"mrbog" > wrote in message
om...
> "Julianne" > wrote in message
news:<XlESb.4014$gl2.1724@lakeread05>...
> >
> > It seems to me that if a jazz musician wanted to work, he or she would
take
> > into consideration the risks inherent with the job. When the risks are
> > greater than the benefits, it is time to move on. In the 80's, a lot of
> > nurses moved on because they were not comfortable with the risk of HIV.
> > Canadian nurses, not comfortable with SARS quit their jobs.
> >
> > There is no law that says those who employ entertainers have to ensure
that
> > jazz musicians have a smoke free environment. If you don't want to
assume
> > the risk, find another line of work.
> >
> > j
>
> There is a law that (indirectly) prohibits you from tieing an aids
> infected hyperdermic needle (or a chainsaw) to a stick and swinging it
> around in a crowded room. If I'm a computer programmer and I work
> somewhere where people swing chainsaws around for their own enjoyment,
> at my risk, should I just consider that an occupational hazard and
> change careers? I don't see how the job of writing computer programs
> should require that I learn to dodge chainsaws, and I also don't see
> how plying the trumpet should require musicians to risk lung cancer.
>
> Your example falls apart because the dangers of your job are
> unavoidable. It's not like the hospital makes a policy that you're
> job *should* be dangerous. If anything, they do their best to reduce
> your danger as much as reasonably possible. No one in the medical
> field stands up and says "No, I think nurses should be MORE at risk,
> not less." Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is swinging
> hyperdermic needles around. There's law agains one, why not the
> other.

I do feel for you. Even though I enjoy a smoking on occasion, I am
miserable when I am in a smoke filled room.

There are three very solid positions on this issue. One is that if smoke
makes you miserable, avoid it. Surely, someone who can play trumpet can
also find other work of equal pay.

Another position is that smoking in public places should be banned. This is
a solid argument except I have seen no credible studies that indicate that
second hand smoke is a hazard. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but
with the exception of small children and airline personnel who work on long
distance flights, there is no solid research. Thankfully, infants are not
often brought to jazz bars.

The last position is that smokers should be placed away from those who are
bothered by cigarette or cigar smoke. This might very well include the
band. The smokers would have the choice of abstaining for want of a better
seat or settling for a seat far away from the band.

Smoking in public places is avoidable. So is entertainment and relaxation.
There is no law that says I am entitled to a place where I can relax without
being bothered by the ways of others.

This afternoon, I attended a baby shower. I have severe migraines which are
frequently triggered by strong odors. Even pleasant perfumes have been
known to spark a migraine in me. My friends are most indulgent. There were
many people at this shower that I did not know, One of them wore a strong
perfume. I am less prone to actual migraines after Botox treatment but the
nausea and sensitivity to light was very real. So, should I move to ban
perfumes? Is it my responsibility to handle my insensitivity or should I
demand that others tend to my needs?

j