Yes they should be responsible.

Umm, how would they get a loss if you can't smoke their?

They are cuz you just said they were, but that doesn't mean they should do anything about that.

Should buisnesses that allow smoking be responsible for the full medical costs that insue as a result of smoking there - especially the medical costs for the staff and their families?

No one is forced to work there. Get a different job if you hate it so much.

On 9/24/2006 10:43:28 AM HaroldtheBat wrote: No one is forced to work there. Get a different job if you hate it so much.

I DON'T work there. I drive a taxi cab that is smoke-free.

But I understand the situation of staff that work in an enviornment that is unhealthy (whether there is smoking going on, or other health hazards such as in mining (cave-ins, black lung disease), carpentry (falls), etc.

People who say "No one is forced to work there. Get a different job if you hate it so much" generally don't know what it's like to be low income and have a family to support. You're job opertunities are few. You take the job you can get. If the 'smoking' job pays a dollar an hour more than the non-smoking job, you take it so you can feed and clothe and house your family.

One, no sh*t. I didn't mean you specifically. Two, yes it can be dangerous to your health, which is why I suggest getting a different job. Or here's a thought, get an education so you don't have to worry about not being able to support yourself and your family. Three, you're right, I've never had a family to support, but I was raised in a very low income family. And guess what. It was extremely easy for my mother (the waitress) to get a job anywhere. It's not like waitressing jobs aren't a dime a dozen. And those are the places most affected by smoking bans. So until she went to nursing school, she worked in several different restaurants.

Your mother was fortunate to be skilled as a waitress - it's not an easy job. Certainly I couldn't do it.

But, I repeat 'If the 'smoking' job (or mining job, or whatever job) pays a dollar an hour more than the non-smoking job, you take it so you can feed and clothe and house your family.

Most of the unsilled jobs I looked at in this area didn't pay enough to take care of my family. I was lucky to get the taxi job - which takes care of my family, but I usually have to work 50 hours a week to do so.

That's why I'm a big believer in education. It took her four years of part time schooling and working full time, while also raising four kids, but my mother got her RN and now makes close to $100,000 a year.

After being her daughter, I am completely unwilling to accept any excuses that someone can't get an education and therefore a better job.

very few have your mother's stamina.

Just this week our city banned smoking in all bars and restuarants. Restuarants I can understand but bars I have a problem with because most people smoke more while drinking and I think the owners are going to have a tough time. We have alot of neighborhood bars here and I think it might have a huge impact on the number of customers they get. The only bars you can smoke in are ones with state ran Keno. That seems kind of fishy to me.

On 9/24/2006 7:00:15 PM wanderer wrote: very few have your mother's stamina.

Oh my...
I was just scrolling down, and this caught my eye, and my admittedly immature mind jumped to a certain conclusion--namely that someone with an I.Q. high enough to use the word "stamina" was insulting someone else's mother. Oh dear...
But as to the question, governments that legislate smoking bans in private businesses are minding someone else's business and should sodomize themselves with a retractable baton at the earliest oppurtunity.

On 9/24/2006 10:41:20 AM wanderer wrote: Should buisnesses that allow smoking be responsible for the full medical costs that insue as a result of smoking there - especially the medical costs for the staff and their families?

On 9/24/2006 10:43:28 AM HaroldtheBat wrote: No one is forced to work there. Get a different job if you hate it so much.

If I may interject, ladies... Wonderer, I think superchicken put it best:

"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it!"

Putting asside my person belief (Which is that second hand smoke dangers are greating exaggerated), people who end up working in smoking areas KNOW they will be in smoking areas. The places that do allow smoker (as few and far between as they may be) all have non-smoking alternatives, if they really want a non-smoking job, they would have no trouble getting one, even with no training.

No, of course not. The government is not there to support each and every one of us, for crying out loud. Businesses have ways of retaining customers. If the business was any good in the first place, it wouldn't have to worry about the no smoking laws.

I'd like to point out that a smoking ban has been in effect in New York with little or no impact on business, in some instances even causing an increase in business, thus proving that the topic of this thread is, for the most part, a moot point.

Oh this is a huge issue where I am. They're currently considering passing a ban on smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars.

I know that revenue will drop because of this in our main downtown area, especially since very few bars have a storefront/balcony area that could be used for smoking, but I still support the ban. (Sale of cigarettes, for instance, is certain to drop because of a ban)

I think ideally a business should be able to purchase a license to allow smoking in their facility.

I helped with some research in the bars to determine smoke levels in each one, and they were all astronomically higher than EPA standards say is "safe".

As for the argument that you can just "get a job elsewhere without smoking" I disagree. What about bartenders? Bars don't have smoking and non-smoking sections.

On 10/4/2006 3:33:11 PM spoonerism wrote: What about bartenders? Bars don't have smoking and non-smoking sections.

1- Some places have already banned smoking in Bars.

2- There are Family Resturants, Bar and Grill settings, that would allow you to be a bartender, and not be around a large amount of smoke like you would be in a streight up bar.

3- If they didn't want to be around smoke, what where they thinking, getting certified and/or trained as a bartender in the first place?

people thought the smokin ban here in ireland would be a disaster but its grand. i find it weird to see people smokin on tv in pubs and other places it doesnt seem right anymore!!

Yes absolutely. I used to work in a 24/7 restaurant which lost a lot of customers when the indoor smoking was banned.

I believe late-night businesses attract more smokers, thus banning smoking in these places can significantly reduce business.

ya i agree

On 10/4/2006 9:20:24 AM babaygirl29 wrote: I'd like to point out that a smoking ban has been in effect in New York with little or no impact on business, in some instances even causing an increase in business, thus proving that the topic of this thread is, for the most part, a moot point.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Get a smoking ban. Save the children. And everyone else.

F*ck the smoking ban. I'm sorry, but the whole smoking issue has been blown completely out of proportion.

I honestly don't see why, if its private it should remain that way. Asking for reparations from the government for loss profits of a private buiseness seems contradictory.

Instead I think bars and what not should get licenses for people to smoke, not be banned completly.

On 10/4/2006 9:20:24 AM babaygirl29 wrote: I'd like to point out that a smoking ban has been in effect in New York with little or no impact on business, in some instances even causing an increase in business, thus proving that the topic of this thread is, for the most part, a moot point.

In fact some bars have been doing better! But I love the smoke ban personally I hate walking near people who are smoking. Its weird though going to restaurants and not have the smell forced on you no matter where you sit.