Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
*snip* Hypothetical: A property owner turns his property into a private club that sells food to its members. The only requirement for membership is a willingness to tolerate indoor cigarette smoke. In all other respects, it's identical to those restaurants that are no longer allowed to allow smoking.
Do you have a problem with such a place?
And what substantial difference is there between this hypothetical and the restaurants that previously allowed smoking before the ban?
|
How about that restaurant is moved to a area (state, county, whatever) where a restaurant like that is tolerated/allowed? Much like a non-smoker has to seek out places of business where non-smoking is enforced. I'm sure there are several fine states where options like this are available.
Or perhaps it will be suggested that the non-smokers/those who physically suffer because of cigarette smoke be the ones who move to a place (ranging from changing where they work/conduct business/eat out/enjoy recreational activities/live) where they are safe. Well, I don't think that I should have to move to a different location because of a health issue that I have no choice over, to accomodate the results of those who do have a choice (to smoke or not).
Dealing with cigarette smoke is not merely an inconvenience to me, it's a matter of life or death (worst-case scenario, without my meds). I am not the only one in this situation, by far. I would give so much to not have this problem, but I will have to deal with it to the end of my days.
And for the record, I no longer wear perfume or scented products in the workplace, to accomodate those who have migranes triggered by these things. I know how much suffering that can cause, and I surely don't have to indulge in that kind of thing, and for me it's a complete non-issue.