Thanks for the response, slkinsey. I'll make just one last comment on this & go back to food! My primary concern regarding secondhand smoke & public policy is that said policy should *not* be driven by "science" that is still inconclusive. From what I can tell, the actual risk of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is very much in dispute among epidemiologists. For instance, here's a recent article. Perhaps I'm cynical but I'm increasingly viewing this issue as ultimately a war for money, not health. Again, whose nicotine delivery system will prevail? I think the answer is obvious--the pharmaceutical companies will win & thus enjoy a long run in a very lucrative market. I'm not much of one for slippery slope arguments, but I'll trot one out anyway. If this type of "science" continues to influence public policy where will food be in, say, twenty years? Will ConAgra ignore the potential profits that they would reap if they engendered the lessons laid bare by the pharmaceutical companies creation of new nicotine delivery systems? Bah! I'm going to go eat a porterhouse, drink a martini, & . . .