The benefits of going "smoke free" are unquestionable. Whether it merits the type of government crackdown that we are seeing these days.....is still debatable.
The best argument for the government mandated smoking bans centers around the health issues involved with second hand smoke, particularly for employees of the establishment. I still think a compromise is preferable an all-or-nothing approach. Cameron, what do you think of the idea of allowing certain, narrowly defined businesses to remain as smoking establishments? Or is it unacceptable to allow smokers ANY place to gather in a public location? On Jan 3, 2008 10:53 AM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This may be old news and already discussed here, but I think it's > relevant based on smoking ban thread. - Cameron > > From: > > http://www.health.state.ny.us/press/releases/2007/2007-09-27_shs_heart_attacks.htm > > Hospital Admissions for Heart Attack Decline Due to State Clean Indoor > Air Act > "The state Department of Health study found 3,813 fewer hospital > admissions for heart attacks in 2004, an 8 percent decline, than would > be expected in New York without a comprehensive indoor smoking ban. > Fewer hospital admissions translate into direct health care cost savings > of $56 million in 2004 alone." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249536 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
