barndog wrote:Skronk wrote:barndog wrote:Skronk wrote: Those are bad, the meat farts, the perfume bath, etc., but we don't legislate for that shit. That's the big difference.
We don't legistlate for that shit because they haven't been proven to be a health risk.
So the answer is selectively legislating for health risks? There's no health risk when the smoker isn't smoking, i.e. coming back to the office smelling like smoke. After hours, the more sensible action is to have smoking
and non smoking bars.
Not health risks, actions that put other's health at risk. But I think we're getting off the subject. Too be clear - I don't have any more problem with people who come back from a smoke break smelling like smoke than I do with people who have bad breath. But if we shared a work area and I occasionally spray painted in that shared area - you'd be within your right to be pissed. There's no good way to isolate the health risk. I'd never vote for any legislation that prevented you from smoking - that's your choice.
It's not the inside workplace I'm talking about. Of course I'd be out of line smoking in a shared office, but outside the building, I'm talking about. But banning smoking in front of the building, or banning it altogether on the company grounds is ridiculous. Banning it in bars and clubs is also ridiculous.
First the workplace is effected, then personal life. It's an issue about drugs and policy, it's more than a spat in an office. Legislation designed to control action, however noble, will grow beyond the scope of what it initially covered. An anti smoking initiative,
at work, should begin and end with the employer, not government. It's one thing to ban indoor smoking at work, and another entirely when it effects your social life.
Marsupialized wrote:I want a piano made out of jello.
It's the only way I'll be able to achieve the sound I hear in my head.