1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + +
Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back? (view source)
Revision as of 20:04, July 22, 2008
, 20:04, July 22, 2008→Comments
:::As a side thought: the fact that smoking is still permitted in European bars and restaurants and banned in many American bars and restaurants leads to an interesting possibility. I wonder what a study of cancer rates in those areas would show twenty years from now. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:::As a side thought: the fact that smoking is still permitted in European bars and restaurants and banned in many American bars and restaurants leads to an interesting possibility. I wonder what a study of cancer rates in those areas would show twenty years from now. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I'd have to do some research, Ben, but I believe that when the complete smoking ban took place in New York City, overall attendance in restaurants and bars actually went up, especially for bars, because they attracted a new base of customers who had been put off by the smoky environments beforehand.
::::Part of the argument for making all workplaces & restaurants smoke-free, btw, was based on the heath of the workers as opposed to the customers. Documented cases of non-smoking employees of smoke-filled workplaces contracting smoking-related diseases became part of the evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke. Could an employer hire only smokers to avoid this? Probably, but as New York demonstrated, smoke-free facilities attract more customers over time, and run a lower potential risk of health-related lawsuits (legitimate or not) than those that allow smoking. On the economics alone, then, going smoke-free makes sense. If any causal harm from second-hand smoke could be established, then OSHA regulations on workplace safety kick in, which is what I believe happened. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:04, 22 July 2008 (EDT)