Replies

I personally could care LESS if someone smokes.

I DO NOT want to smell it or breathe it in, nor do I want
ONE DOLLAR of tax money to pay for their health care. You smoke, you get cancer, you die. Oh well. The gov't has no business telling ADULTS how to live anyway.

There's two key points that prove that the whole "protect the workers" smoking ban is a fraud.

1) Most of these busybody laws fine not the smokers, but the bars themselves. The employees being "protected" are stuck enforcing said protection. There's already one documented death from this.

2) The bans are portrayed as "occupational safety" rules but ignore the concept of Permissable Exposure Limit (PEL), the cornerstone of all workplace chemical exposure regulations.

One of the few non-smoking bar employees with occupational safety management experience,

-Eric

Smoking bans do not bother me personally because I do not smoke or want to smell someone elses smoke. The reason to oppose these bans is what will they ban next. What legal act will they tell a private business they cannot allow. They will continue come up with something new and eventually get us all.

The science of the effects of secondhand smoke is not as sharply defined as the health risk assumed by smokers themselves. However, it is obvious that secondhand smoke does have certain negative consequences.

While the range and degree of these repercussions may be debatable, the policy reactions to the professed dangers of secondhand smoke are becoming legendary. The dangers ascribed to secondhand smoke are rapidly transforming a previously private choice into a public-health decision open to government regulation.

I only had to read to here before I knew that this writer was biased toward the anti's point of view.
They may say they want the free market to be left alone to work the way it's supposed to, this alone points to their bias. They don't like smoking.

And once again, While the intentions of smoking-ban advocates are certainly noble, their methods and procedures are simply misinformed and fall prey to the myth that regulations can remedy society’s ills and fix a market that knows it is not broken.
The writer's bias shows through. Noble? To quote someone, "It is to laugh".

This person may have the right ideas about letting the free market work but their bias shows through just like a black slip under a sheer white dress.

One such policy is Great Britain’s “Public Places Charter,” which requires the posting of clear and obvious signage that informs employees and consumers about an establishment’s smoking status. This transparent system identifies the establishments that prohibit smoking, those that offer no protection to nonsmokers and those that have separate areas or ventilation systems.

Most establishments in the US had this policy (remember, "Smoking or non-smoking?")

However, this wasn't good enough for the Gnatzi's.

Too much is never enough for your dyed-in-the-wool control freak.