3 ms·

Just to point out that the law restricting smoking in bars/restaurants is mainly there to protect employees who may else be forced to be passive smokers. Obviou

Just to point out that the law restricting smoking in bars/restaurants is mainly there to protect employees who may else be forced to be passive smokers. Obviously they should not have to make a choice between working and protecting their health. Then, if the owner is the sole staff present, yeah, why not allow it in that case.

carapace 10y ago
That, in my view, is exactly the sort of bad-faith sneaky leverage that the anti-smoking hard core used to force the issue. No one was "forced" to work in a smoke-filled environment, this part of issue was framed as discrimination against non-smokers working in places where smoking would be allowed. It makes a kind of sense, right? OSHA violations for workplace exposure to cancerous agents is a thing for a reason. But I never liked the abridgement of personal freedom. It would be possible (even now) to permit exceptions for some businesses, but that wasn't what the anti-smoking lobby was interested in, was it? In any event, I see a weak parallel between the two situations: We accept a (temporary and excessive) restriction for a time to correct a large and otherwise-intractable social issue. In the one case it was addictive poison, in the other inappropriate sexual advances in formal business relationships.
- sheepdestroyer 10y ago
  When you "have to" work, you do not have much choice. Sure you are not forced, eh, you can quit or even not bother to apply if you are an "anti-smoking" weakling... unless you need to feed your family I guess. You can speak of the abridgment of personal freedom of the owner, but what about the effective freedom to work in an healthy environment? Oh yeah, regulations are there to ensure that. But I may be biased, I am from France and support such things as 35h weeks and no-work-on-Sunday laws (to ensure people can have a social life).
  - carapace 10y ago
    If you're in a situation like that, with literally no choice but to work in a smoke-filled bar or your family will starve, then for goodness' sake THAT is the problem! ;-) As I said, a compromise could have been reached but the "aggressor", if you will, was not interested. (Also, as an American working stiff, I envy you your sensible arrangement. But as a Bucky Fuller fanboy, I think we all should be working two hours a week, and retire at twenty having worked a full career for two years. C'est la vie...)

carapace 10y ago

That, in my view, is exactly the sort of bad-faith sneaky leverage that the anti-smoking hard core used to force the issue. No one was "forced" to work in a smoke-filled environment, this part of issue was framed as discrimination against non-smokers working in places where smoking would be allowed. It makes a kind of sense, right? OSHA violations for workplace exposure to cancerous agents is a thing for a reason. But I never liked the abridgement of personal freedom. It would be possible (even now) to permit exceptions for some businesses, but that wasn't what the anti-smoking lobby was interested in, was it? In any event, I see a weak parallel between the two situations: We accept a (temporary and excessive) restriction for a time to correct a large and otherwise-intractable social issue. In the one case it was addictive poison, in the other inappropriate sexual advances in formal business relationships.

sheepdestroyer 10y ago
When you "have to" work, you do not have much choice. Sure you are not forced, eh, you can quit or even not bother to apply if you are an "anti-smoking" weakling... unless you need to feed your family I guess. You can speak of the abridgment of personal freedom of the owner, but what about the effective freedom to work in an healthy environment? Oh yeah, regulations are there to ensure that. But I may be biased, I am from France and support such things as 35h weeks and no-work-on-Sunday laws (to ensure people can have a social life).
- carapace 10y ago
  If you're in a situation like that, with literally no choice but to work in a smoke-filled bar or your family will starve, then for goodness' sake THAT is the problem! ;-) As I said, a compromise could have been reached but the "aggressor", if you will, was not interested. (Also, as an American working stiff, I envy you your sensible arrangement. But as a Bucky Fuller fanboy, I think we all should be working two hours a week, and retire at twenty having worked a full career for two years. C'est la vie...)