Smoking in restaurants. (Rush Limbaugh, ideology, economy, programs)

[TKramar]

If a restaraunt's full...I go to another restaraunt.

[geeoro]

Exactly! Smoking and non smoking areas wil not make a difference, if full you'll go to another restaurant.

[TKramar]

Not if it is the "smoking section" that's full. Like I said, I could sit in the nonsmoking side and not smoke.

I just like to have the OPTION to smoke while I eat. Of course, I don't dine out much, so I always have the option.

[geeoro]

I agree with you TKramer that we should have the option. I dont smoke but i think smokers should be catered for. If i decide to sit in a smoking area it is my choice.

[katzenfreund]

Folks, please stay on topic
SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS

Do not discuss other posters.
Thank you!

[norcalmom101]

Employees should never have to work in a second hand smoke environment to keep their jobs. The private property argument doesn't work for me unless it is in a persons home and kids and pets aren't present.

[TKramar]

as a parent, you have the right to make decisions about your children. If you choose to smoke around them, you have that right.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by norcalmom101

Employees should never have to work in a second hand smoke environment to keep their jobs. The private property argument doesn't work for me unless it is in a persons home and kids and pets aren't present.

So everyone has the right to have a job?

Should employees have to be around sick people, considering the health risk, just to keep their job?

What about smelly people? I mean, who wants to wait on someone who smells like a septic system?

I've got an easier solution... the employee can find an employer that offers a salary, benefits, work hours, and a work environment that they both can agree upon.

[TKramar]

Hey, I almost always GO to work when I'm sick!

Unless I'm constantly puking or having the "runs", I see no reason to call off if I can do my job...still sick.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by Mircea

I think it's absurd to suggest that smoking causes cancer.

At most, one might conclude that smoking may cause cancer in certain select groups of people who are predisposed to such diseases genetically.

For many of those who contract lung cancer, the evidence suggests they would have contracted it even if tobacco products never existed, simply because of genetics.

Smoking does greatly increase the risk of certain types of cancer. Large cell lung cancer by some 3,000% and almost doubles the risk of heart disease.

Now, genetics does play a large role, I mean look at how many of the world's oldest people are smokers and alcoholics, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't increase the risk, but rather that those people probably have a very rare genetic makeup that makes them relatively healthy no matter what they do.

While there are a few illnesses that are still inclusive as to whether they are increased by directly smoking, lung cancer, throat cancer, and mouth cancer are pretty damn solid and there is a lot of evidence supporting heart disease as well (although it is compounded by things like general fitness and diet).

Hey, whatever you want to do with your body is fine and just because there is a risk, doesn't mean that you will get it, but smoking is one of the unhealthiest legal habits around.