Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smoking in the workplace
GrandForksHarald.com ^ | 2-10-05 | Mike Troy

Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by SheLion

On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.

Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."

The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.

Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.

The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).

The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.

If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.

As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.

The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.

In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.

The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.

Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.


TOPICS: Hobbies
KEYWORDS: antismokers; bans; bars; butts; cigarettes; fda; individualliberty; lawmakers; maine; niconazis; professional; prohibitionists; regulation; restaurants; rinos; senate; smoking; taxes; tobacco; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-226 next last
To: SheLion
A VERY Happy Valentines Day, SheLion! :^D


41 posted on 02/14/2005 6:35:58 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rubber_Duckie_27

Many restaurants have gone smoke free...........by their own choice. Wehn we were fighting the smoking ban in delaware some of the most vocal opponents were the owners of places that had already gone smoke-free, because they didn't want to have their market niche taken away from them.

If more people had your attitude, then the market forces would be able to do it's work and there would be available choices for all.


42 posted on 02/14/2005 6:37:17 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise
You made the choice to eat there if it was so horrible of a experience then you made the wrong choice. It should be up to the owners of the establishment not the govt as to how they run their business
43 posted on 02/14/2005 6:37:59 AM PST by CONSERVE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Since you don't like it, why do you rent to smokers? It is your property, you don't have to permit smoking within your property.

As a smoker I wouldn't rent from you, but I support your right to not rent to smokers at all.


44 posted on 02/14/2005 6:39:02 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
But then you ARE discriminating against someone who does what they want on their OWN time.

If a company bans smoking at work ... fine. The company I work for already has that in place. What i do at 5:05 is MY business not my company's.

My point is that if they can make this decision, where does it stop? Can they tell me that I can't watch TV because it will rot my brain? I can't play hockey because it's dangerous? I can't have sex a woman because, for all they know she may be a filthy slut, and I can be subjected to AIDS?

45 posted on 02/14/2005 6:41:26 AM PST by usgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; usgator
"I don't believe azhenfud was referring to the WEYCO situation, but rather to government imposed smoking bans on bars and restaurants."

That's it, exactly. Owners of establishments should have the right to designate their business as "smoker friendly" or "smoke prohibitive" based upon their own desire - not of government. Patrons should have the option to make the choice of either having commerce with them or not at the door.

Personally, I prefer restaurants without smoke, and if I drank, I'd prefer to drink at home in a non-smoking environment.

46 posted on 02/14/2005 6:45:08 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: usgator

But look at it from the opposite way........we are talking about passing laws to prevent this kind of stuff.......if they pass a law to prevent an employer from not hiring someone who smokes, that leaves the door open to force employers to hire people they don't wish.

I don't like the idea of hiring/firing based upon what legal activities one engages in on their own time any more than you do. But I dislike government intrusion even more.


47 posted on 02/14/2005 6:47:14 AM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Who would ever believe someone would smoke so much and be so lazy that they never would wash their windows! If it were up to me, I WOULD NOT rent to smokers (mainly because it is more costly) but my husband is in charge of all of our rental properties because I don't like to get involved. As for you not wanting to rent from a non-smoker, who are you kidding? I suppose you interview your potential landlord and ask if they smoke and if they say "no," then you say "oh, I can't rent from you." Right.


48 posted on 02/14/2005 6:50:22 AM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CONSERVE

You are right and we did mention it to our server but she said they allow it so basically "too bad." We will not go there again. I do not want to eat in establishments where one must go through a de-toxification process afterward. We have several places we will not patronize. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio and Ohio has one of the largest smoking populations in the U.S.


49 posted on 02/14/2005 6:52:22 AM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Quite correct.

Why doesn't someone open a "smokers-only" restaurant or bar?

The free publicity would be sure to make it a goldmine.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble or enjoy tobacco products, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
50 posted on 02/14/2005 6:53:48 AM PST by LowInMo (Pray for Dow Jones and the Nasdaqi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
But I dislike government intrusion even more.

I agree. Unfortunately, this does allow companies to choose who they "don't like" based upon factors not related to the job or whether or not they can perform the duties required.

That's called discrimination in the workplace.

I don't like gov't intrusion either, but sometimes it is for a good reason.

51 posted on 02/14/2005 6:56:13 AM PST by usgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: shekkian; SheLion; Gabz
"As a non-smoker, this has little bearing on me, personally."

If you think that then you don't understand what this is all about.

It's not about smoking and health any more than seat belt laws were about safety.
It's about control .

Sit down and list the freedoms you have lost in the last thirty years, and you'll have an idea of the agenda.
THIS may not effect you, but the ones coming surely will.

52 posted on 02/14/2005 6:57:07 AM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy

BUMP!
For comments later.


53 posted on 02/14/2005 6:57:42 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Sounds to me like you have more than one problem.


54 posted on 02/14/2005 7:01:55 AM PST by LowInMo (Pray for Dow Jones and the Nasdaqi's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TexasCowboy
It's not about smoking and health any more than seat belt laws were about safety. It's about control.

What does seat belt laws have to do with this? Do you have something morally against them?

I always wear mine, and I live in NH, where there are no seat belt laws.

55 posted on 02/14/2005 7:04:16 AM PST by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: usgator
Private employers SHOULD have the right to employ whoever they want. But, under current federal law, it is illegal to fire a woman for becoming pregnant. Also, many states have laws that prohibit discrimination in employment based on weight and sexual orientation. I do not believe that athletes are a protected class, so I suppose they could legally be fired for that reason.
56 posted on 02/14/2005 7:05:47 AM PST by wmichgrad ("The man is insane. He has lost his mind" Rush Limbaugh 1/28/05 re: Sen. Kennedy's remarks on Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise
Ohio has one of the largest smoking populations in the U.S.

I live in Ohio and smoke and I will not go to a restaurant where I cannot smoke.Thereby we have both sides represented here and I firmly believe that it should be up to the business owner and not the govt to decide what said owner does with regards to their private property. Let the market decide the fate of the business if nonsmoking facilities were making more money than smoking facilities then there would be more of them.

57 posted on 02/14/2005 7:07:56 AM PST by CONSERVE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
Thanks, Meek!  Happy Valentine Day to you too!!!!
58 posted on 02/14/2005 7:08:18 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: shekkian
It's not the idea of wearing or not wearing.
I wear mine, also, because I've gotten used to it, but I don't like any governmental agency telling me I MUST do something in my own vehicle.
This is an invasion of my personal property rights.
59 posted on 02/14/2005 7:08:44 AM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise
When I saw your post, I thought, "oh no, YOU again." As for mind over matter, I don't have to see the smoke, it's just that my windpipe will start closing. Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't valid. As for the stinky part of it, that's the truly sad thing about smokers, they don't realize how gross they smell and how gross they make us smell. I had two smoking parents and their home became yellowed. We've had tenants who smoke and I've seen windows covered with 1/8 inch thickness of tar. If it's covering the windows, what do you think it's doing to your lungs? Just wait til you get COPD or something like that. It's NOT just lung cancer that can ruin your life.

Me again??  I've been registered with FRee Republic a lot longer then YOU!

I'm sorry you hate smokers so much.  So why do you hang around them?  I am sure there are plenty of places for you to go where you don't even have to SEE a smoker.  Get real.

60 posted on 02/14/2005 7:11:50 AM PST by SheLion (God bless our military members and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-226 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson