[hotshot]

As a radid anti-smoker I refuse to eat where I am exposed to smoke. I do not like the smell and I am alergic to the smoke. It causes me to cough for an hour after someone without consideration exhales the nasty smoke out of their lungs into my lungs. I have homes in FL and DE and live 250 days a year in my smokeless RV. My wife and I eat a minumum of two meals a day at resturants while we travel throughout the south. That $50.00 a day goes to a resturant that has a separate no smoking area. I do not eat fast food, I spend money on Outback, Longhorn, Olive garden etc. I've never eaten in a Steak and Ale because just the smell of the dingy interior makes me cough. I've never sat at bar in my life because of the impolite, non-considerate smokers. The resturants which have no smoking get my money, the ones which allow smoking don't period.It's a 75-25 majority against the stupid addition.
Strap your three kids in the back seat, Mom and Dad light up, close the windows and enjoy!!!

[CSM]

What the heck is your point? It is clear you don't like being around smoke. It is clear that you have exercised your freedom to make consumer choices. Prior to the bans you were doing just fine with both. Are you supportive of the infringement on private property rights or are you against them?

[Gabz]

It is your choice to not patronize establishments that permit smoking.

It should also be the choice of the owner if he would prfer to cater to you or to a different type of clientele.

If there is a 75/25 split where has the demand been for more non-smoking establishments?????

I have nothing against an owner having a non-smoking establishment, and have patronized many. My problem is the use of force to MAKE an establishment non-smoking even in direct opposition to the wishes of the owner of a private establishment. You seem to find the forcing of private business by government to cater to your wishes to be a good thing. I do not.

By your own words you obviously do not spend much time in your house in Delaware, so probably know little about the true politics behind the insidious ban there. I lived there full time for 21 years all of them involved in dealing with politics, including such things as smoking bans. fortunately I no longer am subjected to those insidious laws except on the occasions I choose to visit family and friends. But believe you me - I am still working hand in hand with many of th bar and restaurant owners to make changes to the ban.

As to your nasty comments at the end - I will leave them alone. They speak for themselves.

[Chad Fairbanks]

The resturants which have no smoking get my money, the ones which allow smoking don't period

Good. That's the way it should be. Or, would you rather have Uncle Sammy get involved and make all these little decisions for you? That seems to be what most anti-smokers want.

[Great Dane]

You are mighty good at ranting, I won't bother reading your posts again.

[SheLion]

Strap your three kids in the back seat, Mom and Dad light up, close the windows and enjoy!!!

HOT SHOT HOT SHOT
WHERE'S THE BUCKSHOT?!!!!!!!

[Eaker]

I am allergic to the smoke.

There is nothing in cigarette smoke to cause an increase in histamines, so you are not allergic to smoke.

I know you won't believe this because it doesn't suit you. People like you never let facts get in the way of whining.

[Doc On The Bay]

GOSH!;-- It's AMAZING How Much the Human Body can Tolerate!

Most Humans living in the "Ohio River Valley" suffer "Lung Problems" by the time they are 45 years old!

The "Bad Air" from the Coal-Fired Steel Plants is unavoidable!

A BAD situation!

THEN--of course--there are "Smokers!"

The 70+ year study of companions of "Smokers" FAILED to show ANY DIFFERENCE between those who were exposed to "second-hand Smoke," & those who were Not!!

GASP!!!

That MEANS, that "Second-hand Cigarette Smoke" had NO EFFECT on Those "Exposed to It!!"

CLEARLY the "Science" MUST BE "Incorrect!!"

After All--we All know that "second-Hand Smoke" is as DEADLY as AIDS!!

----Don't We??---

Perhaps we OUGHT To ACTUALLY CHECK the "Science."

Sometimes "Popular, Media-Driven Belief," isn't QUITE true!

Perhaps the "Anti-Smoking" Agenda isn't ENTIRELY "Altruistic???"

There's "LIES, DAMN LIES, & STATISTICS;" so WHY should ANYONE be Telling Us "The Truth??"

We're NOT STUPID; Whenever ANYONE attempts to tell Us something we already know, we OUGHT TO BE suspicious!!

OF COURSE "Smoking" isn't "Good for You--" we have known that for Decades; WHY has the "issue" become SO IMPORTANT at this time??

I Smell a "Political Agenda!!"

Doc