Skip to comments.Live free or sneeze? New Hampshire weighs ban on scents worn by state workers
Posted on 02/12/2012 4:17:55 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Less is more, according to New Hampshire lawmakers debating whether to ban the use of scented or fragrant soaps by state employees.
Under House Bill 1444, state workers who interact with the public would be prohibited from wearing fragrances or scented products while on the job, MyFoxBoston reported.
The reason for the proposed ban -- exposure to scented products can irritate or worsen symptoms for people with asthma or allergies.
"The chemicals in some of these products can trigger the nasal congestion, sneezing and the runny nose," Dr. Stanley Fineman, an allergist with Emory University and the Atlanta Allergy and Asthma Clinic, told MyFoxBoston. "With the asthmatics, there's really good data showing their lung function changes when they're exposed to these compounds."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I have the same problem, and when several women wear several different overwhelming scents, it is painful to be at work. Even though I have told my office mate about my sensitivity, she from time to time slips and wears perfumed lotions or something.
Yes, because it’s MY workplace. If YOU want to wear skunk perfume in YOUR workplace, and your co-workers are OK with that, then it’s all good.
Your workspace would also be my workspace. You make no sense. If I can’t ware my “Skunk” then you can’t ware your “Whatever”.
I’m just saying, that in reality, we’re in different workplaces. But if you want to apply for a job here, and then come to work wearing skunk perfume, be my guest, for I shall be ready with stink perfume to counteract you.
I simply believe that this scent policy should apply on a workplace-by-workplace basis, rather than have some busybody legisl00ter try to ban scents statewide.
However, if you want a more comprehensive ban, come to my state (Maryland). Lots of people want to ban lots of things around here. You’ll be in good company.
Segregation is so awful now a days you have to put up with boys if you want to go swimming in the pool....Co-ed dormitories in college now co-ed public bathrooms that let transsexuals and cross dressers use the girls bathroom, it stinks in this country and don't you dare call a spade a spade cause that has racist overtones....It sure didn't when I was young...there was a difference between a spade and a shovel...we have become the insane asylum for the universe and the nuts are running it...
You could suspend trouble making students from school, there was no mainlining of special needs kids that upset the whole classroom and the teachers that think its important for 6th graders to know how to put a condom on a cucumber...Glad I am old and had a fine time being young and without fear and crisis being crammed down our throats, along with lie's told by textbooks in school about globull warming etc....the list goes on forever.....
You make excellent points. Yes, one would think that an executive order from the governor could cover it. Camel’s nose may well be it.
Someone I was in conversation with many years ago told me that the problem was that so many of the fragrance manufacturers include hay oil in the mix, and that is what initiates the allergic reaction. Don’t know if this is it or not.
Thanks for the ping!
“..they want to regulate smell?”
Yep. It has been going on for quite awhile. In fact, there was many a FReeper that celebrated the regulation of what they considered to be smelly. I wonder if they are celebrating the end result of their abandonment of conservative principles....
“You people who think this should be a protected right to force people to breath that stuff are ignorant.”
Ah the old “right to breathe” argument, which is no different than saying that your employer MUST provide contracaption to you. Liberalism is as liberalism does.
Instead of being pro-active and taking action to find a more suitable employer, or to really take a risk and become an employer yourself, you prefer to make a proclamation that their rights as property owners be nullified for your “right to scent free air.”
I fear for our Republic, but it is not a new fear.
” but once out in public place we’re obliged to show some sense of decorum. Smelling like a tear-gas factory, a rabbit cage or turd is nobody’s right”
Are you willing to have government law enforcement shoot and kill anyone wearing what you would deem as to much perfurme/cologne? The only way your preference can be enforced is via government guns, so you must be willing to use those guns to ensure your preferences are met....
That is the reality for any law or regulation. We must be willing to shoot and kill anyone who does not adhere to them, otherwise the government has no ability to enforce any law or regulation.
“Its odd that folks call them themselves Conservatives on FR, but jump on the ban bandwagon the second a law comes up that address their pet peeve.”
Convenient conversativism runs rampant on “ban” threads. It is the logical conclusion of the removal of critical thinking from our schools.
Baaa, Baaa, who is leading American Idol?
“If my house was next to yours then why should you be able to ban my use of DDT in my front yard Even if some of the spray ends up in your yard?”
Yeah you got it! Those of us that are trying to stop continual government growth and trampling of property rights/individual liberty are actually anarchists!
Do you work for MSNBC news?
That does sound a little extreme, now that you mention it.
Okay. How 'bout we just call the fire department and hose them down? It's win-win as I see it-- I get relief from my sneezing fit and the offender gets the bath they should have taken in the first place.
” How ‘bout we just call the fire department and hose them down?”
And if they refuse, who do you call next? I’ll give you a hint, it is the ones with the guns!
When anyone proposes new laws or regulations, they must always keep the last resort of enforcement in mind. In order to enforce any law, someone must be willing to shoot and kill any offender. If the offender fails to submit at all of the prior (lesser) stages of enforcement, then society must be willing to kill them.
That prism should add some perspective for anyone that considers passing laws to cater to their preferences.
But only they should only shoot the recidivists.