--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
> >
> > The big thing you are missing here is that places of business DO
> NOT
> > have the freedom to whatever they please. There are hordes of
> > regulations they must adhere to. A smoking regulation is no
> different
> > than many of the health regulations businesses must already
follow.
> > They are put in place for the public good.
> >
>
> Good point. I think that we should follow the example of another
> regulation. We've all seen the warnings on menus about the dangers
> of undercooked food and that asking for food prepared in this way
is
> being done at your own risk. So we should mandate placing a sign
at
> the entrance of all places that allow smoking (since admittedly not
> everyone can figure this out on their own).
>
> "This is a SMOKING establishment. By entering you are implicitly
> giving your consent to be surrounded by smoke and the dangers
> inherent therein. If you do not consent to this, DO NOT ENTER!"
> (and go to a non-smoking establishment)
>
> Certainly the food warning made more sense than banning raw bars,
> rare steaks, sunny-side-up eggs, etc... Instead of making the
> decision for people, you give them the power to decide if they want
> to risk their health.
This might work if there were an equal number of establishments that
provided the same exact services for both smokers and non-smokers. Of
course, if this were done the establishments that allowed smoking
would only be marketing to 20-30% of the total population. Not sure
too many restuarants would pick the smoking group. For casinos, the
choice doesn't really exist in NV and even with a 50-50 ratio none of
the casinos appear to be interested in the non-smoking crowd.
>
> >
> > Please explain how a smokers health is put a risk for abstaining
in
> a
> > non-smoking casino. Oh, and be sure to add just how the employees
> are
> > put at risk too.
> >
>
> Hmmm...scratching my head on this one. I don't recall ever saying
or
> implying that being in a non-smoking environment is dangerous to
> anyone's health. If you quote the exact section of my posts that
led
> you to mistakenly infer this, I'll be happy to clarify what I
> actually meant.
You stated:
"I assure you that if a non-smoking casino all of a sudden put in a
10% play on dollars, smokers would go there. They would realize that
the sacrifice they are making to take part in this play is that they
can't smoke."
If a non-smoker goes into a smoking casino and thereby is forced to
breathe smoke, their health IS put at risk. If smokers go into a non-
smoking casino they are NOT put at any health risk. Hence, the
ONLY "sacrifice" they are making impacts them and them alone.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
