--- 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.
>
> 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.
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
__,_._,___
