are working in and have a choice to work there or not. A licensing system would create more of a market where employees could decide whether or not they were willing to work in an establishment that allowed smoking. The risk of second hand smoke exposure to the staff isn’t a reason to disallow smoking. Many jobs have inherent risk in them, coal mining, military work, Alaskan crab fishing to name a few, but we do not ban them because there is a demand for their services. We simply pay them a premium salary to do what they do and institute certain safety protocols to mitigate risk. I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the same approach to smoking in places of business.

@jerv We have a responsibility to use our cars wisely. I am disabled and can’t walk to a store, the doctor, or the bank.

I’ve driven my car 3 days in the last two months and only for less than an hour each. In this small town there are no buses to get around or even to get to the next city. If there was, I’d use them instead of my car. I wonder how many others used mass transit. Of course that is another question.

@Dr_Lawrence Personally, I am more fond of my mountain bike despite my bad knee. I consider cars a necessary evil in some cases. Mass transit doesn’t run where I often need to go at any time, and I used to live 15 miles from a town that didn’t even have mass transit within it’s borders, let alone as far our as where I lived or worked. However, I long for the day when EVs replace gas-burners, but the politics of it mean it won’t happen, especially as long as Chevron holds the rights to large-format NiMH batteries.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. I am not a smoker, and I don’t care to be around smoke because it smells nasty and there are butts and ash everywhere. However, I believe it should be up to restaurants to have smoking sections or not. As long as they can contain the smoke to the smoking area by negative flow rooms or spaces etc and they are willing to pay the cost of them I say why not? They serve alcohol and having someone potentially leave with too much to drink is worse than any secondhand smoke. I have never seen a news report where a person t-boned a coupe or mini van being over nicotined but I hear about it all the time with those who were drunk.

@Hypocrisy_Central – I do so agree with you. ga