# Cigarettes in the drive through. (Or: is Mr. Krebbs a big fat jerk?) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436 "2009-04-26T22:05:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/81 "2009-04-27T21:28:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > As I mentioned, the reason for those laws is a clearly articulateable health hazard, by virtue of bars being enclosed spaces with many smokers, resulting in workers being exposed to large amounts of second hand smoke for extended periods of time. This is nothing like the situation in the OP, where the worker is infrequently exposed to small amounts of smoke through a window she can close most of the time. It doesn’t matter what the motivation for the law is; it clearly makes illegal the sort of conduct he’s engaging in. It doesn’t matter if the reason goat-fucking is illegal is because the sponsoring legislator once had a goat break up with him – the conduct is still illegal. > [@](#): > > Not a straw man, it’s the law, it’s part of the law that suggests it’s illegal for him to smoke in the drive through. I say suggest because the law specifically allows property owners to petition for a change in the minimum allowable distance, and nobody here has any idea whether or not the Taco Bell owner made such a petition. The law does not “suggest,” it states very unequivocally: “No person may smoke in a public place or in any place of employment.” “Public place” specifically includes “restaurants.” So since there’s no evidence indicating this particular TB petitioned for a variance, and the attitude of the drive-in worker indicates they have not, and the OP’er actually assumes what he did was “probably illegal,” to speculate that his conduct was _not_ illegal is a straw man. Even _he_ admits that it probably was. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/82 "2009-04-27T21:30:26Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > By and large, I like the restrictions, however this 25 foot rule is ridiculousness. It means that it is illegal to smoke while walking down a city street, which makes no sense to me at all. It makes perfect sense to me. Why should I have to breathe in your smoke because you (general you) have an addiction? Unless you can guarantee that you’re the only person on the city street in question, why should your jonesing for a smoke trump my desire to not breathe in carcinogens? It’s not like the undesirability of second-hand smoke is really up for much medical debate at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/83 "2009-04-27T21:35:53Z")
What if the girl had been more polite? What if she had said, very politely, “Hey, we’d really appreciate it if you waited until you were through the drive-thru to light up. We’re sorry, but it bothers us and, actually, it’s illegal.” What if she said she was “allergic” to smoke? Would there have been any way for this girl to register her POV that you guys would NOT have taken as a big fat smack in the smoker’s face? Because I completely get the non-smoking Nazis, I do, but to me – I just don’t see how this girl was one. So I’m wondering if some smokers haven’t gotten so over-sensitive on the issue that there is literally no way to object to the practice that they won’t be offended by. I ask in all seriousness. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/84 "2009-04-27T21:36:47Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I think fast food is more harmful to peoples’ health than cigarettes are. How could bring up such a valid, reasoned point like this when issues are demanding to be shouted and there is banging of fists on the table to be done!!!111!!! ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/85 "2009-04-27T21:36:55Z")
Your average city street is awash in carcinogens. Life’s hard like that. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/86 "2009-04-27T21:41:21Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Your average city street is awash in carcinogens. Life’s hard like that. “Awash” in carcinogens? :dubious: Even if true, how is that an argument for not removing them when we can do so with very little societal cost? And how is that an argument for inflicting them on others? “Life’s hard like that” pretty much boils down to “sucks to be you,” and of course the obvious rejoinder is that since smoking on public streets is now apparently broadly illegal in Washington (and elsewhere), sucks to be _you_. Life’s hard like that. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/87 "2009-04-27T21:42:49Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > It makes perfect sense to me. Why should I have to breathe in your smoke because you (general you) have an addiction? Unless you can guarantee that you’re the only person on the city street in question, why should your jonesing for a smoke trump my desire to not breathe in carcinogens? It’s not like the undesirability of second-hand smoke is really up for much medical debate at this point. Why should I have to hear your conversation when it breaks the silence? Why should you have the right to have a gas burning car on the road when its exhaust could bother me? Why should you be allowed to eat peanuts on the street when there are those with allergies? And so on. Those arguments get a bit on the silly side but carry a similar weight to them. Frankly, I don’t want to breathe in smoke anymore than the next person. And those who smoke within the proximity of others without permission can be rude. But I’m not going around asking my world to be HEPA filtered either. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/88 "2009-04-27T21:46:21Z")
I can’t imagine any way that the smoke would magically fly from inside your car and into the window. that’s utter nonsense. especially since you’re grabbing food, so the cigarette would be in the hand furthest away from the window. Unless the OP is actually taking a puff and purposely blowing the smoke into the window, I don’t see how this would be a problem. And the testimony in this thread from people that worked at drive-thrus seems to back that up. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/89 "2009-04-27T21:48:34Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Why should I have to hear your conversation when it breaks the silence? Where’s the public health cost of ambient noise? You’re not allowed to pollute the public with noise that damages hearing, either. > [@](#): > > Why should you have the right to have a gas burning car on the road when its exhaust could bother me? Because we as a society have decided that the utility of cars outweighs not having them. Even so, there are broad pollution controls imposed on car builders and owners precisely because of the acknowledged public-health cost. > [@](#): > > Why should you be allowed to eat peanuts on the street when there are those with allergies? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because the Peanut Lobby as yet has more clout that the Anti-Anaphylaxis Lobby. These arguments very obviously are _not_ the same, and trying to make the anti-smoking argument look absurd by absurd analogies doesn’t actually work. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I don’t want to breathe in smoke anymore than the next person. And those who smoke within the proximity of others without permission can be rude. But I’m not going around asking my world to be HEPA filtered either. Well, that’s you. That’s apparently not the majority of the voters in the State of Washington. Look, I don’t live there myself anymore. I’m happy to live where the smokers still have their own sections in restaurants (provided I can sit far enough away in the non-smoking section) and people can have a smoke and a drink together. But I’m not trying to impose _my_ preference on others who would disagree with that, and I’m not nailing myself to some cross just because some people _do_ disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/90 "2009-04-27T21:50:35Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > I can’t imagine any way that the smoke would magically fly from inside your car and into the window. that’s utter nonsense. especially since you’re grabbing food, so the cigarette would be in the hand furthest away from the window. But isn’t the fact that the woman noted the smoke and was bothered by it pretty much shown from the fact that she said something? Or are we now just assuming she’s the kind of bitch who would give a customer a snotty reprimand for no reason at all? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/91 "2009-04-27T21:51:56Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Why should I have to hear your conversation when it breaks the silence? Why should you have the right to have a gas burning car on the road when its exhaust could bother me? Why should you be allowed to eat peanuts on the street when there are those with allergies? Might I suggest that if you don’t like those situations and don’t want to be put into them, that you get a bunch of people together who agree with you and pass a law? I hate it when people equate smoking to… well, anything. There’s nothing that directly correlates to smoking, and any attempts to do so are merely deflections. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/92 "2009-04-27T21:54:54Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Would there have been any way for this girl to register her POV that you guys would NOT have taken as a big fat smack in the smoker’s face? Because I completely get the non-smoking Nazis, I do, but to me – I just don’t see how this girl was one. So I’m wondering if some smokers haven’t gotten so over-sensitive on the issue that there is literally no way to object to the practice that they won’t be offended by. > > I ask in all seriousness. To someone smoking in his own car? No, I don’t think there is going to be a good way to say “Stop smoking in your own car, because I don’t like the eight seconds of exposure”. I rather doubt there is a significant risk of contracting cancer because of those eight seconds. Even if you multiply it by ten times a day. Dose makes the poison, and there is a significant difference between spending forty hours a week in an enclosed space with lots of other smokers, and being at a fast food window and having a smoker next to you - and with the open air in between. If there are statistics for the health risks of that level of exposure, I would like to see them. And no, growing up in a house with smokers isn’t good enough. The fast food worker is accepting a certain level of risk from working in a job where cars go past her all day long, all of which are emitting toxic fumes like CO. Why is that risk worth $7 an hour, but the essentially unmeasurable risk of drive-by smoking is not? I thought the law did not concern itself with trifles. This seems like a trifle to me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/93 "2009-04-27T22:09:29Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Where’s the public health cost of ambient noise? You’re not allowed to pollute the public with noise that damages hearing, either. > > Because we as a society have decided that the utility of cars outweighs not having them. Even so, there are broad pollution controls imposed on car builders and owners precisely because of the acknowledged public-health cost. > > Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because the Peanut Lobby as yet has more clout that the Anti-Anaphylaxis Lobby. These arguments very obviously are _not_ the same, and trying to make the anti-smoking argument look absurd by absurd analogies doesn’t actually work. They’re analogous because everyone feels their rights usurp those around them and that their peccadillos should be respected. The diluted noise and emissions are similar to a person in their car smoking. The peanut allergy has a more deadly ramification for a small populace, but is something that you’re willing to push aside while trumpeting that “your desire to not breathe in carcinogens” is tantamount. Seems oddly onesided. > [@Jodi](#): > > Well, that’s you. That’s apparently not the majority of the voters in the State of Washington. Look, I don’t live there myself anymore. I’m happy to live where the smokers still have their own sections in restaurants (provided I can sit far enough away in the non-smoking section) and people can have a smoke and a drink together. But I’m not trying to impose _my_ preference on others who would disagree with that, and I’m not nailing myself to some cross just because some people _do_ disagree with that. [QUOTE=lightnin’] Might I suggest that if you don’t like those situations and don’t want to be put into them, that you get a bunch of people together who agree with you and pass a law? I hate it when people equate smoking to… well, anything. There’s nothing that directly correlates to smoking, and any attempts to do so are merely deflections. [/QUOTE] It’s the libertarian in me which sees the infringement by the bell-ringers of doom as overstepping by stating what those on private property can do in regards to smoking. It’s those who would work in a smoking bar and then claim surprise that they could get second hand smoke that are indefensible. But, there’s also the part of me that is the pacifist and wishes that others would respect the wishes and keep their infringing behaviors to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/94 "2009-04-27T22:11:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > To someone smoking in his own car? No, I don’t think there is going to be a good way to say “Stop smoking in your own car, because I don’t like the eight seconds of exposure”. Fair enough, but surely you see that this woman obviously disagrees with you. Why is her point of view invalid and yours is valid? Again, I don’t see why the empahsis on “he was _in his own car_.” He was also in her work space. It’s not like the car was hermetically sealed, or even the window rolled up. > [@](#): > > If there are statistics for the health risks of that level of exposure, I would like to see them. And no, growing up in a house with smokers isn’t good enough. So when the law says he is not permitted to do this, then SHE has to come up with statistics showing personal harm before she’s allowed to object to him doing the thing that is illegal? What if she only believes, in good faith, that he is harming her, but she is wrong? Does she then lose the right to object, even if her objection is made in good faith and backed up by the law? > [@](#): > > The fast food worker is accepting a certain level of risk from working in a job where cars go past her all day long, all of which are emitting toxic fumes like CO. Why is that risk worth $7 an hour, but the essentially unmeasurable risk of drive-by smoking is not? Dunno, but isn’t that up to her? One is a risk that she chooses to undertake and must, given the nature of working in the drive-thru; the other she does not have to undertake because the conduct is now illegal. > [@](#): > > I thought the law did not concern itself with trifles. This seems like a trifle to me. But again, that’s just you. Why is the opposing POV _per se_ unreasonable? Again, what I don’t get is why a polite request to refrain from doing something you shouldn’t be doing anyway (at least according to the law), would cause such indignation on smokers’ parts. Why not “Sorry 'bout that,” or “Whatever,” and move on? I don’t see the oppression, but if it exists, it’s the oppression of the The Law, not the Taco Bell chick. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/95 "2009-04-27T22:14:17Z")
do we know that it’s even illegal? I got the impression from the OP that the state of Washington just has harsh laws about smoking, and thus he was guessing that it could be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/96 "2009-04-27T22:27:08Z")
It’s just white-trash to smoke in a drive-through lane. ETA: Particularly if you’re handing over payment with the same hand that’s holding the cigarette. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/97 "2009-04-27T22:27:36Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I hate it when people equate smoking to… well, anything. There’s nothing that directly correlates to smoking, and any attempts to do so are merely deflections. Bullshit. Fragrance of any kind is a perfect correlation. Most of it smells like utter shit, and I’d be seriously amazed if Axe doesn’t cause cancer in the same doses that secondhand smoke does. Yet I’m subjected to it far more often than you are to smoke. What cities do y’all live in where you can even smell a cigarette over the diesel? I’m guessing you don’t. You SEE a cigarette, and that’s all it takes to bunch your panties. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/98 "2009-04-27T22:27:57Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > do we know that it’s even illegal? I got the impression from the OP that the state of Washington just has harsh laws about smoking, and thus he was guessing that it could be illegal. See post #38. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/99 "2009-04-27T22:29:36Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > do we know that it’s even illegal? I got the impression from the OP that the state of Washington just has harsh laws about smoking, and thus he was guessing that it could be illegal. The law is cited up thread. [Here](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.160.020) it is again. It is illegal in the state of Washington to smoke in a public place. “Public places” by definition include restaurants and extends 25 feet from any open window or door of any public place. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436/100 "2009-04-27T22:31:26Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > do we know that it’s even illegal? I got the impression from the OP that the state of Washington just has harsh laws about smoking, and thus he was guessing that it could be illegal. IANAL, but[here’s Washington State’s Initiative 901 text](http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=0&X=427152726&p=1) > [@](#): > > ackground: The Washington Clean Indoor Air Act (Act), originally enacted in 1985, prohibits smoking in a public place, except within designated smoking areas. “Public place” is that portion of any building or vehicle used by or open to the public, regardless of who owns it and whether or not a fee is charged for entry. Under current law, the owner of the designated smoking area in a public place must use existing physical barriers and ventilation systems to minimize smoke entering any non-smoking areas that are located in the same premises. Currently, bars, restaurants, taverns, bowling alleys, and tobacco shops may be designated smoking areas in their entirety. A person who intentionally violates the Act by smoking in a public place is subject to a $100 fine. > > The Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) regulates tobacco smoke in office settings. Under WISHA regulations, smoking is prohibited in all office work sites except in specifically designated smoking rooms. Company cafeterias, meeting rooms, and other ancillary office work sites must be smoke free. > > Summary: No person may smoke in a public place or in any place of employment. Initiative 901 (I-901) expands the current definition of public place to include bars, taverns, bowling alleys, skating rinks, casinos, schools, reception areas, and at least seventy-five percent of the sleeping quarters within a hotel or motel that are rented to guests. The definition of public place also includes a private residence or home-based business when that residence or business is used to provide licensed child care, foster care, adult care, or other similar social service care on the premises. Designated smoking areas in public places or places of employment will no longer exist. > > Smoking is not allowed within a “presumptively reasonable minimum distance” from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited. I-901 defines a “presumptively reasonable distance” as twenty-five feet. **However, the initiative provides that any person who is smoking while just passing by or through a public place while on a public sidewalk or public right of way does not intentionally violate the prohibition**. > > I-901 directs local health departments to enforce the prohibitions. Currently, local fire departments have enforcement authority. > > Any person who owns or controls a public place or place of employment, may seek to rebut the presumption that twenty-five feet is a reasonable minimum distance by applying to the director of the local health department or health district. The standard that must be met to rebut the presumption is clear and convincing evidence. > > Anyone seeking to rebut the distance presumption must prove that given the unique circumstances presented by the location of entrances, exits, windows that open, ventilation intakes, or other factors, smoke will not infiltrate or reach or enter into such public place or place of employment and, therefore, the public health and safety of the occupants will be protected by a lesser distance. The initiative does not establish an absolute minimum distance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cigarettes-in-the-drive-through-or-is-mr-krebbs-a-big-fat-jerk/494436.md?page=6)