[lbo-talk] Kinky... Why the hell not?

[info at pulpculture.org]

At 11:38 AM 1/30/2006, Wendy Lyon wrote:
>On 1/30/06, info at pulpculture.org <info at pulpculture.org> wrote:
>
> > >Smoking in restaurants, bars etc is a question of workers' safety, not
> > >of the rights of either customers _or_ smokers. When was the question of
> > >safety on the job a matter of nannyism?
> >
> > i thought that research had been debunked?
>
>When?  By whom?  Before-and-after studies on Irish bar staff have
>shown quite significant health improvements since a complete ban was
>introduced here a couple years ago.

I don't know! That's what I thought I'd read before, but now that you talk 
about immediate improvements, I hadn't even thought about those. D'oh! I 
was thinking abou t second hand smoke and cancer reserch. I don't keep up 
with it so only have what I casually read to go by.

I don't suspect that Carrol's line of thinking would be thought any less 
nannyism by the people who use that word. However, he might counter, and I 
think correctly so, that the people who use that phrase wouldn't be 
persuaded anyway. I would rather expect that people in general can side 
with protecting workers' rights, especially health issues and that enough 
people know that switching jobs isn't that easy. etc. etc.

Bitch | Lab
http://blog.pulpculture.org