I like it. It is already established in law that, if you suffer damage/have an accident on Smith's property, you can sue Smith for damages. This is why property owners carry such insurance.
We have here a smoking-induced injury caused on the property, with the associated liability. Smoking bar owners could either 1) take all that liability on themselves, and get out of the business and out of the country before the law suits started, or 2) buy smoking liability insurance. Now, how much would that insurance cost per month? it would depend I imagine on sales, number of customers, ventilation verification, general age/health/class of the average customer, smoking mortality/sickness figures in the bar neighborhood, etc. If the damage done to the clientele/employees only amounts to $100 a month, and give the insurance co its usual 20-30% markup, that's only $120 to $130 per month. Easily made up in alcohol profits - especially if smoking it supposed to be so GOOD for profits. On the other hand, let us suppose that, given the cost of treating say lung cancer, and given say 3% of those who hung out in that bar fall ill and sue, the total damage is probably in the hundreds of thousands. If this high, the only way the bar can make money is option 1) above - excape to another country. Else we are asking that amount to be paid by the victims of cancer, so that bar owners can (they imagine) make more money. A third option arises: the bars could insist that the Big Tobacco companies pool their resources and buy the insurance for the smoking bars. No free insurance, no smokers in our bar, fewer customers for Big Tobacco in the future, smoking becomes even less fashionable, the Big tobacco families go on welfare or get an honest job. BT might come through. They would then FINALLY begin to pay for all the collateral damage of their actions - a very good thing. Let them make money, but make them pay for all the damage they cause as they make it. (I would really like to know how much a typical bar owner's property liability insurance would rise if smoking liability were added to it. Insurance gurus?) --David Shove Roseville On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Steve Nelson wrote: > > Since the objections to a smoking ban seem to be a fear of loss of > profits over concern for employees health, I propose the following law > be enacted to preserve the freedom of choice for bar and private club > owners...and any other employer who wishes to allow smoking in their > business. The argument that people choose to work in smoking > establishments makes sense only in an economy where there is a plethora > of well-paying jobs and working in such establishments is truly a > choice. In today's economy, people are often forced to work where they > can find it not where they would like. > > "Any employer who wishes to allow his establishment to be a non-smoke > free environment takes on the liability of his employees health care in > relation to any health care problems related to or aggravated by tobacco > smoke. The burden of proof falls upon the owner of the establishment to > prove that the health problem was NOT caused by exposure at his place of > business. No employees shall be forced to sign waivers to this > provision prior to or during employment nor shall any such waivers be > deemed valid as related to smoking exposure. This burden shall not be > construed as license to disregard employees right to privacy. > Reasonable access to medical records and health history shall be > permitted but shall not rise to the level of harassment as defined by > law." > > Take issue with the wording any way you want but I think the gist of it is > clear. Since a preponderence of scientific evidence (including a study > showing that exposure to second hand smoke increases the risk of breast > cancer, the results of which were released the day bar owners asked the > courts to overturn the city of Minneapolis ordinance) shows that exposure to > second hand smoke causes many health related problems, bar and club owners > who wish to continue to profit by placing their employees at risk assume the > burden of that risk as well. And the employee does not have to prove that > their work exposure caused their problem to recover medical and other related > expenses from the employer. > > So let the discussion begin. > > Steven M Nelson > Willard Hay > http://citizenshipchronicles.blogspot.com/ > http://minutemenworldwide.blogspot.com/ > Get UP! Get OUT! & GET INVOLVED!!! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > MN-POLITICS-DISCUSS http://www.e-democracy.org/mn-politics/ is a CIVIL > discussion of Minnesota public issues and politics. > ----------------------- > +++ REMEMBER - Presidential politics is outside the scope of this list. > > ----------------------- > **** Don't like E-Democracy's rules? You have alternatives: > http://www.e-democracy.org/mninteract **** > ---------------------------- > To receive daily digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For the list to retain its value, and to show respect for your fellow list > members, please keep a Minnesota focus on your posts. Thanks. > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-discuss/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
