enviroian

WHY??

Yes I enjoy an ocassional smoke but only outside. I'm at a chili's in Houston and people are smoking. I noticed this two weeks ago when I was in dallas too. Phx outlawed it 15 years ago. California many years before that.

It's awful. What dictates whether a place is smoke free or not? Just nicer places?

pseudoswede

Public demand as long as state laws allow it. There is the rightful fear that, if the Chili's you're sitting at right now were to ban smoking indoors, they would lose a lot of business to nearby restaurants that allow it. Upscale places have an easier time dictating the rules because they aren't a dime-a-dozen chain restaurant.

It's also illegal in Colorado, but it brings up another problem. Mrs. Swede and I like sitting outside when available, and most restaurant outdoor patios are the defacto smoking section--which we don't like. All things considered, I'm glad it has been banned.

I'm actually less inclined to go to Vegas since it reeks of smoke anywhere in the casino. The casinos here in Colorado lobbied very hard to strike down the smoking ban (or at least get some kind of exception) but failed. However, after all of these years, I don't believe they have seen a marked decrease in patronage.

enviroian

Good points.

Speaking of smoking last week in Brussels --everyone smokes!

krazykanuck

First off, why on earth are you at a Chili's? We have so many good restaurants.

Second, indoor smoking in a restaurant is against City of Houston regulations. So if they're allowing it they are in clear violation of city ordinances. Only permitted in outdoor seating areas. There is an email address and phone number in the below link to file a complaint with the city if you feel like effing with a Chili's manager.

http://www.houstontx.gov/health/Envi...okingfaqs.html

Bonehead

Maybe he's actually in Humble or one of the other towns peripheral to Houston that still allows smoking.

ETA: Looks like Humble has banned smoking since my last visit. Maybe Atascocita?

chgoeditor

I was in Dallas and Houston last week and thankfully didn't encounter any indoor smoking!

fwoomp

You have to admit, maraschino cherries do make a better wine garnish than cigarette butts.

corky

enviroian

I was at the Chili's at 518 Cypress Creek Pkwy, Houston 77090.

It's on FM 1960 just west of the 45.

SeAAttle

I think the opposite it true. Anecdotally, restauranteurs who I know tell me that bar business increased when they went non-smoking. Non-smokers out number smokers and the former will go to places where smoking is not allowed. Smokers complain initially but eventually come back and go outside to smoke. We go to many places in Seattle where smoking was allowed but now banned.

In Seattle, and I think in the entire state, smoking is banned in outdoor seating areas. Again, the owners say that business is better for the reasons you state. The complaints that "we will go out of business if customers cannot smoke" seem to be unfounded. Some of us remember when airplanes had "smoking" and "non smoking sections". In first class, row 4 was smoking. Now, the large majority of passengers would find that unacceptable.

Edited to add:

Tobacco Laws and Regulations
Smoking in Public Places

In Washington State, we are lucky to have progressive laws and policies that protect our workers and families from secondhand smoke in public places.

On December 8, 2005, the “Smoking in Public Places” law (RCW 70.160) went into effect, making it illegal to smoke in all indoor public places and workplaces in Washington. Since the law's implementation, indoor air pollution has decreased by 88 percent in bars and restaurants and compliance with the law is high. Learn more about the law or read the full RCW 70.160.

:D!

I would prefer it if smokers stayed indoors so I don't have to walk through clouds of smoke every time I enter or leave a building or even just walk past. But I'm mainly in Europe (at least in the places where indoor smoking is banned) and Australia. Maybe it's not so annoying in parts of the US where you drive everywhere.

There would obviously need to be sufficient ventilation and separation between indoor smoking and non-smoking areas.

One day I may start a photo-blog entitled "People smoking next to no-smoking signs outside hospitals".

csufabel

Now, think about smoking laws/ordinances before you start another thread on where you may like to move to.

You are sparing us all as it is.

wrp96

At least where I live, you have to be a certain distance from entrances, even while outside, in order to smoke. Now of course some smokers ignore that, but those are usually the ones that would ignore other smoking bans too. Most places encourage compliance by having a sitting area with ashtrays well away from the entrance.

wrp96

Where I live, there is no smoking in restaurants, but there is smoking in bars - which requires a strict above 21 only admittance policy. The idea being let an adult who wants to smoke do so, but don't allow them to impose it on children who may not have a choice.

When it went into law, tons of restaurants protested saying they would lose business if they didn't offer smoking. Within months though, most places that originally decided to be "bars" in order to offer smoking, switched to being non-smoking and saw their business increase beyond pre-ban levels. There were only a few that originally decided to go non-smoking that eventually switched to being bars.

chgoeditor

No argument there!

I think it depends on the target clientele. A friend of mine owned a bar and sadly took his own life after smoking was banned -- his clientele found it easier to sit at home and smoke while drinking.

Chicago has that law. You must be at least 15' from any "entrance" or window. An entrance, of course, being a broader definition than a door, so the tunnel to a garage, for example, would also qualify. It's a brilliant part of the law, and one I appreciate every time I'm in a place where smokers are permitted to congregate around doors.