Subject:
|
Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:19:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger wrote:
> Hmmm. So the point is to protect the employees of restaurants from
> smoke? Not about being able to have dinner in a smoke free room?
Makes more sense. If you're a patron, you generally get to choose not to enter
the smoking section (except in cases where it's inconveniently placed between
the restrooms and the rest of the restaurant, like the McD's from my home town).
If you're waiting/bussing tables, or seating patrons, you might be required to
do so on a regular basis.
> Shouldn't that be left as a choice for the people who work in the bar?
Should we assume they actually have a choice about working in a/that bar?
Especially with the current job market status? What if they want to stop
smoking? Should they be required to quit and possibly settle for a job with
lower pay or worse benefits?
> I've a feeling that almost all the people who voted for these
> initiatives voted because THEY don't want to deal with the smoke, not
> because they're trying to protect the workers.
Probably, but history is full of instances where the public has decided to do
something for reasons other than what was presented as the official purpose, and
it's just as valid a reason. Some restaurants (especially larger ones) can
probably be arranged in such a way as to keep smoke from drifting over into the
non-smoking section, but I remember eating in a lot of restaurants where the
smoking/non-smoking sections were right next to each other, either across a
small aisle between tables, or with a really low dividing wall between booths
(yes, low enough that you could converse with each other). Perhaps for patrons,
it would have made sense just to require a smoke-tolerant buffer zone if the
smoker/non-smoker sections weren't seperated by a sufficient barrier or space,
but I don't remember that ever having been proposed before, and the rules on how
to divide the two sections seem to have been fairly non-existent.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) Hmmm. So the point is to protect the employees of restaurants from smoke? Not about being able to have dinner in a smoke free room? Shouldn't that be left as a choice for the people who work in the bar? I've no problem with a smoking section, (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
