Smoking Bans in the Workplace

[tommyt654]

Everyone's at risk of getting cancer, but is there really any doubt that smoker's have a higher rate of cancer, heart, and lung disease?

Of course not or at least no more say than coal miners or oil workers or for that matter anyone who worked with asbesto's before it was recognized as a carcinogen,My point was its all to easy to single out 1 variable when there are factually so many others to blame,yet we rarely see folks walking away from the gas pump while filling the tank but they'll cry about a smoker who's within 10 feet of them in a heartbeat. I feel for the nonsmokers,but just can't reach them as they mainly whine and cry yet do little about anything else thats readily causing the disease. They will choose profit over health everytime.

[Brian G]

Today was a beautiful day here in MN. I had my windows open. My neighbor 35 feet away decided to have a smoke or a dozen.

I had to close my windows.

Wish I had the choice to keep my windows on my private property open and not have a neighbors smoke trespass in my yard and break into my home.

I'm probably just a whiner, though, right?

p.s. My wife works from home, so this fits the topic.

[tommyt654]

Well lets see smoke rise's so it must have been a very windy day for a wisp of cigarette smoke to cover 10 yrds and go directly in your home,Yes it sounds like a lot of whining

[chopnhack]

FYI, many companies do not cover Viagra.

[Brian G]

Well lets see smoke rise's so it must have been a very windy day for a wisp of cigarette smoke to cover 10 yrds and go directly in your home,Yes it sounds like a lot of whining

It was a nice breezy day. That's why I opened the windows.

So if I fertilized my vegetable bed in my back yard with cow manure and the stench migrated to the neighbor's it's okay because he'd just be a whiner?

I'm a farm boy; I like the smell of cows in the morning. My neighbor isn't, and he doesn't.

Seriously, explain to me why a smoker's right to smoke in his yard exceeds my right to not have his smoke in my yard? Who's property right is being violated? Why should I or my grandkids have to put up with migratory stench?

It works both ways. I have no choice but to breathe the stank smoke that comes across to my yard. Smoke doesn't "rise" it just hangs and floats. I can't enjoy the fresh air because it's polluted with the stank of smoke. I'm the one making the concession.

The smoker can enjoy his property at his/her whim. I can't enjoy mine because of his/her whim. Go ahead and call it whining and crying if you want, but when you do you contradict the basic premise of the freedoms to enjoy personal space and personal property that you espouse.

[tommyt654]

Thanks for making my point so clear If it was to bother me to the point of making so much ado about it I would simply close my windows on 1 side of the house exposed to the smoke and get over it.You have that right on your property,but I suspect the airspace above you or surrounding your home is subject to a legal challenge if it bothers you that much you should hire an atty and sue to have your airspace rights enforced and get back to us on that. While your at it sue all the other companys that are polluting the air your breathing but are unable to see or smell those particlar carcinogens as they have dissapated to smaller microns not visible to you and let us know how that goes as well,but really if your neighbors house is only 20-30 ft away I highly doubt your in farm country anyways just whining cause you don't like the smell of smoke,like others here have pointed out as a reason for complaint.

[Brian G]

You made my point and missed it at the same time.

I think it's the smokers' turn to have to "get over it."

You may have the last word, just like I have to breathe the smoker's last puff.

p.s. Perhaps part of the workplace ban is because of all of the butts smokers fling around willy-nilly without caring about where they end up, or making somebody else pick them up and dispose of them properly.

[vaking]

My wife is alergic to secondhand smoke. She gets a headache from sitting next to a person who had a cigarette within the last 30 minutes or so. In the past we lived in a second floor apartment where the first floor as a hairdresser's salon. She was reacting to people in the salon lighting a cigarette. Her allergy is not life threatening, she does not suffocate. But it is a headache, her face changes color, so I am sure it is not a whim. So secondhand smoke does have effect on others, there is no arguing about it.
I believe in the New York City smoking is now banned in all public places. That does not mean government buildings, it is much more. Every place of employment is a public place even if it is a private employeer.
As for complaining that smokers are singled out and we do not allow discrimination against fat people - just give it a little time. We shall discriminate against fat people the same way we discriminate against smokers. Discrimination always begins with vendors, then it expands to users. With smoking at first we outlawed selling cigarretes to minors. The City of New York just created a ban to sell sugary drinks in size more than 20 ounce for a single person consumption. This is how legal fight to make people thin begins. In a short future I see it being legal to charge higher fee for transportation for fat people, etc.

[BigguyZ]

Brian- I would say that you should talk to your neihbor and ask that he/she stop. But as far as rights, you have no right to demand that they stop smoking on their property. Just like if they decide to paint their house blaze orange, you can't demand they paint it a more normal color (unless you live in a place with a HOA, or the house is protected as a historical neighborhood). People have the right to do all sorts of things that may annoy you- and it's up to people to work in out so we don't all kill eachother.

Back to my original topic- I don't know if I pointed this out, but this made a huge difference to me in thinking about the motives of the company. The ban isn't on smoking. The ban is on Tobacco. Some people make no differentiation, but they are not the same.

So, let's say I used snuff or chew. There's 0 second hand smoke produced by these. It's a disgusting habit, and the person may have colored teetch or bad breath- but drinking coffe and eating onions would do the same thing. So, if I partake in a habit that's legal and affects no one directly- no one feels uneasy that the company feels they have the need to control my actions and ban it?

Some might find this odd- but if they just said that tobacco users pay 10% more on their insurance premium, I'd be fine with that. It's controlling, but not overbearingly so. But the ban basically is a stepping stone to more obtrusive tactics to control what we as employees do. (you're too fat, no soda. If you drink on the weekends, that's shown to lower Monday productivity- no drinking on Sundays. If you gamble, that's shown to have personal impact that often leaks into the work space- no gambling at legal venues.)

[Black wallnut]

BigguyZ, you and I get it! I am finding that others have no problems with having their and my freedoms restricted or even taken away. I'm a former Copenhagen user. My habit had no effect on my co-workers. I've since given it up. Sadly employeers are getting away with this because the working class is letting them, although I will not fall on my sword over this issue.

[vaking]

Suicide is considered a crime in our society. If you try it and fail - you will be taken to court for it (if you suceed - discussion becomes moot). In suicide you create a bodily injury to yourself but nothing offensive to others. When you smoke - you create bodily injury to yourself and you offend others. In my opinion - smoking is a bigger "sin" then suicide because of that, if suicide is a crime - smoking also is. (I am not sure Suicide should be a crime but this is a different topic).

If smoking is your right - you also have a resposibility that comes with your decision to smoke despite knowing of all the dangers. Your medical insurance have the right to refuse to pay for treatment of any ailments that are associated with smoking such as lung cancer. Effectively your decision to smoke waives your claim to such treatment. Are you prepared to sign such waiver?

You believe that if you want to smoke - you have the right to do so even though it forces your neighbor to close his windows. What if you want to set up a beehive on your property - do you have that right too? Bees, just like smoke, will not respect borders of your property and will spread to your neighbors. If your bees start biting others - do they have the right to object to you having bees?
I believe you know answer to that question - it is about zoning regulations. If you have no neighbors for miles - you can have bees. If you have neighbors close to your home - you cannot. Smoking is along the same lines. Can you smoke on your property? How about in your apartment in a multi-story building? Or may be in your hotel room where you are staying for a couple of nights? This is about a balance between your personal rights and rights of others. It is a dynamic balance, situation changes with societal's norms of acceptable behaviour. This balance is set one way today, was different in the past and will change in the future.

[BigguyZ]

If smoking is your right - you also have a resposibility that comes with your decision to smoke despite knowing of all the dangers. Your medical insurance have the right to refuse to pay for treatment of any ailments that are associated with smoking such as lung cancer. Effectively your decision to smoke waives your claim to such treatment. Are you prepared to sign such waiver?

Insurance is another matter all together. My concern is about an employer asserting control over the employee's lives, essentially to save money. Nothing is wrong with trying to save money, but again where do we stop if we allow them to have a say in our non-work lives?

For the insurance part- would you sign a waiver to not be covered for any vehicle accident should your car be in a wreck? Sure, your auto insurance may cover some of it, but what if the costs exceed your auto coverage? Should your health insurance say "you knew the risks of driving, we won't pay for any injuries resulting from driving"?

Or maybe you need to sign a waiver for your woodworking. That's voluntary, and we know that there are physical risks of working with power tools. The only major medical expense I've incurred was a result of my accidently putting my finger to a spinning router bit. Should they say that they're not going to cover the nerve reconstruction surgery because I should have known better? Point is, regarding that- there's limits on how much companies can insulate them from the financial impact of your decisions.

But again- that's off topic, IMHO. The issue is company control over their employees, and how willing people are to accept it.

[vaking]

I think you misunderstood reasons companies do that.
I work on the 10th floor of a 20-story building. There is no smoking in the building. If you want to smoke - you have to take an elevator 10 floors down, exit the building, smoke a cigarette, go thru the security check and back to the 10th floor. Altogether - probably 15 minutes.
I had a subordinate who was a chain-smoker. He was going thru at least a pack of cigarettes a day. During the day he needed a smoke brake probably once an hour. That means he was wasting 25% of his time because of his smoking habit. So being a chain smoker gives you a significant handicap in productivity.
He knew that smoking was a bad habit and tried to kick it. I know of at least 2 attempts he made to quit and both failed. To me this speaks volume about a person's character. Do you know any chain smoker today who is proud of smoking so much? After having this subordinate if I were to hire somebody as a hiring manager I would not want to hire a chain smoker. This has nothing to do with insurance cost, this is because in today's environment chain smoker has low productivity and is likely to be a poor performer anyway. I would not care about somebody smoking occasionally but a chain smoker to me would be the end of the interview. If I were making decisions at a company level on policies whom to hire - I would make a chain-smoker a disqualifying criterion. I am not trying to tell anybody what to do, I am just avoiding poor performers at work.

[jackellis]

I detest smoking, even though I don't mind the smoke from pipes and cigars (go figure!). Luckily I don't know many smokers and most folks I know who do smoke are pretty considerate.

As for the insurance angle, bear in mind that spreading the risk also means spreading the costs. People who smoke are more likely to need expensive health care. Same for obese people, and probably for alcoholics and drug users. I understand some people are predisposed to be heavier or to be prone to heart attacks or cancer or other diseases that are expensive to treat, but I really don't want to be subsidizing the health care costs of folks who smoke, drink themselves silly every evening, or habitually eat too much of the wrong kinds of foods. And in the case of obese people, I really don't want to be stuck in the adjoining airplane seat for a few hours.

So smoke as much as you like, drink as much as you like and eat whatever you want, but be prepared to pay for the privilege in the form of higher health care premiums, which justifiably should be linked in part to lifestyle habits that raise the cost of insurance for everyone.

[cabinetman]

But again- that's off topic, IMHO. The issue is company control over their employees, and how willing people are to accept it.

Getting back on topic, it is company control, and they have that right. They develop their policy, and it's up to employees to follow it. Some companies have an SOP, or employee manuals that are protocol. A basic probationary period will bear out whether the employee can be discharged for misconduct.

.