3 ms·
It would of course make sense if getting in the car reeking of any kind of smoke was theoretically punishable by a ban. But getting in a car reeking of tobacco
by wutbrodo 8y ago
It would of course make sense if getting in the car reeking of any kind of smoke was theoretically punishable by a ban. But getting in a car reeking of tobacco smoke is covered only by the usual ratings system.
I assume this is simply a problem of large-company bureaucratic policies: they don't want to have a separate policy for every local polity, and it's fairly reasonable policy from a liability perspective to ban people on, say, crack or heroine repeatedly getting into Uber. The unreasonable thing here is the fact that weed is illegal federally, but everyone already knows that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- reaperducer 8y agoIt would of course make sense if getting in the car reeking of any kind of smoke was theoretically punishable by a ban. But getting in a car reeking of tobacco smoke is covered only by the usual ratings system. Where I drove, you were permitted to kick people out for smelling bad. Whether it was body odor, a drunk covered in his own puke, or someone reeking of cigarettes. If you've ever been waiting for your Uber and he drives by while you take one last drag from your cigarette, now you know why.
- wutbrodo 8y agoGood to know. Presumably it doesn't trigger a ban from the system in the way that repeated infractions of the kind described in the article do, right?
- reaperducer 8y agoNope. But it does ding the driver.