It is ridiculous to think there is not some system that could filter the air in the smokers sections. The truth is demonizing smoking is a great tax revenue. Go to Europe-formerly- and the Middle East and smoking is all over the place without shame- men pop out like cartoons to light your cigarette. I remember the day when airlines actually served a meal along with a 5 count pack of cigarettes and the smoke mixed with all that other stale air. Or, consider our victory in WWII when men smoked without apology. And lobbies of marbled buildings had spitoons as well as urns filled with sand to stub out a cigarette. Actually the greatest threat to heath in the USA is fat, sugar and salt and the greatest threat to life are drunk drivers/psychopath killers.
On Mar 14, 12:15 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
