I'm not surprised but I still can't believe it. New Hampshire is considering joining other places on a "perfume ban". Now since I don't like to spin or exaggerate even when it's tempting I will post a link to the news article: http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-11/health-wellness/31045055_1_scent-perfume-state-employees. For those who don't have time to read the article this ban will only affect state employees who have contact with the public, it is only being considered- in other words it wasn't passed yet, but it may affect all wearing of fragrances such as perfume, scented hair spray, scented deodorant, and scented dryer sheets. Such laws have already taken place in other places. Luckily New Hampshire doesn't usually have long or hot Summers.
New Hampshire is a rather unique state. New England for the most part was settled by pragmatic "Yankees". New Hampshire however had a good amount of Scotch-Irish settlement also- which is not as common in the Northeast as it is in the South and West. In general this state was historically a bastion of libertarianism and individualism for the Northeast. "Live free or die" is the state motto.
I will try to empathize with both sides on this. As someone who blogs about Autism and sensory sensitivities (whether or not they relate to Autism), one would expect me to be more sympathetic to this law. Instead I have some reservations. What I read about this so far sounds somewhat reasonable, but I feel this can open up a Pandora's box when it comes to "nanny-state" regulations. I have mentioned before I do have a lot of sensory sensitivities, mine are not affected by perfume, but for many others fragrance can be an issue. Fragrance can be a practical way to mask odor if done in addition to good hygiene, but it is also a form of self-expression sort of like wearing jewelry, putting up Christmas lights, or shooting fireworks. Some people overdo the self-expression until it violates the personal space of others such as when people blast their car stereo to unnecessarily disturbing levels. I've always been good with playing music but I'll admit I have overdone it with fragrances myself many times. While my sense of smell is acute, I still can't always smell myself. I'll also admit I love fragrances whether it be cologne, incense, or air fresheners- maybe it's the Italian in me that just loves to add a little pizazz to life wherever I go. I can be rather picky and I prefer natural smells to fake ones. I feel that if we know we are going to be around people with allergies, Asthma, or sensory issues it is only common courtesy to tone it down. It is also common courtesy to turn ones music down when there is a baby sleeping within earshot, but I don't think that means we should ban music or create a decibel limit. I have also smelled many fragrances that I can't stand on other people but I will still take any of them over the smell of B.O., a cat litter box, or a garbage can. There will always be thoughtless or overbearing people who will abuse their freedoms, but that shouldn't be a reason to take them away for everyone.
One could always say to just use unscented products, keep the house clean, and bathe daily, yet depending on the environment sometimes cleanliness and unscented products just don't cut it. I think the proposed New Hampshire law can still be a very good "unwritten rule" yet as a de jure law I'm not even sure how they would even plan on enforcing it. I luckily never had severe Asthma but I realize that some people do. I did have mild Asthma as a child and seasonal allergies. Grass and poplar tree pollen makes me hooked of antihistamines around the first week of June every year, yet I'm not sure if I would demand that everyone in town be forced by law to mow their lawns every day so none of the grass goes to seed. The proposed law is hardly the end of the world in itself but where will it stop? Should fireworks be banned? Many people and pets are terrified of them. Should churches be forced to stop the centuries old tradition of burning frankincense and myrrh? At least NH has the decency to keep this ban limited the public sphere and not private businesses. But in other places it may go further.
Even in a libertarian environment things aren't always cut-and-dry. The libertarian philosophy protects individual rights insofar as they don't infringe on the rights and welfare of others. Applying that to the real world and deciding exactly where an individuals rights leaves off and those of another begin can get complicated. In an ideal world common courtesy should step in and we shouldn't have to keep splitting hairs in such a legalistic way. At one time people were allowed to smoke in hospital rooms and there wasn't always much people could do about it. I'm old enough to remember teachers in grade school smoking in front of the class. That was not cool, but today the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. I mean should restaurants and bakeries be forced into remote areas because the smell of the food and cause a pregnant woman in the neighborhood to get morning sickness? I tend to shutter when I hear speculation about cell phones affecting the brain and causing cancer. Whether this is true, false, or exaggerated truth it needs to be put in perspective. I sometimes worry that stuff like this can be used as propaganda to justify government control of communications and radio. Of course no one wants to see an innocent child die of cancer because someone near them was downloading video games though I don't see that happening anyway. I'm not a scientist but I can say with relative confidence that cell phones have saved more lives than they will ever take. Many people are concerned about the safety of chemicals, disinfectants, and preservatives, but it allowing food poisoning outbreaks which can kill many the answer? It's more a matter of weighing the pros and cons. I'm no a fan of heavy pesticide use, but I wonder if we never had them if healthy food would become more scarce and expensive and cause a worse public health problem as the poor may never be able to afford fresh produce due to pests and plant diseases.
One of my biggest issues of these types of laws is how they are so vague to enforce. Drinking and driving is a little different since it can be verified and measured with blood tests. Daydreaming and driving is also dangerous but how can it be enforced? Should there be a law banning driving for 48 hours after one is dumped by a significant other?
Last week I came across a blog where somebody mentioned how peppermint smells such as those in gum and breath mints make them sick. Personally I would take any smell over bad breath (and yes- some people with perfect oral hygiene can still get bad breath). I can empathize with that person as I have some odd sensory sensitivities myself and if I ever met that person in real life I will refrain from using minty stuff. Every other time I will keep my Listerine strips handy. I think the best approach to these issues is to raise public awareness of sensory sensitivities and make reasonable accommodations for the individuals we come in contact with as a matter of common courtesy. People should also be encouraged to to up front about any serious sensitivities or allergies- I mean serious ones- not so much pet-peeves. This way we can have a more hospitable world without giving up our freedoms in the process.
New Hampshire is a rather unique state. New England for the most part was settled by pragmatic "Yankees". New Hampshire however had a good amount of Scotch-Irish settlement also- which is not as common in the Northeast as it is in the South and West. In general this state was historically a bastion of libertarianism and individualism for the Northeast. "Live free or die" is the state motto.
I will try to empathize with both sides on this. As someone who blogs about Autism and sensory sensitivities (whether or not they relate to Autism), one would expect me to be more sympathetic to this law. Instead I have some reservations. What I read about this so far sounds somewhat reasonable, but I feel this can open up a Pandora's box when it comes to "nanny-state" regulations. I have mentioned before I do have a lot of sensory sensitivities, mine are not affected by perfume, but for many others fragrance can be an issue. Fragrance can be a practical way to mask odor if done in addition to good hygiene, but it is also a form of self-expression sort of like wearing jewelry, putting up Christmas lights, or shooting fireworks. Some people overdo the self-expression until it violates the personal space of others such as when people blast their car stereo to unnecessarily disturbing levels. I've always been good with playing music but I'll admit I have overdone it with fragrances myself many times. While my sense of smell is acute, I still can't always smell myself. I'll also admit I love fragrances whether it be cologne, incense, or air fresheners- maybe it's the Italian in me that just loves to add a little pizazz to life wherever I go. I can be rather picky and I prefer natural smells to fake ones. I feel that if we know we are going to be around people with allergies, Asthma, or sensory issues it is only common courtesy to tone it down. It is also common courtesy to turn ones music down when there is a baby sleeping within earshot, but I don't think that means we should ban music or create a decibel limit. I have also smelled many fragrances that I can't stand on other people but I will still take any of them over the smell of B.O., a cat litter box, or a garbage can. There will always be thoughtless or overbearing people who will abuse their freedoms, but that shouldn't be a reason to take them away for everyone.
One could always say to just use unscented products, keep the house clean, and bathe daily, yet depending on the environment sometimes cleanliness and unscented products just don't cut it. I think the proposed New Hampshire law can still be a very good "unwritten rule" yet as a de jure law I'm not even sure how they would even plan on enforcing it. I luckily never had severe Asthma but I realize that some people do. I did have mild Asthma as a child and seasonal allergies. Grass and poplar tree pollen makes me hooked of antihistamines around the first week of June every year, yet I'm not sure if I would demand that everyone in town be forced by law to mow their lawns every day so none of the grass goes to seed. The proposed law is hardly the end of the world in itself but where will it stop? Should fireworks be banned? Many people and pets are terrified of them. Should churches be forced to stop the centuries old tradition of burning frankincense and myrrh? At least NH has the decency to keep this ban limited the public sphere and not private businesses. But in other places it may go further.
Even in a libertarian environment things aren't always cut-and-dry. The libertarian philosophy protects individual rights insofar as they don't infringe on the rights and welfare of others. Applying that to the real world and deciding exactly where an individuals rights leaves off and those of another begin can get complicated. In an ideal world common courtesy should step in and we shouldn't have to keep splitting hairs in such a legalistic way. At one time people were allowed to smoke in hospital rooms and there wasn't always much people could do about it. I'm old enough to remember teachers in grade school smoking in front of the class. That was not cool, but today the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. I mean should restaurants and bakeries be forced into remote areas because the smell of the food and cause a pregnant woman in the neighborhood to get morning sickness? I tend to shutter when I hear speculation about cell phones affecting the brain and causing cancer. Whether this is true, false, or exaggerated truth it needs to be put in perspective. I sometimes worry that stuff like this can be used as propaganda to justify government control of communications and radio. Of course no one wants to see an innocent child die of cancer because someone near them was downloading video games though I don't see that happening anyway. I'm not a scientist but I can say with relative confidence that cell phones have saved more lives than they will ever take. Many people are concerned about the safety of chemicals, disinfectants, and preservatives, but it allowing food poisoning outbreaks which can kill many the answer? It's more a matter of weighing the pros and cons. I'm no a fan of heavy pesticide use, but I wonder if we never had them if healthy food would become more scarce and expensive and cause a worse public health problem as the poor may never be able to afford fresh produce due to pests and plant diseases.
One of my biggest issues of these types of laws is how they are so vague to enforce. Drinking and driving is a little different since it can be verified and measured with blood tests. Daydreaming and driving is also dangerous but how can it be enforced? Should there be a law banning driving for 48 hours after one is dumped by a significant other?
Last week I came across a blog where somebody mentioned how peppermint smells such as those in gum and breath mints make them sick. Personally I would take any smell over bad breath (and yes- some people with perfect oral hygiene can still get bad breath). I can empathize with that person as I have some odd sensory sensitivities myself and if I ever met that person in real life I will refrain from using minty stuff. Every other time I will keep my Listerine strips handy. I think the best approach to these issues is to raise public awareness of sensory sensitivities and make reasonable accommodations for the individuals we come in contact with as a matter of common courtesy. People should also be encouraged to to up front about any serious sensitivities or allergies- I mean serious ones- not so much pet-peeves. This way we can have a more hospitable world without giving up our freedoms in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment