Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nightfyre
Consistent exposure would be a good way to qualify all of your vast generalizations. The vast majority of the non-smoking public doesn't get consistent exposure.
|
1. If smoking in public buildings were allowed, all non-smoking employees, residents, clients, etc. of that building would be exposed to the negative health consequences of second hand smoke. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
2. Long term health affects are not the only health affects caused by smoking. Aside from heart disease and lung cancer, children are especially susceptible to the affects of second hand smoke. In children, it is known to be a cause of respiratory tract infections, middle ear infections, and increases in the number and severity of asthmatic episodes. It is associated with increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, as well.
Aside from the underappreciated fact that more people will actually frequent smoke-free establishments in large numbers, there are many other reasons that businesses are prospering after going smoke-free:
1. It's a safer and MORE PRODUCTIVE workplace.
2. Decreased health, life, and fire insurance costs.
3. Lower risk of accidents and decreased cleaning and maintenance costs.
4. The prevention of illness among nonsmoking employees and customers.
Plus, it has been shown that smokers ultimately accept and adjust to smoke-free policies. In other words, they just go outside. And that is what anyone who respects others would do without complaining.
IMO, it's all about respect.