Another situation is where all communities permit donut shops, banks, drug stores and similar retail outlets to provide "drive through" service where there may be as many as ten personal cars idling for six or ten minutes at a time instead of requiring that the customers just park the car, shut the engine down and enter the store where -to be sure, there will be no smoking allowed of any kind.

This is why I have alwasys said these anti-smoking zealots are driven more by a puritanical, moralistic dislike of smoking per se, rather than any genuine concern for public health. The alleged "second hand" and now "third hand" effects of smoking are their focus because without that they would have no claim that smoking endangers anyone else other than the smoker who makes a free choice whether to smoke or not. But those derivative public health effects from smoking are clearly no worse than the public health effects of burning fossil fuels in congested urban and suburban areas. If someone doesn't like smoking inside a barroom, they can just walk out. But if you are walking or biking past several drive through lanes or past long lines of rush hour traffic on a city street, you cannot avoid breathing in the noxious fumes they generate while serving no more valid social purposes than smoking in a tavern.