Neplusultra wrote:
peter nap wrote:
Kaine said about the anti smoking bill today:
“Once it happens you don’t see a move to go backwards andI think it is because people will get the experience and realize that this a good thing for health and just for aesthetic enjoyment of people eating out,” said Kaine.
In the old days, when people still had property rights, there was this custom when you walked into a restaurant, the waitress would ask you, "Smoking or non-smoking?" She would then seat you in the section reserved for what you chose. That way everyone was happy. The non-smokers enjoyed the flavor of their food and their clothing remained fresh smelling. The smokers got their nicotine fix which allowed them to enjoy their meal. And restaurant owners were happy because they got the business of both groups. Ahhh. Those were the days :^).
The only ones that weren't happy were the over zealous do-gooders who would see the smokers smoking on the other side of the restaurant. But who cares about them :^)?
I'm fully aware that this is not the smoking-in-restaurants-forum, but you really have left out what I suspect is the
largest group of folks, the very unhappy
"non-smokers who were seated just a few feet away from a 'magic line' that was somehow supposed to keep their food tasting fine, and their hair and clothes smelling fresh, but since smoke obeys the laws of physics, and disperses randomly with the air currents, and does not follow 'magic lines' drawn on seating charts in a restaurant, their food still tasted nasty, and their hair and clothes ended up smelling nasty as well" group.
Trust me, I am no fan of Kaine, but if we get this one good thing from him, perhaps it will be one less evil he will be punished for in the after-life...
Barring a closed room and separate ventilation system, you can't get around the age-old saying: "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool."
TFred