Technologos comments on Disclosure vs. Bans: Reply to Robin Hanson - Less Wrong

6 Post author: David_J_Balan 04 January 2010 01:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (56)
Tags: economics finance deception current_affairs

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Technologos 11 January 2010 06:52:14AM 4 points [-]

For what it's worth, the argument I'd heard--not that I agree with it, to be clear--was that visitors/patrons weren't the issue: the law was designed to essentially extend safe-work-environment laws to bars. Thus, it was the employees who were the at-risk party.

Comment author: ciphergoth 11 January 2010 09:44:57AM *  1 point [-]

I wish that the law had been written in line with other hazardous materials laws. Then there would be (very expensive) smoking bars in which the staff wore full-on hazmat suits at any time that they might be exposed to the hazardous smoke, and so forth.

EDIT: to be clear, I mean this seriously, not as a joke about smoking laws.

Comment author: mattnewport 11 January 2010 09:09:32AM *  0 points [-]

In Canada? Here in Vancouver it is illegal to smoke within 6m of doorways, windows or air intakes of any building. It is hard to see how that level of restriction can be attributed to a work safety motivation.

“We are pleased that the City of Vancouver is taking a leadership role in efforts to reduce tobacco use and protect its citizens from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke. We are encouraging other municipalities within our jurisdiction to adopt these same by-laws,” said Domenic Losito, regional director of Environmental Health for VCH.

Comment author: Technologos 11 January 2010 05:58:21PM 0 points [-]

I'd heard it re: the smoking bans implemented in Minneapolis; I'm not surprised that Canada takes an especially paternalist position on the matter.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit