A boycott is not an effective plan because the people who won't go to a smoky bar or restaurant are already boycotting them, but not as an organized movement. The people who, today, are spending money in smoky bars/restaurants have already decided they don't care that much.
Personally, its been ten years since I've seen a group of nonsmokers defer to a smoker and sit in the smoking section. Today, it is the opposite. Smokers usually assume they will have to sit in the nonsmoking section if they want to go out with their work or church buddies. Also, this suggestion overlooks the fact that the most powerful and generally accepted argument in support of a smoke ban is the affect of a carcinogenic environment on the workers in the industry. Clean air for the rest of us is a welcome side benefit, but it is the workers rights that make the argument compelling. By public laws, we defend workers from exposure to many dangerous toxic environments. Smoke is no different. Some smoke advocates argue that the employees can just choose to work elsewhere. I wonder if they would argue the same thing for asbestos removal workers, or workers cleaning up biohazards in hospitals. John Harris said: >> Ah! John, a great suggestion. > > I agree, a great suggestion. I still say business will accomodate the > anti-smokers when they see the money flow. this could be a demonstration > of > that. > -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO],[StPaul], MP-N ... _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
