Smoking solutions (Was: Come to New Zealand, where "you can marry a fag but you can't smoke one")

[Alan]

Stewart Stremler wrote:

> 
> 
> Deja Vu (IIRC) advertises 3 ugly girls. It's a tough market.

The trick, of course, being avoiding those when it's your turn for the 
bachelor party..

> 
> 
> I don't know of any job where you are required to expose yourself to
> toxins as a matter of course. 

Ah, but our waitress is not _required_ to expose herself to toxins.
She chose to when she took a job in a bar that allows smoking.

  Whenever you work at a job where you are
> exposed to toxic chemicals, you're given training and appropriate gear,
> and failure to do so tends to the the regulatory folks kinda irate.
> 
> 
I've often thought those guy unloading the bags at the airport could do 
with the airplanes obeying (CA Law #12345.678).

> 
> Your example falls down in that it isn't analogous; what other jobs
> require someone to expose themselves, even voluntarily, to an environment
> that is harmful to their health, without first mandating that they wear
> the appropriate gear to protect them in the workplace?

The aforementioned luggage handlers. Alaskan Bush Pilots. EA 
programmers.Smelter operators. Chip installers. People who work outdoors 
  in large cities. Microwave popcorn factory workers.
> 
> 
> Here's another possible approach solution category -- make a smoking
> environment safe.  Forced ventilation sufficient so that no smoke
> excapes beyond that seating module. That's 3 seats at a bar, or a booth
> or table. Test it and certify it like we would a ventilation system 
> for a chemical lab....
Or, you know, simply require that smokers be allowed their own 
restaurants staffed only with employees that smoke.


> a solution that makes all sides happy, 

I think that God-Emperor thing has a better chance of happening...

-ajb