On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 02:35 PM, Jeremy Wieland wrote:
Some service workers are going to choose to work with smoke, others are not. The notion here is let
some people pick their own destiny. My suggestion does not actually fit any
of the concerns raised below.
Smokers are looking for a place where, flat out, non-smokers are not
invited. We have gay bars and vegetarian restaurants where heteros and meat
eaters can still go, they just stick out.
The world doesn't end if we decide that 12 places are smoke friendly and you
go there at your own risk. I don't see that limiting the opportunity for
non-smokers to cook or wait tables. What's more, if you sell permits for
smoking it creates a desperately needed revenue source for the city while
allowing the municipality to discourage smoking.
If business owners of establishments where the public is invited know they will be subject to injury claims they will hesitate to hire even willing workers. As we have seen from tobacco suits, former smokers and their survivors are winning against tobacco companies. The idea that a person is willing and therefore holds others harmless can change over time. For former smokers what was not known were the addictive properties of the tobacco product. For workers it will be the extent of the danger to their health.
The amount of signage, exemptions and assurances that the establishment would have to have would never be enough to ward off later suits.
Smoking is a legal activity that those over the age of 18 may choose to engage in. This choice will not extend to licensing the smoker to endanger others with his or her choice because the public and private liability for doing so will be too great. This is not a concept based on opinion. This is based on scientific evidence and medical research.
For the business owner, this is a business decision with weighed risks. For the individual tobacco user, it is the very difficult choice of quitting or continuing. For those within range of the smoker's environment, the response will depend on the status of the individual. Obviously, children will have no rights except in unusual cases. (There are some cases of sick children being removed from homes where smoking is relentless and omnipresent).
But for workers, if some do volunteer, the development of the case law is unlikely to bar them from seeking recourse at a later time in their lives.
Best,
Laura Southeast Minneapolis
Laura Waterman Wittstock MIGIZI Communications, Inc. 3123 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 612.721.6631 ext 219 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.migizi.org
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
