Correct me if I'm wrong in detecting a selfish sense to this thread by the smokers, but are you saying that it should be up to the establishments owner whether or not to offer smoking in his premises?
And what of the chain owned premises? Do their staff get a say in their future health?
Ah, but of course, they can get new jobs if they don't like it. That's a lot more sensible than asking smokers to step outside to smoke.
Is smoking dangerous?
Hmmmm.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
Quote:
|
(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)." NOTE: The study's authors decided to count 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes under motor vehicle crashes rather than under alcohol consumption. Previous mortality estimates have done the opposite and counted such deaths as caused by alcohol consumption.
|
Were the law to become so tight that you couldn't smoke in your own home, then I would have an issue with it, but this is purely to protect the health of the workers in the food and entertainment industry. It's not about the non-smokers not wanting to reek of smoke or thinking that you are bad people.
These people have no voice, the dollar drowns it out. They need protecting. They have no unions like dock or mine workers.
Go ask people who work in bars. Not the young ones in college, but the ladies that have been doing it for years in smoky diners. Ask about their friends and their own health concerns. You'll be quite shocked.