....... or just plain good sense.......If I could prove the smoke had no effect - then I would feel quite rightly justified in lighting up wherever I wanted to.
No ideology - just simple ethics.
Pangloss
....... or just plain good sense.......If I could prove the smoke had no effect - then I would feel quite rightly justified in lighting up wherever I wanted to.
No ideology - just simple ethics.
Pangloss
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.
Well, I have heard peanut putter smells can cause reactions this link suggests that is wrong:
http://www.allergysafecommunities.ca/assets/common_beliefs_faan_2003.pdf
Anyway, so I presume you also want to ban scents, in magazines, candles, laundry soaps, perfumes, deodorants shampoos, soaps, etc.
I doesn't bother me but I find some buses stinky. Fortunately, Canada will have low sulfur diesel soon. I hope hope that helps your lungs.
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
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
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.
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.
I don't want that stuff near me, and noone else should feel pressured by smoking friends to go to a smoke-friendly establishment.