> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: woensdag 20 maart 2002 7:35 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Banning Smoking (was RE: Class-action law suit (was Re: > Question for ListAdministrato rs))
> > The problem is that businesses are privately owned, which means that > > it is impossible to sue a business for allowing smoking on their > > premises. > > What about a non-smoking employee that contracts a smoking related > disease? Try proving it. <Devil's Advocate> Maybe the patient contracted his smoke-related disease because of all the smoke in the bar where he spends several hours a week. Or maybe his lung cancer was caused by that chemical plant he lives close to. </Devil's Advocate> See? That is the problem: you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the disease was caused by cigarette smoke inhaled at the workplace if you want to sue the employer. Giving such proof is extremely difficult. > > If an owner does not voluntarily ban smoking on the premises, the > > only way to make such places such places smoke-free is through > > legislation that makes it illegal to smoke there. There *are* groups > > pressuring the government to make such laws, but there is one > > annoying thing getting in the way: a rather powerful tobacco lobby. > > So far, the only public places where smoking is banned is in > > government buildings. > > How about cigarette taxes going to anti-smoking campaigns? Is being done. For years now, there is a message printed on cigarette packages that says that smoking causes cancer. That statement is also mandatory in cigarette ads. Does not really seem to help. > > Unlike other drugs (like alcohol, cocaine etcetera), tobacco seems to > > be more or less acceptable in the workplace; it is not even > > considered a drug. In several places where I worked, I pointed out to > > smokers that tobacco really falls in the same category as those other > > substances and therefore should be banned as well. After all, few > > employers will accept it when there employees use alcohol or cocaine > > at work. Did not exactly boost my popularity, to see the least. > > Understandable, of course, because by drawing those parallels you are > > essentially calling your smoking co-workers drug addicts... > > It's not like that here anymore. You know someone is an addict when > they huddle outside in the foul weather to get their fix. One of the > silliest things I ever saw was a group of smokers huddled beneath a > covered verandah in a howling thunderstorm, wind so strong it was > blowing the rain sideways, teaming up to try and get their cigarettes > lit with a disposable lighter. I have seen that happening when I was going to Business School. Smoking was not allowed inside the building, so during breaks the smokers had to go outside to get their fix. Quite amusing to see them huddle together in the pooring rain... :-) The same thing can be seen at some of the organisations that do not allow smoking in their buildings, although most of those have a room set aside for the smokers. True story: a few years ago, the smoking employees of a government organisation demanded that their employer install air conditioning in the smokers' room: the cigarette smoke in the room was bothering them... Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
