Canadian Smoking Laws
- Thread starter s243a
- Start date
Second hand smoke kills, but not necessarily from tobacco.
The anti-smokers groups have conveniently used this propaganda move to further agenda.
The politicians went with this because it is easier to regulate bars and public places.
The second hand smoke that actually kills you is car and truck exhaust fumes that drive by you when you are walking down the street and factory and industry smoke.
Politicians can’t do much with that because that would cut jobs, which would reduce tax dollars going to the government.
Now the person that challenges you if you dare to light up telling you that you are part of societies killers while a truck that is spewing exhaust is driving by is putting the final nail in the complainers coffin, this shows you how stupid people can be.
The bars and restaurants spent thousands of dollars to put in ventilation equipment and went as far as to physically separate the room creating smokers rooms not the government makes it illegal to smoke in public places is a travesty of justice. I just hope they sue the anti-smokers groups to get their money back.
That is a very good post. I'd give you a positive rep for it but I already give you a negative one so it won't let me. :shrug:
In my industry - the performing arts - scents are banned - every single one. This is a widely supported policy that's about ten years old.
Singers and actors use their voices in pretty demanding ways, and in the past, we have had performances stopped because on of the principles lost their voice.
In the years since the ban my union has done research into the volatile organics that make up most commercial scents, and while they aren't necessarily poisonous a lot of them sure are dessicants - drying out the throats and nasal membranes of those who breathe them in.
In Calgary, a bus driver booted someone off their bus about two months ago for that person's "overwhelming and offensive smell." Transit and the union backed the driver.
As a careful reading of what I have written makes plain to even the dimmest reader, the last thing I would endorse is banning the sale of scents. If you want your home or your car or any other place of yours to smell like a Frenchwoman's armpit, it is no business of mine or anyone else's.
If you want to stink up a public space - be prepared to take some heat for it if anyone objects.
Pangloss
The point, s243a, isn't that it bothers me - it is that not every infirmity can or even should be accommodated.
Pangloss
Oh, and to peanut butter smells causing reactions: I've never heard of that - it's kind of fascinating and scary.
Here's the question: if you knew, or could reasonably believe, that your aroma could kill (no fart jokes here!) someone, what responsibility would you have to diminish that smell?
If you ate peanut butter before a meeting with someone who could be sickened or killed by the smell, and you knew about their condition, how ethical would your behaviour be?
Pangloss
Here's the question: if you knew, or could reasonably believe, that your aroma could kill (no fart jokes here!) someone, what responsibility would you have to diminish that smell?
If you ate peanut butter before a meeting with someone who could be sickened or killed by the smell, and you knew about their condition, how ethical would your behaviour be?
Pangloss
Clearly if one person is creating a bad work environment for the other that is something the company would have to deal with. Hopefully we will never go so far though as to ban peanut butter from all public places.
If you KNOW that it will make someone sick, then you need a slap if you carry on eating it, and IMO, aer criminally negligent. If you don't know, well, it's up to the person who will end up dead if peanutbutter is breathed on them, to carry the appropriate medical equipment.
It is extremely rare for someone to have such a severe allergy. The main issue with peanut butter is its oily, sticky nature. Because the oils can withstand a certain amount of washing, it SEEMS like a child might get sick if merely breathed on, but, chances are, they touched a minutely contaminated hand or toy.
The question isn't about the company: companies have legal obligations to provide a safe work environment - so their response would be a matter of obeying legislation, not morality.
The question is about your obligations: how responsible are you for not harming others, and what precautions are you obligated to take?
Pangloss
Places where allergic children play often have 'no peanut butter' rules. The local cultural center where my son went for classes is a prime example. Before you entered the class room environment, there was a sign asking that anyone who had eaten nut products, please use the facilities to wash their hands and face thouroughly, and rinse their mouth out. These rules are usually only enacted IF a child is allergic though.
my children's new school has 'no peanut butter' rules as well, but the way they enact them is unique. If there is an allergic child in their class, and I send nut products for lunch, my child would have to go eat in the office, at a special table. The receptionists then escort them to ensure their hands and faces are appropriately cleaned before they're allowed back to class, so that they don't contaminate the desks and such with peanut oils.
Again, these rules are enacted on a class by class basis, depending on how severe an allergy is present in their school.
This is not about smokers rights. It's about workplace safety. There are 32 class "A" carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Servers are more at risk than non-smokers who periodically go to a bar. I work for a major chemiacl company and I would have to fill out paperwork for an hour and don a full respirator to enter a confined space with those chemicals in the atmosphere.
Rom:
You got something against hydrogen cyanide? Really - like what? Huh?
Meet me at the bike racks after school - bring a friend.
Pangloss (or a tobacco exec who looks just like him)
You got something against hydrogen cyanide? Really - like what? Huh?
Meet me at the bike racks after school - bring a friend.
Pangloss (or a tobacco exec who looks just like him)
LOL. Why bring a friend. If you smoke I'll just get on my bicycle for a couple of rounds and take you late in the 3rd when you can't catch your breath.
Sorry, but when did the government replace your spine? If you are being "pressured" into entering an establishment you don't want to go into, you either need to grow a spine and say no or get some new friends. Either way, it isn't the government's responsibility to help you make you make decisions for yourself.
Letting the government dictate what legal behavior is acceptable on private property is a slippery slope and one that will undoubtedly be expanded to cover all sorts of activities that people don't like but have the option of avoiding.