the way it is
i can't speak for modernism, but i can speak to the arrogance of the smoker's complaint. see, the problem with smoke vs smoke-free is that smoke is not a benign privilege enjoyed only by smokers and without detriment to those who prefer clean and carcinogen-free air around them. the only true 2nd class status being discussed here would be that of a non-smoker forced via proximity to be breathing the exhaust fumes of a smoker's vice. there's nothing 2nd class about respecting the breath of yourself and your neighbors, unless it's the addiction talking, and your own colossal and selfish arrogance to suggest otherwise is the belligerence of a 1st class asshole.
all this, of course, absent laws to prevent or control outdoor smoking, falls back upon the restaurant to do the best it can with its commercial interest to serve everyone. i, for on, agree with the first commenter that the proper vote is one with ones pocketbook, and for non-smokers to avoid places that cater to smokers entirely. (it being, conversely, the privilege of smokers to avoid places that cater to non-smokers as well). yeah, i know, people who know me will point out that i'm occasionally to be seen on patios around lowell in the company of smokers, and, hey, that's my choice in that moment and i'm free to make it, right?
but, seriously, generally speaking i do get up and leave, and i will keep getting up and leaving not because it's a principle thing, but because i really am disgusted by having to deal with the 2nd hand smoke. (i wish everyone i know didn't, but that's not the way it is). i left furey's the other weekend because of it, and i haven't been back since. that's just the way it is, too.