Jeroen wrote:
>
> 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.
>
No it isn't easy, but you've got to start somewhere.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in civil court in the U.S. you need only a
preponderance of the evidence to convict. And the jury does not have to be
unanimous to find fault???
> 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.
We've had the warnings since the '60s and a de facto ban on cigarette
advertising since then as well. The current ad campaigns go right to the heart
of the problem. Tobacco companies that target children. The diseases
contracted. Death rates, etc.
> 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.
I really believe that stigmatizing smoking as well as funding prevention
campaigns and cessation programs is the best way to deal with all substance
abuse programs. We already know that making them illegal _doesn't_ work.
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
"Now people stand themselves next to the righteous
And they believe the things they say are true
They speak in terms of what divides us
To justify the violence they do"
Jackson Browne, It Is One
