Replies

I meant to say that workers who do not smoke and do not like smoke should NOT be forced (by virture of working in the same area or building or whatever)to be exposed to the smoke that bothers them. Therefore, their rights should be met.

Thank you for your polite reply and efforts to advance the debate. My objection is that the workers are not "forced" to be there at all. They choose, each and every day to voluntarily go there. And every moment they are there is by their own volition as there is nothing preventing them from leaving. They choose to be there and perform certain activities in exchange for a paycheck.

Whether the owners of the company choose ban or require smoking in the workplace is their right and not that of those seeking employment for those seeking employment have the right of liberty. That is, they can choose to work under the conditions provided by that employer or not. Not happy with the conditions offered? Seek conditions to your liking elsewhere, or start your own enterprise and set your conditions.

By arguing that you as employee have a right to set contiditons where you work, you cede the right of private property. I believe that is the destruction of liberty.

In the private milleu, there are no "rights" per se. A business can impose pretty much any draconian rules it wants so long as those rules do not violate laws (such as working hours, safety and health, etc.) and they are imposed on all employees equally. I have heard of some companies that in fact don't allow employees to smoke, even when not on company time and/or property. Remember: the Constitution of the US only recognizes 2 entities: Government and Individuals. Businesses are not in play when talking about "rights." Many Americans are confused about this and are very quick to talk about "their rights!" What they mean is "it isn't fair." Well, the Constitution is silent on making life fair. If you don't like the rules, don't work for the company.