Many cities in the United States and some places in Europe are passing smoking bans in restaurants, bars, theaters, and other "public" places.
Proponents of these laws claim they protect public health and keep people from being forced to inhale secondhand smoke. Critics claim the laws go too far, unfairly restricting the rights of property owners and placing a burden on smokers.
What about this idea as a compromise? The owners of restaurants, pubs, and theaters can decide if they want to permit smoking or not. If they choose to allow smoking, they must put a large sign on all entrances stating "THIS ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS SMOKING. SECONDHAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH." They must also have all new employees sign a form acknowleging that they choose to work in an environment with tobacco smoke.
This way, no one is forced to visit or work in a smoke-filled place. They can see the sign on the door, and make their own decision if they want to take the health risk.
2006-08-02
06:57:11
·
21 answers
·
asked by
timm1776
5
in
Law & Ethics