[ru4liberty]

What answers do you have for this person?

Dana is highly allergic to tobacco products. When exposed, she suffers from excruciating migraines. When she suffers from excruciating migraines, she misses work. When she misses work, she loses her job. When she loses her job, she must (a) find another job, (b) go on welfare, (c) live on the street. She chooses (a).

The cycle repeats.

After being unsuccessfully treated for the allergies, she learns that if she wants to remain employed, she must stay in her home and other “safe places” so that she can avoid suffering migraines and losing her job.

What would you recommend for Dana? Should considerations be made for Dana and folks like her? Why or why not? If so, what accommodations can/should be made for those who struggle with health issues as a result of tobacco products?

[metesky]

I don't know Dana, therefore I could care less what happens to her, but I know that smoking was probably allowed on the job when Dana took it in the first place and now she wants to place special conditions on her employer, her fellow employees and the customers of the business.

Dana should be fired immediatly, and if she can't get along without the wimpy, whiney, pewling excuse-of-the-day should probably be cut from the gene pool.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

Or do you think the business owner, his willing employees and his many customers should be forced by law to accomodate the little b!tch? I think we all know the answer...

[Madame Dufarge]

What would you recommend for Dana?

I recommend that Dana stay home.

Her whining annoys me.

[Just another Joe]

Dana is highly allergic to tobacco products. When exposed, she suffers from excruciating migraines.

Highly allergic is a subjective term.
What amount of exposure does it take to bring on a migraine?
Can she find a job ANYWHERE, outside her own home, that she is NOT exposed to some degree of tobacco product (IE smoke, spit, smell) either going to, coming from, or at her place of work.
Is smoking in the open air on the street supposed to be outlawed so that Dana can get to, and get home from, her place of employment without being exposed to the tiniest bit of tobacco smoke?
If Dana takes a job in a bar, club, restaurant that ALREADY allows smoking then it is her fault and the bar, club, restaurant should NOT be made to disallow smoking JUST because Dana works there.

[Centurion2000]

Dana is highly allergic to tobacco products.

It's not up to us to solve this issue. It's up to her employer. Mine has solved it by using a parking space and making a covered awning for smokers.

[ohioman]

You ever hear of Survival of the Fittest.

[SheLion]

I feel really bad about people with health problems. I know it can't be easy.

But, I was taught when you leave the confines of your home, you are out in the "PUBLIC." The Public is all peoples. The good, the bad, the ugly and the smokers.

If we go somewhere where we are offended, we avoid that place in the future. When you sit on a crowded bus, you are breathing in the breath of the person next to you. It's just the way life is.

The public is all peoples. It would be nice if we could mold everyone in the way we think they should go, but people being people, are all different. And I am happy about that. It would be a really boring world if we were all the same.

[Protagoras]

What would you recommend for Dana?

I recommend to Dana that she avoid private property where conditions exist which aggravate her condition.

Should considerations be made for Dana and folks like her?

Yes, I think people who have private property where use of tobacco is allowed be conciderate enough to inform her that they have that policy when she asks them. They might even post the info in a conspicious place. That would be conciderate. Good business people will do that to build good will.

On the attempt to link welfare payments to such people. The fact that money is stolen from some people in order to give it to people to whom it does not rightfully belong is a different moral problem from the property rights issue on the smoking question. They are not linked.

[Leisler]

Dana is highly allergic to tobacco products. When (she) exposes (herself), she suffers from excruciating migraines. When she suffers from excruciating migraines, she misses work. When she misses work, she loses her (employers) job. When she loses her (employers) job, she must (a) find another job (from another employer), (b) go on welfare, (c) live on the street. She chooses (a). (d. start her own business. e. get married. f. suicide)

The cycle repeats.

After being unsuccessfully treated for the allergies, she learns that if she wants to remain employed (by others), she must (?) stay in her home and other “safe places” so that she can avoid suffering migraines and losing her job.

What would you recommend for Dana? (shark repellent tester, used parachute tester, walking low income urban streets at night.) Should considerations be made for Dana and folks like her? Why or why not? If so, what accommodations can/should be made for those who struggle with health issues as a result of tobacco products?( No, the world is big enough. The non-smoke occupations are unlimited. It is not up to everyone to adapt to her or every other fey, sickly perpetual victim.)