Then allow the law to allow both smoking and non- smoking establishments. Problem solved for all. I agree that non-smokers should have smoke free places to drink and dine. I also feel that smokers should have the same opportunities.
On Mar 14, 6:50 am, NavyBrat <[email protected]> wrote: > I smoked for thirty years when I finally gave them up 10 years ago. I > gave them up for three reasons, I was sick of smoking, the cost was > becoming prohibitive, and last but most important for making me want > to quit......being made to feel like a scumbag looser. I was thrilled > when the restuarants and bars and casino's here went smokeless. > Especially restuarants because even as a smoker I hated smelling smoke > when I was trying to eat. Personally I don't use the excuse of workers > having to suffer health problems from working in smoking > establishments. I am up front non apoligetic that I love not smelling > smoke and having it clinging to my clothes and sinuses when I left a > 'smoking establishment'. I'm sorry if it bums out the smokers. I had > my social backlash to deal with, now you have your own kind of > backlash to deal with. Your freedoms don't out freedom mine. ;). > > On Mar 12, 11:23 am, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > from my local paper > > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at restaurants > > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to think of it > > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the restaurant > > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace health and > > safety. > > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco companies are > > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed injurious > > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove government > > to set the health and safety requirements for people who do not smoke > > but find themselves employed by these venues. > > > The person working in such venues should not have to choose between > > keeping their job or their health. I, for one, would not want my tax > > dollars paying for the health care of a person who wished only to work > > for a living, but ends up contracting a smoking-related illness. A ban > > on smoking in public venues is not an intrusion on private enterprise > > as much as it’s minimal government interference in a personal habit > > that affects the health and pocketbooks of innocent citizens. > > > Robert Munro, Angleton- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
