2-1-2004 Smokers should not have right to endanger others' health
Restrictions on smoking are not an intrusion in people's life; it a matter of life itself. It is not a strange move to mandate smoke-free dining because people do find meaning in the move. Each life saved is worth the effort. Again, it is not a trivial matter or a mad idea but something overdue for a long time.
Hundreds of communities and many states and countries have gone smoke-free and the list is growing. The latest to join is Ireland, which a few weeks ago banned smoking in public places. It is going smoke-free because smoking is harmful to health of the nation.
Perhaps the worst sufferers are restaurant workers who inhale six times more smoke than diners and incur a greater the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Dining in a restaurant, which is an integral part of our culture, should be a pleasant experience; smoking should not spoil it or imperil the health of diners and workers.
But it is a welcome realization that three of every four smokers who visit a doctor are urged to quit. To quit smoking is the desire of a majority of smokers, though it is within the power of a relatively few of them.
Estimates bear out that 440,000 lives are decimated each year by tobacco, while 8.6 million persons suffer from smoking-related illnesses. This results in $157 billion in health-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh darn, less population control if the idiots stop smoking.
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure
I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.
As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.
If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.
I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.
Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.
Tracy O'Shields Sr.
Gainesville
Restrictions on smoking are not an intrusion in people's life; it a matter of life itself. It is not a strange move to mandate smoke-free dining because people do find meaning in the move. Each life saved is worth the effort. Again, it is not a trivial matter or a mad idea but something overdue for a long time.
Hundreds of communities and many states and countries have gone smoke-free and the list is growing. The latest to join is Ireland, which a few weeks ago banned smoking in public places. It is going smoke-free because smoking is harmful to health of the nation.
Perhaps the worst sufferers are restaurant workers who inhale six times more smoke than diners and incur a greater the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Dining in a restaurant, which is an integral part of our culture, should be a pleasant experience; smoking should not spoil it or imperil the health of diners and workers.
But it is a welcome realization that three of every four smokers who visit a doctor are urged to quit. To quit smoking is the desire of a majority of smokers, though it is within the power of a relatively few of them.
Estimates bear out that 440,000 lives are decimated each year by tobacco, while 8.6 million persons suffer from smoking-related illnesses. This results in $157 billion in health-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh darn, less population control if the idiots stop smoking.
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure
I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.
As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.
If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.
I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.
Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.
Tracy O'Shields Sr.
Gainesville