Theater Night Update 1-28-09

Hello Everyone -

 

Just a couple of articles to remind you how bad it has gotten. In the first article, this guy recommends changing your clothing after you have a cig and before you can re-enter work because of third hand smoke. In the 2nd article, pushing for smoke - free sidewalks. Greg has also posted a new study on his websitewww.freedomtoact.com .....the title is  ' Too much thinking can make you fat' .  This study is a prime example of what science has become.....a travesty!!

 

Hang in there!!

Sheila

 

 

 

 

Presented at the Fifth World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights, held in July 2008 and sponsored by Action on Smoking and Health.

A paper presented by a UCLA researcher argued as follows:

 

08, KERMANI-NEJAD, Ramin, University of California Los Angeles, Smoking Break? Ok…As Long As You Don’t Smell Like It.

 

By now there are many statutes in place that prohibit smoking in work places. This in turn has forced smokers to go outside on smoking-breaks to indulge their habit.

Unfortunately, when they return to the workplace, these smokers give off a pungent odor of smoke that is usually evident to any non-smoker in their vicinity. This odor is offensive and can cause many non-smokers to pick up the odor on their own clothes, develop headaches, and generally feel ill. In effect, it is practically just a step down from being subjected directly to secondhand smoke.

My proposal is to make an administrative petition for rule making for a statute that would allow companies to prohibit smokers from re-entering the workplace until their clothing is free of an odor that can be “easily” detected by other people working within a reasonable proximity to the smoker. This would serve the purpose of assuring companies that they would not risk beings sued by smokers if the companies adopted this rule.

This can be done in a few ways. Either there can be made a mandatory “wait out” period after a person is done smoking, which may be set as a specified time that allows the smoke to clear from a smoker’s clothing (for example 5-10 minutes). The second way would be to have a slightly more flexible policy that leaves it to the smoker’s discretion as to when the smoke has cleared out, provided that the odor is not offensive to other co-workers. 

There are a few legal means that could be utilized to achieve this law, but I believe the one that could be most effective immediately would be to start a grassroots campaign with anti-smoking organizations to lobby a federal administrative agency such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention or another agency from the United States Department of health

This would have two main positive effects. First, it would protect non-smokers from being subjected to offensive smoke-related odors. Second, it would push smoking further away from the work-place by making it even more difficult for smokers to persist with their habit. Smokers would be forced to add an extra 5-15 minute “wait out” time to their smoking breaks. This could make smoking breaks prohibitively long for some employees, and thus force them to smoke only during lunch hours, or to consolidate their entire day’s smoking breaks into one long break.              

Opponents of such a new law would probably argue that it is oppressive and places an unreasonable burden on smokers in the workplace. The policy counterargument to such an objection could be that nonsmokers should not have to be subjected to any kind of second hand smoke or offensive smell from smokers. 

One obvious issue that would arise is the definition of the term “easily.” The new law would propose a definition that entails that entails a person of reasonable olfactory faculties being able to smell a co-worker while keeping the minimum appropriate distance that is normally maintained by co-workers within the workplace. A nonsmoker would not be allowed to bring their nose within a few inches of a co-worker, and then complain of a smoke order.

Although some may claim that the suggestion is drastic, there is a compelling policy argument supporting the odor-free work environment. The foundation of the policy would be that some nonsmokers experience illness (albeit maybe temporary) from being subjected to smoke odors, and that they should have the right to not be subjected to any sort of odor that could cause illness, even if temporary.

 

 

American Lung Association of California Pushing for Smokefree Sidewalks; Nova Scotia Town Follows Just That Advice

It is now official. The mainstream tobacco control movement is now pushing for an extension of smoke-free protections to the outdoors and specifically -- to sidewalks. The American Lung Association of California has released its 2008 State of Tobacco Control report, and one of its criteria in grading the strength of anti-smoking laws is "smoking restrictions on sidewalks in commercial areas." Another criterion is "smoking restrictions at parks, beaches, trails, sports fields, and other similar recreation areas."

Following this advice, the Nova Scotia town of Truro recently banned smoking on a downtown street. Earlier, the town of Bridgewater in Nova Scotia had banned smoking on "all public property, including streets, parks, and other recreational areas. The bylaw was softened from a previous proposal to ban smoking outdoors in the whole community."

To read the rest of the story, click on the link below.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/