Smoking

[FoolKiller]

It's not that an employer shouldn't have to right to set their pay level at whatever they want, it's that workers should have the right to a fair wage.

If an employer and an employee agree that $1 an hour is fair, then it is a fair wage. If they do not agree then only if done by force can the employee claim it is unfair, but then that is slavery.

Perhaps to some extent, but my central point is that the property rights of business owners are not the only rights issue at play, contrary to what you and FK seem to be suggesting. Other considerations include ethical issues, issues of public safety, employees rights, property rights of employees versus property rights of employers, not to mention what serves the greater good. My point is that although property rights of business owners are a consideration, they simply do not trump every other issue simply because you or anyone else thinks that property rights of business owners are more important.

What is the employee's right again? The job is there by voluntary consent. They do not have a right to any job. They must agree to the working conditions in order to even take the job. If working conditions change and they are properly informed then they must again consent. Employers changing conditions of the workplace is no different than employees changing the conditions, pay, and benefits required for them to continue working.

It is similar with the public safety argument. A person is only a customer by voluntary consent. If they do not like the conditions, price, or quality of service/product they do not have to consent. They are not guaranteed that service by any right, only by their own choice.

They are granted these things by law, but it is that law I am arguing against, since you cannot grant these legal rights without removing the earned rights of others. Taking away a right earned by someone's own mind and body (business owner) in order to grant a right to someone who can otherwise only obtain that by voluntary consent is wrong. That can only be done by force of law or at the point of a gun, which are really the same thing.

In the case of employers, they also bear some responsibility if they fail to take adequate measures to protect or alert their staff to the health risks involved in occupying their premises.

Correct, as this must be done to maintain the voluntary consent agreement required for employment.

Employees have a right to expect safe working conditions.

Employees have a right to expect agreed upon work conditions, or to dissolve their work agreement due to changes on the employer's end.

Passive smoking is just one example, and perhaps one of the simplest to address - indeed most workplaces voluntarily banned smoking well before bans became the law in the UK.

How does the fact that some chose to do so voluntarily have any bearing on others being forced to do so?

and now that bans have had some time to take effect, studies are coming out that address the issue of whether smoking bans are having a positive effect on health, hence providing ethical/moral justification for their existence.

So the removal of rights is ethical/moral, in any way whatsoever? I strongly disagree.

As such, smoking bans in the workplace are likely to achieve a positive effect without any a priori knowledge or agreements made in advance from either employer or employee.

The removal of that agreement (voluntary consent) is the issue I have, as it requires someone to have their free will violated.

 

[Danoff]

We sell ourselves for what we deem fair (unless it's below a certain threshold - then it's taken out of our hands ) and exchange our recompense for property...

The only real, logical thing to do in the case of premises upon which one may experience environmental hazards which are accessible by the public is for the property owner to put signs up at the entrances (as publicly-owned sites are compelled to, even when not accessible by the public) alerting those who enter to the hazard so that they may make an informed choice as to whether they enter or not. In the case of such places who employ others, it should be written into a contract that employees may be exposed to such hazards and agree to this before they start work.

This respects property rights, the right to choose, the responsibilities of employers and the ability of employees to take legal action if exposed to environmental hazards they aren't contracted to.

👍👍

Although I agree that this approach is generally sensible, it doesn't detract from the fact that workplace smoking bans are more likely than not to have a net positive effect on the health of staff, whether they are aware of the risks posed to their health by passive smoking or not. As such, smoking bans in the workplace are likely to achieve a positive effect without any a priori knowledge or agreements made in advance from either employer or employee.

This would only be useful information if we allow ourselves to violate human rights - which we must not.

 

[Sureboss]

I tell you the daftest thing about our minimum wage. It equates to about 12k per year, they are saying that is the minimum you can live on, yet your tax threshold finishes at just over 6k. Well done, that's logical.

 

[Keef]

Business owners still have an ethical duty to behave responsibly and ensure the safety of their staff, as well as their customers. The rights of business owners do not "trump" the rights of their staff. In any case, this issue cannot simply be decided by consideration of the rights of business owners alone. If this argument has shown us anything at all, it is that there is more to it than that. Suffice it to say, if you're intent on describing this issue as solely one about the rights of business owners, then we're not going to get any further than this I'm afraid.

In a capitalist society, business owners will behave responsibly, ensure the safety of their staff, and do the same for their customers. They must do that in order to make money. If they compromise any of those things their business model is also compromised, severely. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to put those actions into law. None whatsoever. Those expectations are already being met, and must be met by the business owner if they want to make money. By nature, people do not like to work where they are not safe or appropriately compensated, customers refuse to shop where they are not respected and satisfied, and business owners who fail to meet those natural needs, to act as a responsible business owner, fail to stay in business.

So I'll say again, the duties listed in these laws are already being met by default. It's the essence of capitalism. The laws are a waste of time and money.

 

[Touring Mars]

What is the employee's right again?

So the removal of rights is ethical/moral, in any way whatsoever? I strongly disagree.

This would only be useful information if we allow ourselves to violate human rights - which we must not.

I'll say this one last time - workers and non-smokers have rights too, and what we are talking about is an issue where there is a conflict of rights, and not simply an argument about the violation of employer's rights only. While the removal of rights per se may be fundamentally wrong, there are always going to be situations where a conflict exists. In such cases, favouring one over the other is always going to cause one side to claim that their rights are being violated. But favouring the fundamental property rights of employees and/or non-smokers over the property rights of employers or the rights of smokers can be justified morally and ethically, e.g. if it serves the greater good or if it safeguards the property rights of non-smokers (i.e their bodies). But continually framing the issue about smoking bans in the workplace as if it is simply about a violation of rights is only telling some of the story. Clearly, medical professionals who advised the UK government on the issue agree, hence why it is now the law and employers no longer have the legal right to permit smoking in the work place.

In a capitalist society, business owners will behave responsibly, ensure the safety of their staff, and do the same for their customers. They must do that in order to make money. If they compromise any of those things their business model is also compromised, severely. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to put those actions into law. None whatsoever. Those expectations are already being met, and must be met by the business owner if they want to make money. By nature, people do not like to work where they are not safe or appropriately compensated, customers refuse to shop where they are not respected and satisfied, and business owners who fail to meet those natural needs, to act as a responsible business owner, fail to stay in business.

At any given time, the real economy consists of a wide spectrum of businesses, from those on the brink of failure to those making collosal profits. You clearly acknowledge that failing and non-ideal businesses exist, and it is these types of businesses - where employers may not give a rat's ass about the wellbeing of their staff, and where staff may have few other options but to work in places like these - that the law is designed to protect.

But I fail to see how laws banning smoking are "a waste of time and money" when there is already evidence that businesses are benefiting economically through increased business, decreased absenteeism, better health and productivity of staff etc. Indeed, the fact that most businesses voluntarily enforced smoking bans anyway is strong evidence that smoking bans are good for business! In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, a complete ban on smoking in the workplace is considered much more effective than a partial ban, both in terms of direct health impact and cost-effectiveness. Also, once established, the costs of implementing a ban would be gradually compensated by the benefits over time. Even in sectors where the smoking ban was feared the most - in the hospitality industry - there is little evidence to suggest that business has suffered in the long term. Contrary to the popular myth, smokers didn't stop drinking or eating out when smoking was banned in hotels, pubs and restaurants.

 

[Keef]

I take those beneficial reports with a grain of salt. In my area where smoking has been banned in restaurants (and work places) there are just as many reports of business slowing, especially at hole-in-the-wall places where people go to relax. People don't stay as long, they don't buy as much alcohol, and apparently that's enough for some owners to call up the radio and complain about it all the time. I'm gonna call this one 50/50.

 

[Famine]

I'll say this one last time - workers and non-smokers have rights too, and what we are talking about is an issue where there is a conflict of rights, and not simply an argument about the violation of employer's rights only.

But what rights do the workers and non-smokers have that are conflicting?

The right to clean air? We don't have it - you and I live and have lived in cities where there is measurable pollution shown to shorten lifespans by as much as an actual smoking habit. In fact the gap in life expectancies between the best - rural Didcot - and the worst - Middlehaven dockside in Middlesbrough - is 30 years and a BUPA report puts the average life expectancy of habitual smokers at 10 years less than non-smokers. While pollution alone doesn't account for that gap and many people in areas such as Middlehaven smoke as well, it is little coincidence that towns and cities with heavy industries and considerable environmental outflow have significantly shorter life expectancies.

The right to a safe working environment? Well... we don't have that either. We have whatever work environment we have contracts for and we sign those in full knowledge of what they mean - informed choice. Neither employer nor employee may change that contract unilaterally - guaranteeing the employee the conditions he signed up for or the ability to claim compensation through an employment tribunal if the employer doesn't provide them.


Ultimately, there isn't a rights conflict. No-one's rights are impinged by allowing smoking on private premises - even publicly accessible ones. Someone's rights are impinged by banning it.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ultimately, there isn't a rights conflict. No-one's rights are impinged by allowing smoking on private premises - even publicly accessible ones. Someone's rights are impinged by banning it.

It depends on what is considered as a right in the eyes of the law. There are plenty of examples where people can find themselves on privately owned property - in private hospitals, day care centres, nurseries, nursing homes, schools etc. - but may have had little or no choice in the matter themselves (children, the elderly, invalids, the mentally ill, visiting family members etc.) and whose physical wellbeing may be directly affected by the decision of the business owner to permit smoking in their presence. That could easily be construed as an infringement of the rights of these particular people depending on what you classify as a right - e.g property rights of non-smokers (the right not to have their property (health/body) damaged by smokers). In this case, a simple consideration of the property rights of the business owner alone would neglect the property rights of those people who involuntarily but necessarily occupy their premises.

 

[Joey D]

Except those private properties can decided whether they want to allow smoking or not, if a private school allowed smoking in the classroom how well do you think that school would do? Or if the caretaker at a daycare or nursing home smoked around the kids or the elderly how many people would send their kids or parents there? Probably not many. If you leave it up to the business owner they will do whatever nets them the most amount of money and business.

 

[Touring Mars]

Of course, a basic grasp of free market economics helps most business owners make the correct decisions, but what of those who don't? Clearly, many do - hence why most businesses voluntarily banned smoking a long time ago - but just as many parents don't seem to grasp the harm their smoking is causing their own kids, many business owners don't know or don't care how their behaviour may affect those who are part of that business. My point was to demonstrate that the rights of business owners are not the only consideration.

 

[Bram Turismo]

For all I know, I'm glad we have a smoking ban nearly everywhere around here. Dad managed to quit smoking, and even though he is becoming 48 very soon, he is healthier than ever. Our house doesn't stink anymore, and pretty much everyone in the house is now living in a healthier environment.

I now can enjoy a restaurant, or a beer without the disgusting smell of a sigarette, and I'm also rid of the pain in my nose and throat whenever the smoke hits me. I was not able to get everything we are discussing seeing this thread is 31 pages long, but are we discussing whether employees have the right to force a smoke ban upon their bosses?

 

[Famine]

My point was to demonstrate that the rights of business owners are not the only consideration.

But they are when they are the only rights in the frame, and require breaking for any reason...

Of course, a basic grasp of free market economics helps most business owners make the correct decisions, but what of those who don't? Clearly, many do - hence why most businesses voluntarily banned smoking a long time ago - but just as many parents don't seem to grasp the harm their smoking is causing their own kids, many business owners don't know or don't care how their behaviour may affect those who are part of that business.

Here you raise an interesting question - if business owners cannot be permitted to allow the wholly legal activity of smoking on their premises (for a lower bound of 0.002% of the workforce's benefit), why is there no similar push to deny homeowners the right to smoke in their own house if there are also children resident at the address, given the at-least tens of thousands of children growing up with the special type of moron who think a permanent fug isn't a hindrance to their child's physical and mental development?

I mean, the health benefits are really very obvious indeed and the children genuinely don't have a choice in the matter (as opposed to employees and customers who do) - and the numbers make for even more compelling reading than just 12,000 people benefitting each year. And all you'd have to trample on is property rights of home owners...

 

[Touring Mars]

But they are when they are the only rights in the frame, and require breaking for any reason...

I disagree for the simple reasons that I don't consider business owner's property rights as the only rights in the frame, and even if they were, there are considerations other than, but of atleast equal importance to, respecting the property rights of business owners.

Here you raise an interesting question - if business owners cannot be permitted to allow the wholly legal activity of smoking on their premises (for a lower bound of 0.002% of the workforce's benefit), why is there no similar push to deny homeowners the right to smoke in their own house if there are also children resident at the address, given the at-least tens of thousands of children growing up with the special type of moron who think a permanent fug isn't a hindrance to their child's physical and mental development?

I mean, the health benefits are really very obvious indeed and the children genuinely don't have a choice in the matter (as opposed to employees and customers who do) - and the numbers make for even more compelling reading than just 12,000 people benefitting each year. And all you'd have to trample on is property rights of home owners...

It's a good question. There are compelling moral and ethical arguments against allowing parents to expose their own children to their secondhand smoke in the home, but these arguments are set against the rights of the parents as homeowners. However, in my opinion, just because a homeowner may have a right to partake in a legal activity in their own home, it doesn't make it morally or ethically justified if the consequences of that activity are highly negative i.e. results in serious illness or premature death of their child. In deciding what, if any, legislation could be used to address this problem, both things - the rights of private homeowners and the rights of children to live in a smokefree environment need to be considered (and not just the former).

Incidentally, I don't agree with the idea that smoking bans in workplaces only benefit a small percentage of people, however - presumably you are basing your figures on the estimated number of preventable deaths due to secondhand smoke related illnesses? Smoking bans benefit everyone, even (and some argue especially) smokers themselves, so it's hard to put a lower limit on the potential health benefits in this way...

but are we discussing whether employees have the right to force a smoke ban upon their bosses?

It's more like "Smoking bans in workplaces should be up to business owners, and not anybody else. Discuss."

 

[FoolKiller]

I'll say this one last time - workers and non-smokers have rights too,

And I will ask this again (but obviously not the last time), what rights do workers and non-smokers have when they go on private property of their own free will?

At most I will concede that a sign on the outside of the entrance that states smoking is allowed to occur within, giving potential employees and patrons the appropriate information necessary to make an informed decision, can be requested, although the lack of a "no smoking" sign has done the same job for years.

if it serves the greater good

Acceptance of the "greater good" defense has done more harm to individual liberties than anything else.

 

[Famine]

I disagree for the simple reasons that I don't consider business owner's property rights as the only rights in the frame

You'd have to show that anyone else's rights are involved. Given that we don't have a right to clean air or to expect a workplace free of any hazards, I can't see that they are.

and even if they were, there are considerations other than, but of atleast equal importance to, respecting the property rights of business owners.

There are no considerations equal to rights.

It's a good question. There are compelling moral and ethical arguments against allowing parents to expose their own children to their secondhand smoke in the home, but these arguments are set against the rights of the parents as homeowners. However, in my opinion, just because a homeowner may have a right to partake in a legal activity in their own home, it doesn't make it morally or ethically justified if the consequences of that activity are highly negative i.e. results in serious illness or premature death of their child. In deciding what, if any, legislation could be used to address this problem, both things - the rights of private homeowners and the rights of children to live in a smokefree environment need to be considered (and not just the former).

It's completely inconsequential (and there is no right to clean air). The very limit of governmental involvement would be if the parents' activities could be considered as child abuse/neglect. They have no place to reach into my home and say I can't do inside what I can on my doorstep.

And yet because kids have no say in where they live it's actually slightly more compelling than banning smoking in places where adults choose to go. But still appalling to even consider it.

Incidentally, I don't agree with the idea that smoking bans in workplaces only benefit a small percentage of people, however - presumably you are basing your figures on the estimated number of preventable deaths due to secondhand smoke related illnesses? Smoking bans benefit everyone, even (and some argue especially) smokers themselves, so it's hard to put a lower limit on the potential health benefits in this way...

For that to be the case you'd have to show there that smoking isn't beneficial...

Before you fall over, we can agree that smoking tar cigarettes shortens your lifespan and increases your risk of certain disorders - but everyone knows that and yet smokers continue anyway. So the question is why they smoke at all - and the answer would be that they're probably addicted but have little compulsion to quit because they perceive a benefit from the activity. After all, who'd continue after the very first instance of any drug administration if they didn't think, for some reason, it gave them a benefit knowing that it's going to cost them a crapload of cash and they might end up with a dependency? An absolute pillock, that's who.

So it may be beneficial to their lifespan (and final months thereof) not to smoke, but it's probably beneficial to their life (even if they only think it is) to smoke. And hell, if they enjoy it and don't want to quit, why would it benefit them to stop?

And we aren't addressing no-tar and herbal (not that kind!) cigarettes which don't have any particular health drawbacks of which I'm aware even to the primary user, yet are also banned...

 

[Touring Mars]

There are no considerations equal to rights.

Supposing this is true, it becomes extremely important to ascertain what truly are rights and what bestows any right the privileged position of being unalienable. I'd argue that many people assume that certain specific rights exist that may actually not exist - like the specific right of business owners to permit smoking. Just as there may be no specific right of human beings to breathe clean air, there are no specific rights that permit people to smoke either, and none that specifically permit business owners to bestow such a right on others. Simply put, business owner's property rights do not extend to allowing others on their premises to do whatever that business owner sees fit. There is now a law which recognises my specific right to a smokefree workplace. This right is easily as important as any assumed or claimed right of smokers to smoke, or my employer's claimed right to permit smoking in my presence while I'm at work. Perhaps my newly established right doesn't "trump" the rights of others, but at the very least it brings my legal rights into conflict with their claimed rights.

In my view atleast, many things that are considered or described as "rights" are not absolutes (and therefore unchallengable), but that many so-called "rights" have arisen through our need/desire for a just society. It is a hefty assumption of those who champion the "rights" of business owners that these rights are superior to or more valid than any other consideration, simply because they believe them to be unalienable rights.

 

[Danoff]

workers and non-smokers have rights too, and what we are talking about is an issue where there is a conflict of rights, and not simply an argument about the violation of employer's rights only.

I don't see a conflict here. If employees did not have a right to subject themselves to a risky job - we would have to eliminate a good number of jobs that involve health risks or health deterioration. But note how I phrased that - that employees have a right to sign up for a risky position.

The fact that logging, fishing, and truck driving still exist as professions speaks to the fact that employees do indeed have the right to sign up for risky employment if they decide to do so (presumably because they are being compensated). I believe that when I signed up for work at my particular place of employment, I had to sign a waiver that demonstrated that I knew that asbestos had been used in the construction of the buildlings I was to be working in. I signed anyway. I weighed the asbestos risk against the desirability of the job and made my own decision. I did not need the government making the decision for me.

So in fact, what we're talking about is banning a voluntary transaction. That's not an infringement of rights on one side in favor of the other - that's an infringement of rights on BOTH sides. The employer no longer has the option of offering a job that subjects employees to minor health risks, and the employee no longer has the option of signing up for the job. Both sides are harmed.

...and before you say "who in their right mind would WANT a job where they were subjected to second-hand smoke", I would suggest you consider employees who enjoy smoking.

You also touch on an always-touchy subject - children. Somehow it's always "for the children". The problem is that children don't have a full complement of rights - parents must make decisions about medical risks for their children. This absolutely HAS to be the case. The state cannot make the necessary medical choices for the child - to do so not only requires state-sponsored health care, but it also requires a state employee to be intimately familiar with that child.

However, subjecting a child to substantial harm is clearly not within the bounds of parental responsibility. So if it can be shown that second-hand smoke exposure is significantly harming the child (and this would be in the home where long term exposure was possible, not at a bar), then I would agree that there is a rights conflict and it would be permissible to force parents to limit their exposure of their children to second-hand smoke (elimination of exposure is not possible). This assumes that a level second-hand smoke exposure constitutes child abuse - which needs to be established. But I do not think it is impossible to establish.

Note that I do not advocate making smoking illegal to protect the children, I advocate forcing parents not to expose their children to second-hand smoke long term. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that the child is safe - so this would not remove rights or change roles on anyone's part. It certainly doesn't require an outright ban of a completely consensual agreement between two informed adults.

I'd argue that many people assume that certain specific rights exist that may actually not exist - like the specific right of business owners to permit smoking.

People have the right not to have force used against them unless in the protection of other rights. That is the first and most fundamental of all human rights. This discussion falls into that category.

 

[Famine]

Supposing this is true, it becomes extremely important to ascertain what truly are rights and what bestows any right the privileged position of being unalienable.

This much is true. It's also important to distinguish what is a right from what is legal - the two often do not mesh. What is legal may not be a right and what is a right may not be legal.

I'd argue that many people assume that certain specific rights exist that may actually not exist - like the specific right of business owners to permit smoking. Just as there may be no specific right of human beings to breathe clean air, there are no specific rights that permit people to smoke either, and none that specifically permit business owners to bestow such a right on others. Simply put, business owner's property rights do not extend to allowing others on their premises to do whatever that business owner sees fit.

And that's fine - but remember that in this case "whatever the business owner sees fit" isn't something that is actually illegal and at no point comes into conflict with other rights. If the activity were illegal in public and/or involved a conflict with other rights, I wouldn't oppose it.

So the only way to implement it is to ignore that the practice is legal and the property owner's right to property.

There is now a law which recognises my specific right to a smokefree workplace. This right is easily as important as any assumed or claimed right of smokers to smoke, or my employer's claimed right to permit smoking in my presence while I'm at work. Perhaps my newly established right doesn't "trump" the rights of others, but at the very least it brings my legal rights into conflict with their claimed rights.

Again, this is where the importance of distinguishing legality from morality comes in.

The law could recognise your specific right to torture French people. That wouldn't generate a right to torture French people because, simply put, that's not a right - but it's still legal. You could still argue that it is and that it's easily as important as any assumed or claimed right of French people to exist, and it brings your rights into conflict with theirs, but it's still not a right even though it's legal.

In my view atleast, many things that are considered or described as "rights" are not absolutes (and therefore unchallengable), but that many so-called "rights" have arisen through our need/desire for a just society. It is a hefty assumption of those who champion the "rights" of business owners that these rights are superior to or more valid than any other consideration, simply because they believe them to be unalienable rights.

It's not a case of championing the rights of business owners. It's a case of defending rights, regardless of whose they are.

Smoking doesn't interest me. I don't do it and never have. I don't own a business or employ anyone. But I can still recognise a violation of rights and an extraordinarily dangerous legal precedent when I see one, even if I'm a disinterested party. And it's important beyond words to defend the rights of others when we have no iron in that particular fire. When it becomes necessary to defend our rights who will fight for us if we didn't fight for them?

 

[Keef]

It depends on what is considered as a right in the eyes of the law. There are plenty of examples where people can find themselves on privately owned property - in private hospitals, day care centres, nurseries, nursing homes, schools etc. - but may have had little or no choice in the matter themselves (children, the elderly, invalids, the mentally ill, visiting family members etc.) and whose physical wellbeing may be directly affected by the decision of the business owner to permit smoking in their presence. That could easily be construed as an infringement of the rights of these particular people depending on what you classify as a right - e.g property rights of non-smokers (the right not to have their property (health/body) damaged by smokers). In this case, a simple consideration of the property rights of the business owner alone would neglect the property rights of those people who involuntarily but necessarily occupy their premises.

Hospitals are private, yes, and it should be up to them to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. That decision is probably pretty logical in most situations because smoking is of course bad for your health, which is what a hospital is trying to protect in the first place. That goes for nurseries, old-people homes, etc.

Public schools are not privately owned, they are government entities. Therefore the government can go ahead and regulate smoking all they want, because in effect it is their private property, instead of a citizen's private property. On the other hand, private schools are privately owned and run, and the rules should be decided by the people who own it. Similar to hospitals, the decision is probably pretty logical. If they manage to screw that up, they can expect nobody to go to school there, and to be out of business.

I don't understand what you're saying about property rights of the person who doesn't own the business. That makes no sense. If a person doesn't want to be around smoke they can choose not to go there. If they do go there they have no legitimate reason to complain because, effectively, they infringed on their own right, purposefully. I can't say I understand children's rights very well, but I do know that they don't have many, and most of their decisions are their parent's responsibility. If the parent doesn't want that kid going to a school or hospital where smoking is allowed, then there is no problem with not going there. Nobody is forcing them to go anywhere.

But like I said earlier, you can be sure that any business owner, whether it's a hospital or a bar, will do all they can to satisfy their customer's needs. There is no reason to force a smoking ban. As a matter of fact, I think the only reason to enforce a smoking ban is so the government can slowly chip away at the public's tolerance, to the point where they simply don't care about their rights anymore, as has happened in England, Australia, and places like that. I mean no offense to you personally, but that truly is my observation from what I see and here from those countries.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Except those private properties can decided whether they want to allow smoking or not, if a private school allowed smoking in the classroom how well do you think that school would do? Or if the caretaker at a daycare or nursing home smoked around the kids or the elderly how many people would send their kids or parents there? Probably not many. If you leave it up to the business owner they will do whatever nets them the most amount of money and business.

Actually I have to say, I don't think private schools usually have many kids (for very long) that can legally smoke.
Now, if college is an acceptable substitute, I don't think it would change much. Non-smokers would complain...and go elsewhere, if they deemed it bad enough, wouldn't they?

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually I have to say, I don't think private schools usually have many kids (for very long) that can legally smoke.

Teachers can.

 

[Sureboss]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8127854.stm

Could be interesting, difficult to enforce, surely?

----

Lost a pack yesterday, had 7 fags in it and another mild smoking rant, this heat is eating up my lighter fluid.👎

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This is a bit of grave digging, but as TM has it listed in the index I won't start a new thread.

The US Congress just passed a new law, still to be signed by President Obama, that makes sweeping changes to tobacco regulation in the US. The President has said he intends to sign it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-11-tabacco-control-bill_N.htm?csp=34


I believe that Congress has made it official that they think we are too stupid to think for ourselves.

A warning half the size of the pack? Do they think people didn't see it before now? Do they think that people will go to get cigarettes now and go, "OH MY GOD!!!!! These things can kill you!" And I don't know about you guys, but even here in tobacco central, Kentucky, I do not know anyone that actually thinks light or low tar means less cancer.

And here comes the ban on flavored cigarettes

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday officially banned cigarettes with candy, fruit or clove flavors, its first action since taking over responsibility for regulating the tobacco industry.

The FDA said the ban is aimed at reducing the appeal for smoking for children and cutting smoking rates in the country.

Dosal Tobacco Corp., which is based in Opa-Locka and has distribution centers in Clearwater and Lakeland, does not make cigarettes with candy, fruit or clove flavors. But the FDA said it is also “examining options” for regulating menthol cigarettes, which Dosal does manufacture.

Menthol cigarettes are a key category for Lorillard Inc. (NYSE: LO), based in Greensboro, N.C. Its flagship Newport brand is the top selling menthol cigarette and second-largest selling overall cigarette in the country. According to Lorillard’s second-quarter results, released in July, Newport owned about a 35 percent share of the menthol market and 10 percent share of the overall cigarette market.

Both Reynolds American Inc. (NYSE: RAI) and Lorillard have joined a lawsuit that seeks to block several provisions of the law, passed this spring, that gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco. Neither Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds nor Lorillard — the Nos. 2 and 3 tobacco companies in the country, respectively — make cigarettes with candy, fruit or clove flavors.

 

[FoolKiller]

Thanks. I have a couple of questions here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday officially banned cigarettes with candy, fruit or clove flavors, its first action since taking over responsibility for regulating the tobacco industry.

Does this include clove cigarettes that are more than just flavored? I know people who only smoke those, unfortunately. None of them are kids.

The FDA said the ban is aimed at reducing the appeal for smoking for children and cutting smoking rates in the country.

Dosal Tobacco Corp., which is based in Opa-Locka and has distribution centers in Clearwater and Lakeland, does not make cigarettes with candy, fruit or clove flavors. But the FDA said it is also “examining options” for regulating menthol cigarettes, which Dosal does manufacture.

Reading this second paragrpah makes me think the reasoning in the first is pure BS. Do you know how many middle-aged, white women I know who smoke menthols all the time? I call one of them Mom and I can see two more from my desk right now. Menthol is not used to attract kids and the FDA (or whoever is calling their shots) knows it. It would effectively remove the ability to smoke at all for a large number of people who enjoy it, but only with menthol.

Let's keep tabs on thinsg being attacked, and or banned, in the name of the public good.

• Tobacco - taxed to hell, banned from certain privately owned establishments, and now bans of specific kinds.
• Trans-Fats - banned in certain regions and taxes suggested.
• Sodas - SF wants to fine stores that sell them.
• Free choice/informed consent - constantly restricted because the government thinks we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

 

[Joey D]

I think everyone I know who's ever tried Menthol cigarettes have all said they same thing...yuck...and they are all under the age of 25. I've tried them in the past and thought they were gross and I couldn't have been much older then 17 or 18.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Newports(menthol cigarettes) seemed to be pretty popular back in high school, but that was probably just a coincidence.

 

[FoolKiller]

Now everyone involved in smoking issues is paying attention to this case, as a woman sues her neighbor for smoking.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...s/stories/093009dnmetsmokingfeud.3ed620b.html

Dallas woman fuming over smoking neighbor at complex
09:22 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By SCOTT FARWELL / The Dallas Morning News

In an age when smoking has been outlawed in most public places – government buildings, bars and pool halls – a person's home is one of the few places you can puff in peace.

Cary Daniel and her mother Chris Daniel no longer live in the townhome, and said they need to wear respirators and goggles when they return to the townhome to retreive their belongings.
View larger More photos Photo store Until now.

A Dallas woman has filed a lawsuit seeking six figures from a former neighbor and landlord for damage she says was caused by cigarette smoke wafting through adjoining walls of her high-end townhome.

"Smoking is not a right, it's a privilege," said Chris Daniel, a retired nurse. "I'm sorry that people smoke. I think it's foolish, but when it comes into my house and hurts my health and my daughter's health and our belongings, it's a different issue."

The case is being watched by townhouse industry groups across the area.

A manager and attorney for Estancia Townhomes, a 52-building community near Prestonwood Country Club in North Dallas, said it's unlikely the Daniels sustained any smoke damage. There is a solid, two-hour fire wall from the foundation to the roof between each of the homes.

And even if some smell did seep through, the Daniels renewed their lease at Estancia – where smoking is permitted – six months after they say the problem began.

"Why do people file lawsuits?" asked Ginger Tye, an attorney representing the property managers and owners. "They're asking for money damages."

The next-door smoker, Rebecca Williams, declined comment.

Chris Daniel and her daughter, Cary, say in the lawsuit that a construction defect is allowing smoke to migrate between the units.

After a year of stinging eyes, breathing difficulty and sinus pain, they moved out of Estancia and into the Homewood Suites in Addison. Last week, movers wearing surgical masks loaded trucks with their belongings.

The Daniels said furniture will need to be reupholstered, artwork restored and closets full of clothing dry cleaned. The bills are still piling up.

"There's nothing in our home that was ready made. I picked out fabrics, everything was custom made and everything was spotless," said Chris Daniel.

"It's not like our worldly goods are the most important things in our life, but you know what? I don't expect them to be damaged."

Some multifamily communities have followed the lead of hotels and car-rental companies – designating nonsmoking rooms or buildings. The Glass House, a 21-story high-rise in Dallas' Uptown, markets itself as a smoke-free property.


Unfamiliar territory

Kathy Carlton, director of government affairs for the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas, said she's never heard of a case such as the one filed by the Daniels.

She said most people who are highly sensitive to cigarette smoke don't move into a community or a building where it's allowed.

"Generally, this stuff is the property owners' prerogative, and people either live by the rules or move on down the street," Carlton said.

"If you have a pet, you look for a place that takes pets. If you hate pets, you look for a place that doesn't allow them. People have choices."

The Daniels said the freedom to choose cuts both ways.

Yes, people may be entitled to smoke in their home – but others are equally entitled to live in a clean and healthy environment.

The right to swing your fist, they said, ends when it meets my nose.

"This lease says I have a right to a habitable place, this lease says I have a right to quiet enjoyment, this lease says I have a right to safe living," said Chris Daniel, referring to court documents.

"And I did have that ... until someone moved in who did not care about her neighbor."

The Daniels lived at Estancia for four years. Today, after a final walkthrough of their home with an attorney and managers, they will hand over the keys.

Nicole Lott, property director at Estancia, said it's been a long year of acrimony.

Managers replaced air filters repeatedly, installed sealant-type electrical plates and – at the Daniels' request – used an industrial-grade roofing sealant to caulk pipes under their kitchen cabinet.

When that didn't work, managers tried to negotiate a move for both tenants within the community.


Restraining order

Williams, the smoker, finally moved to another unit in June after a judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding her from lighting up in her home.

"We've done more for these people than we've ever done for anyone else," Lott said. "I don't think it's possible to satisfy them."

Chris Daniel also filed a complaint under the Texas Fair Housing Act, alleging that her sensitivity to cigarette smoke qualifies her for protection set aside for people with disabilities.

The complaint is being reviewed by Dallas' Fair Housing Office.

First Assistant City Attorney Chris Bowers said a garden-variety reaction to cigarette smoke – puffy eyes, runny nose, coughing – would probably not meet the standard set by the law, a severe limitation of a major life activity.

"Not just anybody will be able to say smoking has that effect, and that's one of the things our Fair Housing Office will investigate," he said.

"It's safe to say most people do not suffer the degree of impairment this person alleges from cigarette smoke."

Chris Daniel has been treated by an allergist and an internist, according to court records, and was prescribed two inhalers.

Dr. Barbara Stark Baxter, a clinical associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, wrote that Daniels "qualifies as disabled under the Texas Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Her attorney, John Clark V, said his clients were essentially driven from their home by cigarette smoke.

He illustrated the case this way:

"It was like living life in an ashtray you can never clean."

Now even smoking in your own home is being questioned. If this passes I guarantee that the next step will be a possible ban on smoking in mass residence buildings (apartments, etc) and then a house owner suing a neighbor that smokes in his/her own yard.

 

[Joey D]

Wow, I mean wow. If she is successful in her suit what is there to stop people from suing one another over playing music to loud, having a pet, cooking smelly food, etc. It's lame. When they moved into a residences complex they knew smoking was allowed and they had to know they might have to put up with it. Now I could see there being issues if the agreement they sign forbid smoking to begin with.

Seriously all this anti-smoking stuff makes me want to smoke more just to piss people like that off and point out the absurdity of all this.

 

[orimarc]

Smokin' kicks ass:



Smoking doesn't kick ass.

 

[Sureboss]

How plausible is it for smoke to pass through a 2-foot thick wall? Even if it is defected. I know in heavy smokers houses it's quite common for the walls/ceilings to be covered in the rubbish, etc, but to actually go through a 2-foot thick wall?

Can I smell someone looking for money?

Also like the quote on how it makes her qualify for disability protection. Pardon? People who don't like smoke are protected by law, that's the whole point of the smoking ban. Though I think it differs between here and across the pond, it can't be that different. Here, the main focal point is that everyone has a right to work in a smoke-free environment.