Smoking in the workplace

GrandForksHarald.com ^ | 2-10-05 | Mike Troy

[SheLion]

HALLOCK, Minn. - 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.

[Gabz]

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

And that is the way it should be. The government should not FORCE you to wear one........just like the government should not FORCE a private business to ban smoking. Seat belt laws force you to do something you may not want to do on your private property. Smoking bans force a business owner to something he may not want to do on his.

Most, but not all, of my friends that own bars and/or restauarants or any other type of business, are smokers themselves, and they are no longer permitted to do so within their privately owned property.

[shekkian]

Would you object if I started a smoker's only airline? Can you garuntee that you will be alive a few years from now?

No and no.

If you want to start Phillip Morris Airlines, that's perfectly fine. I love capitalism. I'll stick to Delta/American/whatever else takes me wherever.

Sure, I might die in a car accident, or some other cause. So might you. In the meantime I'll continue being healthy and energetic.

[Gabz]

They brought in 2 younger guys, to oversee my department, who told me their first week that I was being let go because I was over 40.

As much as I hate the litigious nature our society has taken on, I am glad you are suing them. Age is a protected "class" when it comes to discrimination, and you have every right to seek redress. I wish you all the luck in the world.

Now I can truly understand where you are coming from on this issue.

Had I known 20 years ago even 1/2 of what I know now, I would have been the proud owner of a radio station - or at least a large sum of money from it. But alas, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it.

[Drammach]

Thanks for the positive feedback..

Many people do not realize how thouroughly Socialists have infiltrated american society and polluted our political and social structure..

Remember, the Green Party was created by the Soviet KGB... specifically to undermine democracy and republicanism...
It has worked well in Europe.. and "creeping socialism" alive and well in the U.S.A..

[CSM]

In that case, why did you even bother posting on this thread? Just to call smokers (martyrs) names and feel self righteous (I'm so much healthier than you)?

[Gabz]

If you want to start Phillip Morris Airlines, that's perfectly fine. I love capitalism. I'll stick to Delta/American/whatever else takes me wherever.

Unfortunately smoking bans have taken away the option of starting a smoker's only airline, and in many places taken away the option of smoker's only "name the business."

You may love capitalism, but smoking bans are actually anti-capitalism.

[usgator]

Are you really posting on your first day as part of this board in favor of government confiscation of the use of private property, and against a private employer being able to chose who to hire/fire? Why did you join FR?

I undestand what you are saying. My point was that, as a smoker, I had no problem with the banning of smoke in public places.

I DO however have a problem with employer's firing me if I choose to smoke at home on my own time.

This is NOT a contradiction. One affects other's right not to have to breathe my smoke ... the other is my right to do any legal thing I want on my OWN time without being fired.

[usgator]

Now I can truly understand where you are coming from on this issue.

Thanks. I am trying to see both sides, which is hard to do without sounding like a total hypocrit.

[Mears]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can still smoke in England,can't you? I'm not talking about bars but little,privately owned cafes.

I like to smoke with my breakfast coffee and the last time I was there you could do that. Is it still allowed?

[Garnet Dawn]

Lady, your reactions are psychosomatic. Studies have proven, to the dismay of the Antis, that smoking does not affect asma. React however you please, if you didn't like the smoke, you shouldn't have gone to the Pizza place. Smokers don't have to be the only ones inconvenienced by issues special interest groups initiated. Give me a break, smoke doesn't smell that strong. If you want to wash your clothes and take a shower, good for you, but don't blame it on smoke.

[Garnet Dawn]

If you don't like the forum topics She Lion submits, why do you read them? She is doing an excellent job of sharing the prosmoking viewpoint. Maybe you better not read topics with which you don't agree....it might trigger your asthma. Have you ever considered that you may not smell that good to smokers? Also, if you rent to the kind of tenants that allow 1/8' inch of any kind of residue to build up on their windows, then you have a serious problem with the caliber of your tenants and the quality of your rental units. Anyone who takes pride in their residence would not allow that kind of filth to exist.

______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

[CSM]

"I undestand what you are saying. My point was that, as a smoker, I had no problem with the banning of smoke in public places.

I DO however have a problem with employer's firing me if I choose to smoke at home on my own time.

This is NOT a contradiction. One affects other's right not to have to breathe my smoke ... the other is my right to do any legal thing I want on my OWN time without being fired."

---

Welcome to FR grasshoper. You have much to learn.

Now, in advance I will ask forgiveness for such a long post, but here ya go.

First off, no one is forced into a private establishment. And yes, until the government starts to compensate private business owners for the use (or lack of use) of their private property, then that property is still private. It is not a matter of harm to the smoker or to the non-smoker. In fact, the studies that are bantered about are not conclusive to any harm caused by ETS, but that is another part of the discussion.

Read this article: Harm's a Two Way Street by WW

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml

The bottom line is that the private property owner must be the decision maker regarding this subject. If a non-smoker does not like to enter that private property, they have the option of not entering. If they find after entering the property, then they can leave. If enough people leave and do not return, the market will cause the property owner to change his policy. In fact, the non-smoker that is not satisfied with the offerings of the market is free to risk his personal capitol and time to start a non-smoking establishment. If the market exists, it will thrive, if not his risk will not be rewarded.

What is happening today? Well, the government has specifically stated the market is no longer valid at driving risk takers into satisfying the market. Instead of the non-smoker (gnatzie) having the strength to go out and take the risk, they have turned to the government guns to force private property owners to cater to their desires. Keep in mind, this is based on their preferences and desire not to be offended by a smell.

Now, you may think the term "government guns" is an extreme statement. Well, let's look at the simple act of receiving a speeding ticket. If you fail to pay that ticket, then a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you refuse arrest and run from the police, they will then take you into custody by the barrell of a gun. The government has no way to enforce their laws without the barrell of a gun.

Therefore, smoking bans are nothing but a gnatzie's use of the government guns to ensure they are not forced to smell oders they find offensive. Regardless of the owner's smell preferences. As a result, the gnatzie's are effectively legislating private behaviour on private property against the wishes of the private property owner and his customers. A private agreement (contract) is no longer valid to enter into.

Now, let's take a look at the employer/employee relationship. You, as an employee, agree to work for a specified amount and you agree to receive that amount in real time. Every time you receive a paycheck your contract is completed and you chose to begin a new contract period. (unless you sign a long term contract, such as athletes)

If I want to hire only smokers, then I should be free to offer a private contract between consenting adults that reflects this. If a smoking employee decides to quit smoking, as an employer I should be able to fire them. In the same manner, if my employee wants to quit he is free to do so.

What will generally happen when the employer starts trying to control to much of your personal activity is that the cost he will need to pay for labor will rise. What will end up occuring is that for an employee to be willing to subject themselves to his requirements, their demand for benefits and compensation will go up, therefore the business owner will make himself less competitive in the market.

As a result, the business owner (fascist) is making choices that will kill his business and he will be forced to sell his property (business) to a more efficient employer.

If the opposit happens, and he finds employees willing to work for the same, or lower, wages than the rest in the market, well, he will become successful and a new business model will be born.

So, as you can see, the market is the best method to judge these business owner's choices. Not the government, not the gnatzies, not the smokers. The only decision maker should be the property owner and the only judge should be the market. Otherwise, we have given up our Republic.

I'll apologize for the length of this post and if it sounds disconnected. I am in a cc and I'm getting distracted every now and then......

[SheLion]

A very nice explanation, CSM! Thanks for posting this!

[Paved Paradise]

Since you are the one who referred to the smoker as "this kind of filth," on that I'll have to agree. As for the pizza place, had I known ahead of time how bad it was going to be, needless to say, I would have avoided that place.

I am always amazed at what possible good you smoker-rights people think you are doing. Are you making the world a better place? I think not. There is nothing to gain by smoking, nor is it a good habit or something to be emulated, desired, or coveted. It is what it is - a filthy addiction. While many people became addicted innocently when it was touted as a health benefit (e.g. my father-in-law was given free cigs during WWII and was told they were good for him), so many more begin smoking for reasons of pride, vanity or even rebellion (teens wanting to look older, be cool or do what they know is wrong). It is a sin and I cannot endorse nor condone such a thing. I can only tolerate it when it is forced upon me and I have no choice. My apologies if the truth is offensive to you.

[Paved Paradise]

If you are a smoker, I'm not sure your views are unbiased. As for the "smell" of smoke, which you seem to think is non-existent. When I used to come back home after a visit to my mother's (a smoker), my husband would always comment "I see you've been to your mom's house - I can smell the smoke." I always made sure I would wear my old clothes over there and stuff that didn't need to be dry-cleaned. As for you not being able to smell, perhaps you have serious problems with your olfactory senses. I have met many people who cannot smell strong odors. I used to work in a large research laboratory. About two years ago there was an incident with an experiment where two chemicals reacted and produced a very noxious and horrible odor and they evacuated the building. There were people who claimed they couldn't "smell a thing." Amazing. I guess you're like those people. It's your loss. As for trying to get personal with insults about my own personal smell, try and stick on the topic.

[SheLion]

As for trying to get personal with insults about my own personal smell, try and stick on the topic.

She most definitely was not handing out personal insults to you.  She was stating facts.  If you want to take the facts and twist them around as a personal assault, that's your business.

But the rest of us can see that she did not personally attack you.  If you don't agree with something someone says, then you are the one that turns it into a personal attack.

Why don't you move on.  You are not very popular on this thread.

Are you sure you are a Conservative?  Not a personal attack, but by the way you post, I do have the right to ask.

[Paved Paradise]

Whether you have been on FR longer than me isn't the issue. We are talking about smoking. I don't care if you decide to smoke. What I do care about is how you and others want to force it upon me, my children and so on. While I may avoid restaurants where you congregate, there are many places where you can freely smoke and ruin my day. It's obnoxious. Just once, I want to hear from an honest smoker who can say "hey, I enjoy it, but I know I'm causing other people some level of distress." That would be honest. I don't think you guys are really making the world a better place. I have never tried to outlaw anything - but if you were all polite, maybe there wouldn't be so many groups that are.

[CSM]

I suggest you read the article by Walter Williams that is linked in post #92. In addition, you should also reconsider your comment about smokers being polite. Clearly, your posts have been anything but polite and reactions to your posts have been well deserved.

Answer one question for me, how do smokers force the smoke upon you, your children and so on? Is there a band of smokers in your town that force you to house them in your home and give the rides in your car?

[SheLion]

Whether you have been on FR longer than me isn't the issue. 

You said "Oh no! Not you again."  Well, if you had paid attention you would have known that I am very active in the war on smokers for several years in Free Republic. I have no plans to go away.

We are talking about smoking. I don't care if you decide to smoke. What I do care about is how you and others want to force it upon me, my children and so on.

I don't know where you get the idea that we are trying to force anything on anyone.  There is plenty of room in the United States to accommodate everyone.  We are fighting to stop government intrusion into a private business that should decide along with the patrons to allow smoking or not allow smoking.  We are not forcing ourselves upon anyone.  But we do refuse to cower and plead for forgiveness for a habit that we have long enjoyed.  Smoking isn't for everyone, but those that don't smoke should not hammer us that do.  Smoking is a lot better then alcohol or prescription drugs.

 While I may avoid restaurants where you congregate, there are many places where you can freely smoke and ruin my day. 

Ruin your day.  Very interesting.  I feel that once I leave my house I am out there in the 'public.'  All kinds of people.  If there are people that I think will "ruin my day,"  I go elsewhere.  Just as easy as that.  The world doesn't rotate on my arze and I am still from the old school of live and let live.

It's obnoxious. 

To you.  Personal opinion.

Just once, I want to hear from an honest smoker who can say "hey, I enjoy it, but I know I'm causing other people some level of distress." That would be honest. I don't think you guys are really making the world a better place. I have never tried to outlaw anything - but if you were all polite, maybe there wouldn't be so many groups that are.

And if anti's like you were more polite, then we wouldn't have had to turn to nasty towards you.  We have non-smokers that come into the threads and we all get along just great.  But once someone starts that business of how we stink, you are opening yourself wide open to a barrage of hateful postings.  

Like I said:  we are not going to apologize, cower and sniffle because we are smokers.  We enjoy it and it's legal.  And private business's should be the ones to decide if they want smoking sections or not.  Not the government and not the anti's.

[Garnet Dawn]

Excellent post and explanation. You don't sound disconnected at all. I just read the link you provided and, for those who do not get around to clicking on links, I have done a copy/paste of your article. I hope more people will read it this way.

---

Harm's a two way street
Walter E. Williams (archive)

November 19, 2003

The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers, it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two way street.


If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.

There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.

Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.

The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.

The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.

Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.

In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty, and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency."