Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back? (view source)
Revision as of 20:14, July 22, 2008
, 20:14, July 22, 2008→Comments
::::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)
::::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)
:::::It's a weak rationale, Dinsdale--particularly in a country where people still work as coal miners. Prolonged exposure to gasoline fumes has also been linked to a number of health issues--where is the outcry and the demand that those who work at service stations be protected from the health risks?
:::::All of this comes down to the government's tremendous hypocrisy on this issue. They will never outlaw smoking, because smoking is too lucrative; the government is hooked on the tax revenues that come from it.
:::::As for the issue of whether smoke-free restaurants attract more customers, I don't doubt it for a second. I myself chose to patronize non-smoking restaurants well before the blanket ban. A restaurant with nice decor will also attract more customers than one with shabby decor, and a restaurant with pleasant background music will attract more customers than one where customers are routinely serenaded by a drunken glockenspiel player. Whether or not a given measure increases business, though, is not the point--the point is that it should be the business owner's decision, not the government's.