Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
If you happen to work in an establishment that allows smoking, you're probably in the prolonged chronic exposure.
|
Let's face it, the only businesses that you can smoke in anymore, are restaurants/bars. That means only certain employees are exposed to smoke (kitchen/backend staff are exposed to smoke, but that is every kitchen with ovens, frying pans, grills) which would be Hosts/Bartenders/Waitresses with the occasional busboy thrown in. I live in a medium sized town and I can look out my window and see 3 restaurants right now. All of them are non-smoking establishments, you actually have to LOOK for places to smoke in. The places that do allow smoking are sports themed bars, which because of the allowing of smoking and strategic placement of LCD TVs bring in more business, and that means the waitresses make more money than working at a corporate restaurant (I know waitresses/waiters from alot of restaurants around town and have a good idea what they make comparatively). With that information you could say that their exposure to "toxic chemicals" brings up higher risk with smoking related illnesses, but also gives them a better chance of making a greater share of money (ie Tips) than someone working at a non smoking restaurant. It is a choice by them (baring any excuses like "it's the closest restaurant to my house") to work there with the associated risks to make more money. They aren't being "forced" to work in a unsafe environment, they chose this job for the extra cash flow. If they are worried about the exposure to extra risks, then go right down the street the chain of restaurants that DON'T allow smoking and get a job.
Yes, I know jobs are hard to come by in this economic time, but when our economy isn't in the crapper, this statement holds true. I've quit one job in a restaurant and walked across the street and had a new job in less than 2 hours. Started that day too. Restaurants have a high turnover rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
The government has regulated workplace exposure to toxic chemicals for a long time. I think that smoking bans make sense in this context.
|
Outright banning smoking is different from regulating the areas that smoking is allowed. By saying "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state" is not giving rights to smokers. If you changed that to "There will be no smoking in any public establishment in any area in this state unless a state issued permit allows that establishment to have smoking", then I am all for it. That way, out of the 30+ restaurants in my town alone, I will have at least ONE that I can smoke in. If you don't want to be around smoke, go to the other 29 restaurants out there. I'm not forcing you to go the one WITH smoking, then don't force my favorite restaurants to go NON-smoking.