🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mes-1307952102290001@sam-ppp-l6.neosoft.com>, mes@neosoft.com (Mark) writes:
>In article <3u0vnd$blk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, commtec@aol.com (Commtec) wrote:
>
>
>I'm not convinced that non-smokers are in the majority of the
>restaurant-going public. Seems to me that on a Friday night, a majority of
>the highly social, see-and-be-seen crowd are smokers.

	Then why is it that the restaurants that started with a 
	very small non-smoking section have kept enlarging them
	until the proportion is the other way around?  The laws
	here don't specify what size the non-smoking section must
	be, just that it must exist.  I can't believe that the
	restaurants would willingly reduce their seating capacity
 	by reducing the number of tables that (according to YOU)
	are most in demand.  Also, when I go to these restaurants,
	the wait for a non-smoking table is almost invariable
	longer that for a smoking one.  I simply tell them I'm
	willing to wait.

	Then again, maybe I'm not one of the "highly social,
	see-and-be-seen crowd"...  I go to restaurants to eat
	a good meal and socialize with those in my party (and
	there won't be any smokers in my party!)