8. A BAN ON SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS \UTϫĳ
===============================================

1. It is suggested that smoking is banned inside all restaurants, cafes and other places where food is purchased and consumed indoors.
ĳbҦ\UB@UMUȯʶRæbǤiaTlϡC

2. Restaurant owners are given the choice to either designate their restaurants as smoking or non-smoking.
\UFDۦ]w\UlϩΪ̫Dl\UC

3. Hong Kong has been polarized whether or not this proposal should be implemented.
H_榹ĳۤϪNC

4. Opponents of the smoke-free policy are principally the tobacco companies, tourist and catering industries.
LϬFϹ̳̥DnOϯ󤽥qBȹC~M~C

5. They have argued that such a ban would bring about serious negative consequences.
L̻{oӸTϫĳ|aYtGC

6. For example, the number of patronage is likely to plunge.
ҦpAUȪƥئijTUC

7. The Hong Kong Hotels Association has also said smoking tourists would be driven away to other travel destinations.
s~p|ܧlϪCȷ|]LȹCaIC

8. This would cost the sector as much as $7.9 billion a year and 21,500 job losses.
o˷|OȹC~C~lCQEMGU@dʭ¾C

9. For the tobacco industry, smoke-free dining substantially reduces smoking opportunities and so is likely to reduce their revenue.
ϯ󤽥qӨAT~Xi\ɧlϱN|jq֧lϪ|Ai|vTL̪JC

10. They also claim that staff would be reluctant to enforce the ban and without surveillance of the police, many smokers would ignore the ban.
L̥¾N@NoӸTϱIA[WʥFĵ誺ʹAܦhlϪ̷|oӱIC

11. An ongoing difficulty for the staff is getting into conflicts with their smoking dinners.
¾ɱ`諸xOPlϪȵoͽĬC

12. There have been incidents of smokers refusing to put out their cigarettes when asked.
gȩڵ¾nDA֫ϡC

13. Many have cast their doubt on the effectiveness of the ban, which allows owners to make their choice.
ѩ\UFDۦMwTϻP_AܦhHóoӸTϬFġC

14. Restaurants owners may put their economic interests ahead of public health and yield to competitive pressures to allow smoking.
\UFDη|L̪g٧Qqh󤽲å͡A̲צVvO}AӮe\ȧlϡC

15. Anti-smoking advocates suggest that the ban can bring public and occupational health benefit.
ϧlϴҪ̫h{TϱIQM¾~å͡C

16. They object to leaving the choice to restaurants owners because it will negate the proposal's purpose of protecting catering workers from damages caused by second-hand smoke.
TϫĳتOקK~ulJGϡAO٥L̪dCϧlϴҪ̤Ϲ\UFDۦ@lϻP_MwA]o˷|hTϫĳNqC

17. Concerning the revenue, they counter-argue that the ban will encourage more non-smoking to dine out and will thus cause no significant effect on revenue.
ܩ󦬤Jo@IAL̬ۤϦa{TϫĳyhDlϪ̥~Xi\A]|怜JcYvTC

18. Most would agree voluntary ban on smoking offers everyone a choice.
hƤHP\UFDۦMw]wlϩΫDl\UAC@ӤHܪvQC

19. Smokers, of course, would have the option of eating at any restaurant.
lϪ̩TMiHܦb\UiC

20. Non-smokers, however, would be deprived of their access to an enjoyable meal in a healthy environment.
iOADlϪ̷|QܡAҲM䰷d\Uɨ@yC

21. Often, they find it difficult to enjoy eating while breathing in someone else's second-hand smoke.
ܦhɡAL̳QlJGϡAHɨi\֡C

22. Non-smokers also complain about the lingering smell of smoke in their clothes and hair after going to "smoking" restaurants.
DlϪ̥De\lϪ\UiAL̪AMYv|dUHMϨC

23. Healthy people and those with higher education are more likely to avoid smoky places because they are more health-conscious.
dMLШ|H`dAq`|קKaC

24. Some smokers would defend their behaviour with freedom of choice.
ǧlϪ̷|HܪۥѨӬۤv欰G@C

25. But in fact, they are the worst abusers of that freedom.
ƹWAL̬OݥΨئۥѪ@sC

26. They are jeopardizing non-smokers' health while they enjoy their freedom.
L̦bɨۤvۥѮɡAPɦM`FLHdC

27. Once they have chosen to smoke, non-smokers will have no choice about what they inhale.
@L̿I_YADlϪ̫KSvܥĻlJC




GLOSSARY - A BAN ON SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS

be deprived of Q

cast doubt on... ...

health-conscious `d

jeopardize M`

lingering smell h

negate ...L

patronage UȪU

plunge jTU^

surveillance ʹ

tobacco industry ϯ󤽥q
