I did finish my sentence. If there is a job available, they cannot have it
if they do not want to be around smoke. You should have been able to
understand that from the context.
A dislike for booze or it is effects (whatever that means) does not cause
them physical harm and is not relevant. The government has no obligation to
protect workers from something they merely dislike.
Why should they have to make that choice? If the job is available, they
should have the right to take it if they are qualified, and should not be
subjected to unreasonable health risks. If I advocated that the asbestos
laws are stupid and people should just work somewhere else if they don't
want a contaminated workplace, I don't think I'd get much support. But
cigarette smoke is more harmful than asbestos. People should get the same
protection when it comes to smoke as they do for any other poison or
substance that causes cancer.
Any state OSHA will have rules protecting them from these. They must be
vented to the outside, and should not exceed certain levels. If anybody had
to work in a garage where exposure to those fumes was a serious issue, you
could expect that garage to be closed down, and the owner either sued or
jailed, depending on the extent.
Perfume is not a substance that has been shown to cause cancer. It is not
something that causes problems for people in general. If the concentations
in a factory were high enough to cause problems for most people, it would
have to fix the problem. This cannot be compared to cigarette smoke, which
is harmful to everybody.
Wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out why, and I'm
tired of explaining the obvious.
