Subject:
|
Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:26:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:03:31PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > This from a smokefree activist list I subscribe to...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, workers lost the right to breathe smokefree air in all
> > > workplaces in Toledo and Duluth. No barhopping there! :-(
> > >
> > > Now for Illinois in 2006, I hope!
> >
> > 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, as long as there's a reasonable
> > non-smoking section (and trust me, I hate cigarette smoke!).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I'm not convinced this should be a law.
>
> I'm more than convinced it should be a law. When the smoker's right to smoke and
> the citizen (worker, patron, or other)'s right to breathe clean air are in
> conflict, the right to breathe clean air should always win.
Wait a few years and move to Australia
http://www.ashaust.org.au/SF'03/releases/041012.htm
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) I'm more than convinced it should be a law. When the smoker's right to smoke and the citizen (worker, patron, or other)'s right to breathe clean air are in conflict, the right to breathe clean air should always win. The economics are quite (...) (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
|
|
|
|
