|
|
|
|
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 2:42:44 PM |
People are not idiots I don't know why when someone fights for a cause they assume it is thier God given right to expect others to obey thier whims....
I am sure maybe help the homeless and less fortunite might be a better cause
If people are NOT idiots, then they should be able to understand that their SMOKING makes others (and themselves) ill. They should also have some CLUE how to apply scent so it doesn't have the toxicity level of mustard gas.
Instead of making people SICK, maybe they should be out helping the homeless | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 3:30:43 PM | Several years ago I worked with college age kids at a very upscale private liberal arts college. Part of my job was to deal with various problems, one was TB screening, safer sexual education for the kids, and medical care.
One of the problems tht was dumped in my lap by the Dean of Students was a lovely, smart, and very beautiful young lady whose BODY ODOR was so bad that she would "perfume" a room to the point that people were CHOKING and having to leave because of the nausea caused by her body odor.
I called the young lady into my office and tried to discuss this with her "rationally" and find out what the problem is. There are actually some skin conditions that no matter how "clean" the person is will cause horrible body odor because the bacteria have invaded the hair follicles and cause a terrible odor that the person cannot smell on themselves.
It came out during the interview with this young lady that she had been raised by parents who were essentially "hippies" and that she had grown up in a home without indoor plumbing and she was a "water conservationist" and her way of conserving water was not to bathe. I tried not to hurt her feelings but she left my office in tears and very upset that I was trying to get her to "go against her princlples of not wasting water."
I am a living-history re-enactor and sometimes when we set up camp we may be literally a half mile from a water source and have to haul water to drink, cook and bathe in a bucket by hand. So we definitely know how to conserve water and use only the minimal amount needed. It weighs 8.6 pounds per gallon and carrying even a gallon to waste is fatiguing.
During the years of doing this, I have developed a program in which I can literally bathe my entire body and wash my hair and rinse in one quart of water. When the young lady came back, she had started to use deodorant but was still stinking to high heaven. So this time I told her about my 'water conserving bathng methods" and after that when I saw her, she had no offensive body odor.
My point in bringing all this out is that the young lady had a LEGAL RIGHT not to bathe. She had a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to not have such offensive body odor though that people could not be around her without gagging.
People at this point have a LEGAL RIGHT to slather themselves with perfumes, scents or cow crap for that matter, but they, I think, have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY not to be offensive to people in their vacinity. Just like people who smoke have a legal right to do so, but NOT to blow smoke in a non-smoker's face.
If you or anyone pours on some scent which is your right, if the purpose is to please those around you, and to "smell good" then why are you/anyone upset if the people around you aren't pleased. My dog wants to scent himself to "please" me, but his idea of pleasing me with his scent is to roll in fresh cow manure in the pasture, or some dead road kill that stinks to high heaven. HE THINKS IT SMELLS GOOD, but our tastes differ. He doesn't know any better though, so all he gets is a bath. But I would hope that people would be more considerate than the dog. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 4:34:17 PM | People at this point have a LEGAL RIGHT to slather themselves with perfumes
Ummmm, as far as I'm concerned, not in the workplace, or in a public institution where I am paying for an education.
I can choose not to go to a theatre or club, so I don't have to be exposed to it. With more and more people developing asthma or other respiratory ailments, it doesn't make sense to allow these potential triggers to overwhelm a public environment.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as cigarette smoking. You can do it if you don't affect anyone else*. But sorry, this affects others, and not always in a positive way.
For whatever reasons, the chemicals in most fragrances and colognes give me an instant headache. Same with some odours in nature (hyacinthe and lily - far too strong a scent).
*I'm not going to get into the healthcare costs everyone has to bear associated with cigarette smoking - that's a whole other thread somewhere I'm sure | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 5:18:42 PM | By the way, it wasn't a dig or anything.... I have two cats :)
I just kind of wondered what would happen if someone at my work complained.
I'd say tough unfortunately LOL :) | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 8:43:21 PM | Tofinogirl is a prime example of the slippery slope
For years, smokers have advised the public that if the government can ban smoking from privately owned spaces to which the public is invited to attend, then there would be nothing stopping them from making other lifestyle choices for us through enforced regulations.
Tofinogirls arguements are the exact same used to impose smoking bans. And the public has lost all moral reason to resist perfume bans.
The public has lost all moral reasons to resist the banning of wood burning stoves for comfort heating.
The public has lost all moral reasons to resist any other ban - like pets, drive-thrus, alcohol, pot, drugs, cell phone use in vehicles, coffee drinking, ownership of pets, etc etct.
The rule of law is now established - if something you like could possibly cause harm or discomfort to someone else - it is banned! Public health concerns, regardless of how exaggerated the risk rules all and over-rides any civil rights to privacy or self-determination.
The next decade is going to be fun to watch!
Michelle | |
|
| |
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 10:45:40 PM | Let's all be honest and speak the truth for just a minute!!! There are some people out there that you would swear shower in their perfumes!! Not many, but they are out there!! When I was a child by Dad told me never to kiss a woman's hand, as you never know what it's been, or if it's been washed.......and never marry a woman that always wears perfume, as she is covering up a bad oder....
but honestly,,,,have we not at one point in our life, put on perfume because we were in a hurry to get somewhere,,,,,and put on a few drops extra because we had no time to shower!!!!! Dad may have been ahead of his time back then.......lol
and let's be honest one step further.......let's for a minute compair FARTS, BO, BAD BREATH, FOOT ODOR and other bad smells, is perfume not the same in STRONG doses????? let's all begin thinking of other people!! | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 11:10:56 PM | Sensashuns
All I can say is NO!!!!!
The wearing of perfume when you are dirty completely defeats the purpose. The wearing of a fine perfume (sorry don't wear the cheap kind) is a luxury and a treat.
I spent months finding my personal signature scent (Nocturne by Caron) from a list of perfumes allowed to be worn by stewardesses because of its light and non-offensive nature. The bottle of perfume (not toilet water or cologne) cost $150.00
When I plan to wear it - I take a long luxurious bath - and use unscented soap - and scrub extra carefully so that nothing interferes with the scent I want to present!
Why would I spend that kind of time, effort and money simply to spare myself a shower?
EWWW
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/28/2007 11:18:20 PM | Wow!!! This is soooo ironic!!! I've had so many test from being very sick for over 4 years and have always had allergys.
I thought it was a food allergy, not!
Maybe heart problems(major palpatations on certain occasions) the first EKG came back abnormal, took another intense myocardial profusion, came back fine and also wore a heart monitor, thank God the heart is good.
Had a CT scan on my brain....well I'm NOT crazy!!! eye /vision problems dizzy, nausea, and fainting spells.
checked my colestorol...perfect!!!!
blood glucose perfect!!!! We'll ironic how this is a topic ....I've been fainting and dehydrated and ended up in ER 2x's in 6 months . What it all came down to is chemicals, smoke, cleaning products, hair sprays perfumes,dryer sheets, car exhaust,
breathing in cold air and extreme humidity. I ended up with a bacterial infection, skin rash, and asthma.
Maybe you'll understand and be a bit more compassionate. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 2:11:58 AM | michelle, thank you for changing your "tone". if you will reread my threads, there is nothing in them that warranted your attack on my person. i think somtimes we all have our historic agendas and forget that others aren't aware of them. i have not asked for an airfilter recommendation. i have had the full extent with uv etc. in my old home and in this one, which needs no A/C and therefore ultraviolet is not appropriate, i have an allaire which is one of the only two recommended by consumer reports. i happen to also have a commercial fan over my oven, thank you very much!
i do not react to most perfumes. just a few. however, it is unclear to me why those particular ones. if i'm in public i move away. if the person is in my home or in my life on a regular basis, i explain. it's very difficult to explain a chronic let alone deadly disablity. i do my best not as much for myself as for the increasing number of people who don't seem able to express themselves.
i think enough has been said here. regulation overall is a difficult topic and in the end, a political decision is often made. and yes, cost often affects that decision. i do my best in this world to do my part and help as many as i can.
personally, the person above who said if you can smell someone past three feet, it's way too much --gets my vote. but how to regulate that? i have no clue. that's why i am interested in this topic and i imagine the number of people who go with the policy will determine whether it's passed. before i moved to CA, in NJ there were smoking and no smoking areas in restaurants. not sure how it is back there now. here in CA there is not smoking inside, but it's allowed outside SO FAR. however, it's warmer here than in NJ. there is talk about stopping it elsewhere.
i too do my best to accomodate my neighbors and friends who smoke and provide jars with water in them outside for them to do their thing and douse their cigarettes out before coming inside. i have pets and in additon to all my filtering, i use a rainbow vacuum which has a canister of water to collect all the dander, etc. i have several friends who are quite allergic to pets. i have two dogs and 4 cats and almost all of them can come into my home quite easily as long as the pets are locked away. i also keep clean towels and cover the chairs for them.
most whole house air cleaners will not take away perfume smells. the portables might affect the person if they stay in one place, but then they raise the issue of ozone which is another contaminant. all this is in comsumer reports. the more technolgogy and scientific advance, the more new problems come and replace the old. as the lady who lives in a mobile home in the country said, it really depends on how and where you live.
i plan to keep checking this thread to see if this legislation passes and how and why. it's an interesting topic with respect to the larger issues. right now i wish bush and his oil interests would stop interfering with global warming. yes, i know some people do not agree and wish otherwise. but for me this is an even greater priority.
as usual sombience hits it right on the button! the cumulative effect of all of this plus the lack of clean air in office buildings makes the situation even worse.
namaste you all and good nite.  | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:33:24 AM | Serenity
Yes it is nice when people can actually communicate. I acknowledge your discomfort. But now you can also see my point of view. Where is the balance. It is certainly not in a ban. It probably lies somewhere between education and reasonable restrictions. And I think that is likely for every topic I mentioned in this thread.
Solutions that exclude and demonize whole sections of the population are not solutions that will last for very long.
You mention california smoking bans but in california bars with less than 3 employees are exempt. In Ontario, Canada with a winter temperature that often drops to -20 degrees celcius, there are no such exemptions. The law doesn't allow residential care facilities to operate designated smoking rooms. This past winter, a 61 year old man who lives in a nursing home froze to death trying to have a cigarette.
I watched a news show from Alberta where a young woman was kicked off a bus and humiliated publicly for wearing perfume. She was crying!
There has just got to be a better way of living together without having to rub each other the wrong way as we do. We need to stop letting the government impose solutions to social problems and open debates that include all parties.
As I said to Chinua - it isn't necessary that we understand each other's needs for certain things. What is important is that we understand each other's needs to acceptance and respectful tolerance.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:44:33 AM | Fancynan60
You demand too little from the medical community. You are a grown woman who all of a sudden develops multiple chemical sensivity. You blame the chemicals and think that if you can just avoid exposure you will be ok.
But chemicals are ubiqutous to the environment!
The question is not what chemicals are you allergic to - the question is why did you become sensitive to these chemicals after being exposed your entire life? What changed - what happened?
Over the last 10 years - as smoking rates have decreased and restrictions on smoking have grown - more and more children and adults are showing up with asthma and these sensitivities.
What the heck is going on!
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:05:11 AM | | well steph 77 that was funny , and i agree i think that my taxes could go something else . beside ban on perfume , | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:13:49 AM | Part of the "problem" with perfumes is that they are IN EVERYTHING..not just in perfume. Perfumes were originaly only available to the very rich. Which they used to cover up their body odor.
In the last 50-75 years the media has touted toilet waters, perfumes and scents to everyone in the world who can get TV or paper media. Tide comes out with a "new" detergent for your clothing "with a fresh new scent"-- each "movie star" has her own favorite perfume. Glade puts out a "zillion' scents for your home, the "scent" industry takes off with gosh knows how many "zillion" $$ involved and everyone starts dousing themselves, their clothing, their homes, even their pets in gosh knows how many chemicals to "smell good"---now the poverty-stricken can also afford to be like the "rich guys" and "smell good."
Hey, and if a little is good, then ALOT must be better--why buy this stuff if no one is going to notice?
People follow the herd, and so everyone is doing it. Of course there will be individuals "allergic" to any chemical and there will also be many people who "react" in other ways to any chemical. So by increasing the number of chemicals and multiplying exposures to chemicals people start to react.
No one ever reacts allergicly to the first exposure to a chemical or any other allergen. It is only subsequent exposures that can trigger an allergic reaction. Which, by the way, can be cardiac arrest and cessation of breathing. "Allergy shots" have been developed for many common plants, etc. that a person may be allergic to, but there are no "allergy shots" for the "zillion" chemicals in perfumes, etc. Plus, there are some reactions that are not "true allergies" but "reactions" instead.
Benadryl or an epi injection carried on the person's body for immediate use is about the only defense you have against these "sudden death" reactions. Speak to your physician about the advisability of this for you. Benadryl is NOT safe for everyone. So please do not take this as medical adivice--and consult your physician.
Asbestos was used for years and years and considered "reasonably" safe for use. Welllllll, guess what folks? It wasn't. DDT was used for years and considered" reasonably" safe. Well, it wasn't. Should I go on? The list is ENDLESS. Now please tell me who had done "safety" tests on all the chemicals for scents put in everything and absorbed into our skins?
Asbestos and DDT didn't make anyone drop dead immediately--but they sure killed a lot of folks--when are these people who are dousing themselves in the CHEMICALS of "scents" going to find out that maybe some or all of those chemicals are like asbestos or DDT?
OOPs, another class action law suit. Might make your heirs rich, but where will you be?
At least DDT did kill harmful insects, and asbestos prevented fires so they had SOME socially positive factors--what important "positive" factors does scents added to things have? To make YOU feel good about how you smell, but make OTHERS choke?
I think the media and advertising has "sold us a bill of goods" as my grandmother would have said. Take a bath, wash your clothes, all in good old SOAP without odor, and use a deodorant without added scent--baking soda works well. Smell like a clean baby and not offend anyone or make them sick? Too big a deal? Violate YOUR rights to cover yourself in scent which evaporates off your clothes/body and fills the AIR around OTHERS and might make them sick? Well, smokers were "damned" for polluting the air around them for non smokers--well where are the "rights" of non smokers now. They are legally established. The perfume thing is the same--the problem is as long as the media are pushing scents it will be unenforcable. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 7:18:13 AM | Oxdrover
1. DDT did not cause the people's death or thin the shells of bird eggs.
However, the ban of DDT is estimated to have caused the death of some 50 million people world-wide (mostly children) due to the spread and increase of the incidence rates of malaria. The ban was recently lifted by the WHO in the spring of 2006 or 2005 (I can't quite remember). Please google DDT and get the real facts.
It was Racheal Carson in her book Silent Springs that first rang the alarm bells about DDT. Her work was strictly based on epidemiology with no scientific studies to confirm her observations.
Further research proved that she was wrong and there are many who would now consider Racheal Carson, not as a concerned environmentalist but as the greatest mass murderer in history. As usual, it was the poor and undeveloped countries who had the ban imposed on them by the World Health Organization and the World Bank. It was their citizens who paid the price.
Bans are really really bad governance. And this is another case of someone who decided that they knew what was best for everyone else based on their biases and junk science.
3. Artificial scents have been in common use for many decades now and cheaply available. This increase in sensitivities and allergies and asthma has occurred in the last 10 to 15 years. Childhood asthma has jumped by 600 % in the last 10 years alone.
2. Pleasure is a useful thing and a positive benefit. If you are going to ban things that give people pleasure than where do you stop and who gets to decide whether a particular pleasure is important or not? YOU? Why not me? What a grey thing our lives would become without those things that give us pleasure.
3. The closest that I have seen in this discussion to a reasonable solution is the increase of ventilation. How about if we demand that our government establish indoor air quality standards instead of banning everything under the sun.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 10:51:42 AM | Indoor air quality is poor in many "public" and other places (work places especially) and should be monitored and improved. Absolutely.
I have read Rachel Carson's book, in fact have a copy of it. I haven't kept up with the latest on DDT research, however. So thank you for that informaiton, I'll check it out. However, that said: The DDT things was just an "example" of how some substances, asbestos for example, were thought relatively harmless at one point in time, and proved to be otherwise. When I was a child, and your lmother took you to buy shoes, they X-RAYED your feet to see that the shoes fit. It was considered relatively harmless to have X-Ray equipment unshielded in every shoe store--obviously it was NOT relatively harmless.
My grandfather, a physician, worked in Panama in the early 1900s fighting yellow fever which was a big killer, along with malaira, which still kills millions world wide. I saw the effects in Africa when I was there in the 1960s. I also know that when insects are killed off wholesale in an effort to "get the bad guys" that some pretty bad effects can take place.
Pleasure is a good thing. What you take pleasure in and what I take pleasure in may not be the same thing. If your pleasure makes me sick what should be done about it?
Obviously smoking is some people's pleasure and their second hand smoke makes others sick or even gives them cancer. So we h ave "banned" smoking in enclosed places where the "public" goes. I think that is reasonable. YOU should not have to breathe in molecules of smoke because I take pleasure in it. Neither, should I have to breathe in molecules of unknown chemicals because you take pleasure in dousing yourself with these chemicals that disburse into the air around you. No one should have the "right" to make others around them ill by either stinking with bad body odor or by covering themselves with scents--what if my favorite scent was Cow Crap #5? It actually so happens that I don't dislike the smell of fresh cow manure as long as the animal is not sick. My son actually likes the smell of skunk scent because it brings back positive memories of him and his father going hunting and his dad put skunk scent on his clothing to mask his human smell. What if my son doused himself with Odor-deyskunk #12 and came into your work place and sat next to you? Would you appreciate that? I think NOT. Yet, we have the SAME "rights" to do just that, that you have to use $1,000 an ounce "perfume." I realize this is taking things to "extremes" but that is what some people do, they take the perfumes and scents to the extremes and make others sick or have head aches or displeasure at the smell YOU like, which may not be one that everyone else likes.
I'm not trying to be a hard nose about this, but i f you look at it from the point of view of someone who is made ill by these chemicals and has NO WAY TO AVOID them except for you to quit using them. Ventilation helps, but is not the complete answer. Some of the perfumes and scents I have been subjected to in large amounts on elevators and in small medical examining rooms it would take another Katrina to blow away. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:24:14 AM | I disagree Oxdrover - between people of good will there is always room for compromise.
1. Establish indoor air quality standards. there are cheap monitoring devices available that will continuously sample and record air quality to ensure compliance. This is done in industrial areas all the time. Let the owner of the establishment decide how he wants to meet those standards. By banning smoking and other polluting activites, increasing ventilation, segregation or whatever. This is how workers health is protected - why wouldn't it work in other workplaces? It also has the advantage of addressing indoor air quality issues other than cigarette smoke and perfume - like bacteria, viruses, moulds and fungi - that you make you sick or kill you pretty fast.
2. Allow free market to rule - there were non-smoking facilities before the ban. It was a niche market that some owners decided to take advantage. Patronize the facility that provides you with the smoke-free or smoking allowed services that you prefer.
Isolating a segment of the population by force can only last for so long before smokers become irate and fustrated and conflicts occur. Look at the 23 year old smoker who had his head bashed in with a pool cue by a bouncer in New York. Look at the fact that although smoking bans have been in existence for 13 years in California - this is an issue that still makes front page news!
Sure people will comply with the law to avoid undesirable consequences but eventually, frustation mounts and public opinion begins to swing the other way.
A solution is no solution when 25 % of the population feel that they have not been heard (and weren't even consulted) and their needs were dismissed as "unimportant" And unfortunately, when the pendulum swings back the other way - it also goes too far and now the needs of the other side are ignored.
You missed my point about DDT - Science is not always "right" and experts don't always know what is best. The only person who can decide what is best for you is YOU. Its called the natural right to self-determination.
There is a 400 year history of smoking bans and prohibition. Each time militant puritans declare victory - the pendulum swings and we go through another cycle.
Its time to learn from history and practice inclusion not exclusion!
Name me one group that was excluded and disenfranchised and ignored and how society benefited from that practice in the long run.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:41:01 AM | The ONE group that was excluded and disenfranchised and ignored and society benefited from it?
Smokers are excluded, disenfranchised and society benefited from it because they are not allowed to pollute the air indoors. If you disagree with this, that is our privilege.
There is no "smoker's right to pollute the air" of others.
Indoor quality of air should be increased, but banning smoking was the first step, but only the FIRST one.
If you will tell me where you work, I will have my son douse himself with "Odor-deyskunk #12" which he likes the smell of and come to your office and see how you like it. Since it gives him pleasure you should be happy with that. I guarentee that no ventilation system short of a hurricaine will be able to improve the quality of the air in your office. Molecules of that stuff will stick to your clothes even outside of a building just being around him for a few minutes. Some perfumes are just like that, and just as offensive. I can't see why youu don't get the point on this. Perfumes pollute the air just like cigarette smoke does and make some people sick as well. Not everyone is made upset by cigarette smoke, though some non smokers can tolerate it, why should they have to?
The fact that one guy got killed because he smoked is beside the point. Obviously anyone who would kill someone is not 'normal' anywy. I'm not going to kill anyone for wearing perfume but that was one of the reasons I retired from my career is that the odors made me sick on a daily basis and I was tired of dealing with it. Since I live in a medically underserved area, there may actually be people who needed my services and otherwise couldn't afford it or find a practitioner, who may die--I'll never know the answer to that one, but quite possible, because I frequently did pro bono work for those without insurance and now those people don't have anyone. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 11:50:59 AM | | those politicians should take care of some real issues , they get paid big $ to come up with stupid ideas like this wow , whats next wasting money on "no farting in public signs" | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 4:36:07 PM | i said i was done here and own that i am again replying. somehow i think it might be of value (although not sure whether to you or to me!). . so take what you want and by all means LEAVE the rest.
so michelle, from what i can glean:
a lot of people are "picking on you" and your smoking habits. i'm sorry about that for you. i don't pick on people, although i do expect them to observe the laws. and in fact they do in my experience (for the most part).
in my personal space, i do my best to accomodate smokers as previously mentioned. i suppose if it was cold outside as in canada where you live, i 'd open my bathroom window (since i have two bathrooms) and allow my friends to "emote" in there with their smoking which would take only a few minutes. the clothing smell is another story, although most of my friends wash their clothes daily, knowing about the smell.
i suppose they value their personal relationships and know that the smell on one's clothing is not attractive. many can not smell their own clothing, but they can smell someone else's. perhaps different brands? with excessive perfume however, this would not help much to hang out in my bathroom as the smell is continuously pervasive-- particuarly certain STRONGLY scented lotion all over the body which you can smell as you walk throughout a large room.
my mental reaction to my employees initial indifference to my physical reaction to her very excessive application of a particular perfumed lotion (i believe applied as a cover up for physical activity before coming to me), was ultimately a forgiving/ explanatory one (on both our behalves).
i believe her eye rolling was her initial reaction. she had time however to think about it and i suppose was defensive because she is a giving person and does not want to see herself as someone causing anyone else discomfort with the naive gesture of just applying some perfume. however, the effect of the eye rolling on me was another resource drain on the energy i had to put out to address it "nicely". i chose to do that because i value her as an employee in all other aspects.
i, in fact, plan to go and get her some nice smelling, less toxic stuff as a gesture of my part in her discomfort. again, trying to make it win-win. she works for several people and i am the only one with this reaction thus far. so she will not be making others uncomfortable with another less scented, less toxic (to me) lotion.
AGAIN, if you feel you need a designated place to smoke as well as funding for ventilation in the workplace, then you should gather your constituency around ( i would imagine it to be a good half the population, no? ) and work on that legislation/advocacy --giving your anger and defensive feelings a shape and form that is positive. you should have many more people on your side, than those of use with immune compromised reactions and also a lot more mental and physical strength.
instead, however, you seem here to put a lot of energy into taking what fragments you can out of other peoples postings about PERFUME, add a bit of your own perceptions and agenda on SMOKING, throw in a little "intellectual" and then procede to insult people--people who have not behaved in any manner that you describe has been inflicted upon you as smoker.
i do think it's good to express your feelings and share your experiences and clearly the PERFUME and SMOKING sufferers could become your ally in fighting for workplace ventilation. this could be a win - win situation in fact, rather than jump over random people and attacking them inappropriately . tell us how you feel when such and such is done to you. but don't accuse people of things they don't even do, let alone to you.
also, i feel for this elderly man who has frozen to death. a friend of mine was ceo of a nonoprofit chain for the developmentally disabled. you could not smoke there, but the counselors, some of whom smoked, were able to take the clients out to areas where they could smoke. it wasn't good for their health, but there were other priorities in dealing with their despairs on a limited budget and also the need to respect their choices, to a certain extent. these are decisions that we all must make in everyday life with respect to a number of issues. however, a non smoking counselor would never be requested to take a smoking resident to smoke and sit their inhaling the fumes!
i suppose if this man was institutionalized, then he had no alternative. yet, he could walk outside on his own? and didn't need supervision? or perhaps other violations are involved here. hey, someone get creative, take him for a car ride and let him smoke! but then again, we have a different societal issue to deal with now: the abandonment of an elderly man with no friends or family to visit/assist. or maybe he was a mean man prior and therefore had no friends/family. we will never know. in many ways the same for a severely chemically sensitive person who must isolate. i know that in extreme situations when construction is going on in my home, i have a big ugly mask used for workers in hazzardous areas and i just put it on and tell everyone i am making a fashion statement! many people undergoing chemo also do this, although i suppose having to live like this 24/7 would be a bit much.
so, policy does not go that deep or it would never be formulated. and these are all measures that minorities have to resort to at times.
this is a thread on perfume bans. i am sure many who are against banning perfumes, are still "for" banning smoking. perhaps you can start a thread on smoking and see what you can legally do to provide for smoking access for anyone else who has been so affected.
the fact that a woman was thrown off a bus, is something i have never observed here. however, most people find a way to smoke and many more have actually gone into withdrawal and then stopped smoking.
in the same manner that it may not be a priority to stop the wearing of perfume, it might not be a priority to allow special areas for smoking. however since the ban on smoking is based on "health" assumptions, it does make sense to ventilate areas for many, many reasons which in turn should cumulatively be of "cost-benefit". i believe that should be the focus if you have that energy or if it's of a priority to you.
good luck to you, should you chose this endeavor. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:08:09 PM | Thank you for your sensitive and well-written post Serenity. I will keep your observations in mind.
I am already politically active in the area of indoor air quality of which smoking bans are merely a part and civil rights issues.
And yes - I do believe that between people of good will, most problems can be resolved to the satisfaction of most of the people.
Under all your postings, I sense the same plea for understanding and respectful tolerance that you seem to want to extend to others. I am sure that you empathized with the humiliation suffered by woman who was thrown off the bus.
I feel the same as you.
As a society, we are trying the same old things (bans) and getting the same old results. its time to take a broader view and see what we can do to change the environment to increase the comfort of the greatest number of people.
Others have mentioned peanut butter, pet dander, dust mites, moulds and fungi all having the same effect on people that perfume has on you and smoke has on others. If we focus on only one irritant at a time, we will never effectively address everyone's needs.
We need a solution that addresses everyone's concerns as much as possible and we need to do it in such a way that no one has to suffer the painful feelings of exclusion, isolation and humiliation. No one should have to beg for understanding of their lifestyle choices or the simple human condition of suffering from illness.
I have been a single independent woman for most of my life (except for 3.5 years). As a result, my personality has matured along the lines of male thinking - solve the problem rationally, think about it logically, take nothing personal and let others know when they step over the line, and once its over-hold no grudges and forget it ever happened. This is very different than what is expected of woman and causes others to see me as aggressive.
If I was a man - I would be considered assertive and a leader.
The good part of all this is that my personality, combined with some of the typical female characteristics makes me quite effective at one I do. Love me or hate me, I get the job done! My friends are very close to me and I am very loyal to them.
At various times in my life I have been socially marginalized for being divorced, being a woman working in a man's field and "taking a man's job", working as a single parent instead of being a stay at home mom, being the daughter of two alcoholics. As a result, the opinion of the rest of world really doesn't influence me to any great degree. Funny thing that, what doesn't kill you, only makes you strong.
You seem to be a very charming, sensitive and caring woman. The men on this site should really be paying attention here. They are missing out.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:29:58 PM | Just to clarify Serenity - one of the reasons why the man froze to death is because Ontario, the law prohibits anyone from assisting a smoker to walk to the outdoor smoking area. They must be able to get there on their own or they just can't smoke.
It goes to show to what ridiculous lengths tobacco control has gone when one person may not assist a disabled or elderly person to walk or roll somewhere under penalty of law. The fine for this offence is anything up to $5,000 as established in a court of law.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:31:26 PM | Michelle, to start with, I am a WOMAN, not a man, even though my "handle" may seem male. Yes, I do drive a pair of oxen. It's my 'powertrip" to get in front of 4,000 pounds of beasts with a switch the size of a long pencil and be "boss"
You keep saying "between people of good will"---and that is the problem, not everyone has "good will" and many people insist on doing things that are prohibited. Drinking and driving, smoking in areas where it is not allowed. In most hospitals employees are prohibited from wearing strong smelling cosmetics and lotions. Yet, they come to work like that every day. I have worked in hospitals and clinics most of my adult life and know wherewith I speak. It has been proven beyond any doubt that the long, fake fingernails harbor horrible germs and hospital workers are forbidden to have them too, but many do anyway. Most of the time the supervisors will not speak to these people for violating these regulations of the work place for "fear of offending someone.'
I smoke from time to time, and I would never think of lighting up at a hospital. It is forbidden even on the grounds of most hospitals I know of here. There is NO place to smoke. You aren't even allowed to go smoke on your lunch hour in your own car. It makes your clothing smell like smoke--so if you want to work there you suck it up and follow the regulations. However the regulations for smokers are ENFORCED but the ones for perfumes and fingernails which can have bad results as well are NOT enforced.
People who "insist" on their "rights" even if those "rights" infringe on someone else's right to clean air---whether it is smoking, bad body odor, or perfume are not "reasonable people" as far as I am concerned. I don't know if you read my post about the college girl that didn't "believe in" bathing and wasting water--her body odor was so obnoxious people were actually not able to sit in the classroom with her. I was the one given the job of talking to her about it, and I did it in as sensitive a way as I could, but the bottom line was--"Darling you have to bathe" and if she had refused, she would have been talked to by the Dean of Students who would NOT have been as sensitive as I was with her feelings. If she had refused at that point, she would have been asked to leave at the end of the semester. (It was a private college). Sure, she had a "right" not to bathe--but the other students had a right to an education in an environment free of bad body odor as well. They were paying upwards of $40,000 per year for an education that this young woman was depriving them of by exercising her "right" not to bathe.
I realize you can't "ban" every substance known to cause allergic or bad reactions to any human being on earth--that is ridiculous--but UNnecessary things that FOG the atmosphere should be limited. If people won't voluntarily limit themselves, like most smokers lit up wherever it was legal before the bans, then BANS become necessary. I also realize there are BIGGER things in this world than people dousing themselves with perfumes or even smoking and blowing smoke in someone's face. But what smells good to one doesn't necessarily smell good to someone else.
If you had a very good friend or lover who didn't like your perfume, or was made sick by it, and they asked you not to wear it, would you still insist on wearing it? It is the same with perfumes and smokers. My late husband wasn't a smoker, so I did not smoke in my home when we were married. No big deal, it was his house too, and I loved him. I also tried to be considerate where other people were concerned and not smoke around them. I also washed my hair daily or twice daily to keep the stink to a minimum so I wouldn't offend my husband or others. | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 6:09:52 PM | Ox drover - Lol on the handle.
I agree again with MOST of what you are saying. Of course you have to follow the rules of your workplace. Unfortunately, you are not paid to smoke or wear perfume or long fingernails.
I am fortunate enough to work in an environment for some really really good people that I respect who respect me. When the bans arrived, the smoking area was in a covered parking lot and became prohibited. Other smokers in my workplace were upset and refused to move. But I knew that not following the law would not get us anywhere.
My employer first consulted with me (yes - they chose me because I am a natural leader) - we consulted each other, we discussed appropriate and preferred moves. They respected my inherent right to self-determination. I respected the fact that they have a workplace to manage and are obliged to follow the law. Between two parties of good will - we managed an imperfect solution that preserved the dignity of all affected parties.
First, my employer donated a picnic table. I donated a large umbrella for shade. They arranged a workman to install the umbrella as per my specifications. On a day of my choosing, I brought peach juice and treats to work. I decorated the table with a nice tablecloth and some balloons. I parked my car close to the designated area. I got my fellow employees to put the table in the designated area. Then we had a short party (smokers only - non-smokers excluded). We drank iced peach juice, played smoking protest music while dancing and "celebrating" our new smoking area.
Hey - the only way someone can take my dignity from me unless I let them. Instead of being isolated like dirty dogs - we created a desirable space to socialize during breaks!
At the end of the day - the smokers decided to move to the designated area without protest.
Well - wouldn't you know it - the non-smokers immediately went to the employer and demanded equal treatment. They were refused! (I donated the umbrella remember). Now the smoking area is the social centre of the office. Non-smokers sheepishly ask if they can join smokers (I let them- what the hell).
As a courtesy, I make sure the smoking area is cleaned regularly (no butt litter).
In appreciation, my employer has offered me a place to build a proper smoking shelter if I want to donate part of the materials. I am considering the offer but want to get other smokers more involved in the solution.
Of course, I am not asking that non-smokers be subjected to a smoky environment but how does it hurt you if smokers are allowed their own private clubs to associate, eat, drink and in general, socialize in the comfort of our choosing.
I don't think that either you or Serenity have ever been in a modern, designated smoking room. The air is removed and cleaned so fast that there isn't time enough for smoke to accumulate (I believe is 30 L / per person / minute).
Serenity, I think you would have absolutely no problem socializing with people who wear perfume in the normal manner (not taking a shower in it) in an environment of this nature.
As to whether I would give up smoking in my own house if it discomforted my loved one - the answer is an emphatic NO. Spouses are supposed to be people of good will (at least to each other) and sacrificing your needs for someone else's needs is a good way to end up feeling resentful and a martyr. Feelings that are NOT conducive to a good solid loving relationship. It leads to less sex! This is not acceptable to me. (LOL)
But I would agree to ventilate one special room in the house by installing a good exhaust fan. This would create a negative pressure inside the room that keeps smoke limited to that room. Then I would cheerfully agree to smoke only in that room. I would also agree to purchase and operate room cleaners in the remainder of the house to ensure his comfort.
Again - no one get gets everything they want but both parties get some of what they want and no one ends up feeling victimized and unloved.
Hey - I think like a man - no game playing, say what you want, seek compromise, negotiate and resolve the issue. In a marriage, both parties should be looking for means to satisfy the needs of the other party as well as their own.
Michelle | |
|
| Canada ban on Perfumes
Posted: 3/29/2007 8:21:53 PM | Michelle, thinking logically is not just "thinking like a man"--I too am logical, and have been in many positions of both authority and leadership. This forum is about perfume pollution and "banning " perfumes. Smoking is a similar problem, and I too have smoked off and on--it's easy to quit, I've done it 1,000 times--  but the perfume problem is again a "preference" thing that pollutes the air--inside and outside as well. Of course, inside is worse.
No one that I personally know of has dropped dead immediately from cigarette smoke, but I won't say it has never happened. Maybe no one has ever actually dropped dead from smelling perfume. Although I do know of one verified death due to the added color in a DOUCHE product--why for Gosh sakes would you "color" douches? But the lady reacted to the color and died. It happens. Not often, but ANY non essential chemicals added to products or to the air should be limited. Manufacturers and the media advertising have increased the use of these additives gosh knows how many fold in the last 25-50 years. Real unadulterated SOAP cleans just fine, it can also be used for shampoo, and laundry as well--why add stuff to it that can be toxic to anyone?
There are enough people in the general population that have problems with either allergies or reactions to perfumes--an unnecessary component in products--that it has already become a problem. Do you remember how the "anti-smoking" group was crucified by smokers when they first started complaining about second hand smoke? It took a while, but they "won" and I think with good reason. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
