How long 'til I get to sue? Exposure to second-hand smoke
Surgeon general says: Separate smoking sections don’t cut it
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
How long until I get to be part of the big class action suit on the part of non-smokers against the tobacco industry?
Maybe I can sue my former employer who refused to even designate areas of the work place as smoke-free!?!
With the news today (here: MSNBC/AP news: Report: Ban smoking in public places, Surgeon general says 126 million nonsmokers exposed to tobacco hazards) that even designating separate smoking and non-smoking areas is not enough, there will -- as that article points out -- be more fuel for the fire in arguments over banning smoking in public places.
In all seriousness, I had a former employer that I would dearly love to get a "piece of" in a smoking exposure law suit. They saw the writing on the wall over banning smoking in the work place and instead of being pro-active, they reacted by installing "Smoke-eaters" (devices designed to help filter pollutants from the air). Truth be told, they were not at all concerned over worker's exposure to other worker's second half smoke, they were worried over the exposure of their high priced computers and electronic equipment and were making the effort to protect those resources. Human resources be damned. They spent several thousand dollars of company money buying those smoke eater devices just a few scant years before the progressives in Maryland decided to be proactive and save everyone from second hand smoke in the workplace by passing one of the nation's first work place smoking bans.
Over time, Maryland has toughened up that ban to include bars and restaurants, though there are still pockets of the state that allow smoking in restaurants (provided that there is entirely separate air circulation systems and highly restricted potential exposure to smoke from one area entering another).
I jest a bit about suing the prior employer (though if I find a few years from now that my lungs are shot to hell from 7+ years of exposure to the smokestacks -- people that would light one up as fast as the last one burned down --- at my former employer, I'd like nothing better than to get my health care costs covered by that employer, even if it took every last nickel that they had. They were stupid, and as noted above, cared not a whit about the most precious resources they could have as an employer: their human resources.
As to a big class action suit against the tobacco companies, that may one day come to pass. Non-smokers may get banded together into a "class" that is represented in some huge suit to get each and every class member about $5.00 in direct payments, coupons for some product that just so happens to be made by the tobacco company or something similar. Of course the lawyers on both sides will get rich and will laugh about it as the winner takes the loser out for a big, all expenses paid, dinner.
To get back on the more serious topic, check the article linked above. The war against exposure to smoke continues. While I begrudge nothing against the smokers among us, the damage they do with the use of the products they enjoy is a very serious subject, and is being dealt with thanks to the Surgeon general and others in our society.
Maybe I can sue my former employer who refused to even designate areas of the work place as smoke-free!?!
With the news today (here: MSNBC/AP news: Report: Ban smoking in public places, Surgeon general says 126 million nonsmokers exposed to tobacco hazards) that even designating separate smoking and non-smoking areas is not enough, there will -- as that article points out -- be more fuel for the fire in arguments over banning smoking in public places.
In all seriousness, I had a former employer that I would dearly love to get a "piece of" in a smoking exposure law suit. They saw the writing on the wall over banning smoking in the work place and instead of being pro-active, they reacted by installing "Smoke-eaters" (devices designed to help filter pollutants from the air). Truth be told, they were not at all concerned over worker's exposure to other worker's second half smoke, they were worried over the exposure of their high priced computers and electronic equipment and were making the effort to protect those resources. Human resources be damned. They spent several thousand dollars of company money buying those smoke eater devices just a few scant years before the progressives in Maryland decided to be proactive and save everyone from second hand smoke in the workplace by passing one of the nation's first work place smoking bans.
Over time, Maryland has toughened up that ban to include bars and restaurants, though there are still pockets of the state that allow smoking in restaurants (provided that there is entirely separate air circulation systems and highly restricted potential exposure to smoke from one area entering another).
I jest a bit about suing the prior employer (though if I find a few years from now that my lungs are shot to hell from 7+ years of exposure to the smokestacks -- people that would light one up as fast as the last one burned down --- at my former employer, I'd like nothing better than to get my health care costs covered by that employer, even if it took every last nickel that they had. They were stupid, and as noted above, cared not a whit about the most precious resources they could have as an employer: their human resources.
As to a big class action suit against the tobacco companies, that may one day come to pass. Non-smokers may get banded together into a "class" that is represented in some huge suit to get each and every class member about $5.00 in direct payments, coupons for some product that just so happens to be made by the tobacco company or something similar. Of course the lawyers on both sides will get rich and will laugh about it as the winner takes the loser out for a big, all expenses paid, dinner.
To get back on the more serious topic, check the article linked above. The war against exposure to smoke continues. While I begrudge nothing against the smokers among us, the damage they do with the use of the products they enjoy is a very serious subject, and is being dealt with thanks to the Surgeon general and others in our society.
)
