The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

& debu. § Layol ple to s payme j worker It is a wisely budget uon. § Arran gnczl ord O _ Arrange all the wages and salaries in numerâ€" & ical order. Cut 10 per cent from the median Esahry.lmmd\tcmwmpum-lklcp * and decrease it to four per cent at the bottom. # Few people will question the fact that ‘ LETTE 2. Bill Patterson, the manager of the Kâ€"Mart store in Waterloo Town Square, says that his lunch bar has lost 30 per cent of its customers since the smoking ban was put into place in November. My first question for Mr. Patterson is, how did he arrive at these statistics? How does he attribute the loss of his customers to the sudden lack of a smoking section for smokâ€" ers and how can he suggest that these numbers won‘t be different once nonâ€"smoking customers are aware of the change? ! am no expert in the business field but it would seem common sense to me that when a business makes any kind of a change, whether it be the addition of a new type of sandwich meat or a move to a different location, it takes time for customers to recogâ€" mize those changes. 1. it is known that secondâ€"hand smoke kills. Every reputable health organization will conâ€" firm this fact. What about people‘s health? Are we, as a society, becoming so immoral that we are more concerned about whether business owners suller than we are about a dangerous product that kills people? | am writing in response to an article in the Waterloo Chronicle on Wed., Feb. 21, 1996, enutled, "Owners fear restaurant business will suffer if smoking ban passed." As 1 read through the article, I can tell you 1 became increasingly annoyed at the messages it conâ€" veyed. I found the article disturbing for the folâ€" lowing reasons: This can balance the budget with no job losses. Those who are dissatisfied will have ume to seek alternate employment. it is assumed that the organizations purchase wisely and have waste under control. If the budget is still not balanced, here is a sugges Layolis cause mental turmoil and kt:‘z pie to seek unemployment insurance or payments. As well, the employer loses a Smoking ban necessary Ba|amthw n ew cu _ with no job losses _ > res M. Carl Kaufman Every year in Canada, 330 nonâ€"smokers die from lung cancer and several times that many from heart disease. Region but also the potential for better busiâ€" ness. 1 hope that my comments are taken into serious consideration. 1 believe that it is time our legislation reflected the seriousness of the seem to me that it is extremely necessary and timely bylaw, for it not only has the potential to protect the health of citizens of Waterloo council vored unanimously against the proâ€" posed regional bylaw to ban smoking in all Waterloo restaurants by the year 2000. it would 3. Personally, 1 would like to see all public places go smokeâ€"free â€" and so would many of my family members and friends. it is healthier and 1 absolutely hate the smell of smoke. It gives me headaches and makes my hair and my clothes stink. 1 believe that there is a growing trend towards smokeâ€"free environments not only because of health reasons but also because it‘s good business. As a resident of both Toronto and Waterloo, 1 see that Waterloo lags behind compared with Toronto in its regulation of smokeâ€"free places. 4. As well, someone does not have to be brilâ€" lhant to realize that smoke does not stay in the smoking section. Really, the only way to protect people‘s health, especially the health of hospiâ€" tality industry employees, is to eliminate the smoke altogether. Other jurisdictions like Los Angeles, Portland (Oregon) and New York, have laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants. To my knowledge, they have not documented any economic losses. 1 was really distressed to hear that Waterloo n ew customers that prefer this type of enviâ€" benefit from proposed our community. unreasonable and they only stand to benefit the residents of Waterloo. They could even benefit business in restaurants as a 1995 survey of the Greater Vancouver Area and Victoria gonâ€" cluded. It is obvious that this bylaw is a sensiâ€" ble way of addressing the problem of ETS in a nonâ€"smoker in a smoky room can inhale as much tobaccoâ€"specific nitrosamine, one of the most carcinogenic compounds ever known, as if he or she had smoked 35 cigarettes. Many restaurants and workplaces are starting to realize the situation we are in and so the precedent has been set for all of us in Waterloo. We know that 48 per cent of workplaces have already committed themselves to a smokeâ€"free workplace and bylaws such as the one proâ€" posed for the Waterloo Region have been implemented in such states as California, Utah example, since most restaurants have already established designated nonâ€"smoking areas. The truth is that ETS cannot be contained so easily; the smoke will drift from section to section even with an independent ventilation system. A publication from the Ontario Campaign for Action on tobacco suggests, "having a nonâ€" smoking section is comparable to creating uriâ€" nating and nonâ€"urinating sections in a munity the message that secondhand smoke should not be a real concern to the public. After all of the region‘s schools were recently made smokeâ€"free and as a high school student myself, 1 see this as a dangerous and confusing message to today‘s young people. Some have argued that a complete ban of smoking is not required in restaurants for The guidelines proposed in the bylaw are not (project coordinated by the Council for a Tobacco Free Waterloo Region) Project Air Control ductivity from employees who smoke on the job. Whatever the fears of local restaurateurs in the Waterloo region, the facts are that smokeâ€" free restaurants‘ policies don‘t hurt business, may actually lead to improved business and are good for the health of employees and patrons would be more to go out to restaurants if frequently misjudge their patrons‘ wishes when it comes to demands for simoking areas. in the Australian survey, restaurant owners were Snvking Saing desaed by reapin ind wien seating desit patrons did not provide as much nonâ€"smoking seating as they said they would. What is most remarkable about your article is that is entirely based on the opinions of three restaurant owners â€" no facts, statistics or analyses are presented. Unfortunately, this reporting is typical of covâ€" erage of this issue: restaurateurs fears and worâ€" ries»mpruembunzld‘dmtdx health risks to restaurant staff (who have an up to 50 per cent increased risk of lung cancer working in smokeâ€"filled restaurants) or about the health effects to patrons or about the increased maintenance and insurance costs in a smoking establishment or about decreased proâ€" patrons arcâ€"cating out, even though some smokers eat out less. : â€" Eonmeetmnty; > Australia show shat by large margins, people would be more likely to go out to restaurants if seats are larger, are: late last year shows ue » of 35. are we h had a change said, ‘Hey, I‘m and 1 do not ¢ cannot heard from ers have told h tinuing to voh the number of for smokers in ments, that is r mklkd region) have : "I‘ve rec ally and t tions I‘ve July 2. The Sie believed the mistake. 1 ing to say day the two ) Siemens a