You stand in the air? How the fuck do you do that? Seriously.
Unless, of course, you’re not actually standing in the air but you’re standing on their land, in which case they can make you follow whatever fucking rules they want.
At my company, smokers have to pay around $200 more per year for health insurance. Technically they give a discount to the non-smokers but it’s the same thing.
Fire hazard?
To me it’s less about long term health than it is about the nasty stink that makes my allergies act up and I’m closer to annoyed than outraged.
So, if my feet are touching their property, they get to tell me what I can do wih my mouth? Under federal law, they do not control the air space over their land, so unless my cigarette is touching your land, I don’t see how real estate ownership enters into the debate, assuming I am outdoors.
Agreed. I didn’t mean to imply that all complaints about smelling smoke or being bothered by it were bunk–just the particularly mendacious claim that stranger’s second hand smoke was causing enough harm to warrant an affront. (Again, yes, second hand smoke in the home or in a bar or an office is one thing. I’m talking about walking past a smoker on a public bench or something similar.)
Would you say that you have a right to drink alcoholic beverages in their parking lot?
I am of the mind that if a company wants to ban the consumption of cigarettes, whiskey, high fructose corn syrup, peanuts, or shittake mushrooms on their property, they are within their rights to do so. That doesn’t make it a good idea for a company to exercise those powers in an arbitrary manner, but I don’t challenge their ability to do so.
What kind of demented logic is that? Are you new or something?
If your employer has a policy that you can’t go naked on the property, but you show up one day in your mountain boots and not a damn thing else, would you think you weren’t violating the rule because “only your feet are touching their property”, and those are in compliance? Do you think you’d be entitled to then go around urinating on other employees, because they can’t tell you what you can do with your penis?
I mean that’s seriously one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read on here. Obviously they can tell you whatever the fuck they want to tell you while on their property, regardless of the body parts involved.
[del]The fact that you are touching their land gives them the right to impose restrictions on you. If you don’t like it…get off their land.[/del]
ETA: Please show us your invention of the hovering cigarette that you don’t touch. You’ll make millions.
Mommy Bloomberg banned smoking in parks and beaches in NYC, which makes sense in the summer because they are so crowded but in winter it’s going to seem rather stupid.
If we weren’t so addicted to the tax revenue I’d advocate just banning the damn weed already.
I’m a smoker and I’m very polite about it and carefully observe non-smoking areas, but banning it outdoors is ridiculous. PNC Park used to have a cruddy little smoking area from which you couldn’t even see the field. I don’t mind reasonable restrictions on where I can smoke, but cripes, the entire baseball park is outdoors. If they can have a special “family section” then they should be able to offer me some accomodation. Bottom line, I’ve never gone back nor will I. When I find out a business has absurd anti-smoking policies, I vote with my wallet and spend my money elsewhere.
Bri2k
It’s not just the smoke, of course, it’s the huge amount of litter generated by the large percentage of smokers who toss their butts on the ground.
If the boss or manager smokes, then s/he is quite likely to look the other way when people take smoke breaks, and those smoke breaks are NOT counted against regular breaks. If the business doesn’t allow breaks, period (and there’s no Federal law about this, by the way) then quite frequently the smokers will get smoke breaks, but nobody else gets breaks.
When my husband was in training camp for the Air Force, the instructors would declare smoke breaks. Anyone who didn’t smoke was assigned to police the area…in other words, the nonsmokers got to pick up the smokers’ butts along with any other trash.
Smoke can trigger an asthma attack, or a migraine. Whether you want to pretend that this isn’t a real problem or hazard for those affected or not, that’s up to you. But I, for one, don’t enjoy going to the ER and paying over half a grand to get treated because some idjit decided that the “No Smoking” sign didn’t apply to him. I had a serious cold, and couldn’t smell anything, and then I couldn’t breathe all of a sudden. It’s a good thing my husband was there. It’s not a question of which is worse, smoke or exhaust. It’s a question of which one will trigger a response.
Good point. Enforcing the littering laws would have been a great start. God knows it’s not just the smokers.
Good point. If they could somehow pass a law making it illegal to throw cigarette butts on the ground, then maybe that might be what is needed?
Yeah, yeah, so that doesn’t work, so they take the next step and ban smoking on the beaches.
Why not just prohibit people from going on the beaches entirely? Enforced by razor wire and snipers with shoot to kill orders. That would stop litter on the beaches (provided the corpses are properly disposed of)
Why?
They made a business decision and decided that they will make more revenue with no smoking section at all than if they had a smoking section somewhere. I get that they lost your business but they feel, maybe incorrectly, that they are better off as a whole. Likewise, they feel that adding a family section was a net gain. The smoking area decision may be more than just how many extra people will or will not attend. Maybe they can get away with hiring fewer employees without a smoking section or they get lower insurance rates.
Many years ago, the City of Los Angeles went non-smoking at bars and restaurants before the rest of the State followed suit. Business owners in L.A. were furious and thought that their business would drop as people went to eat and drink in neighboring cities. A funny think happened though, business in L.A. went way up! Sure, the hard core smokers went elsewhere but there was a huge silent majority of people who previously never or rarely went to bars, clubs and restaurants because of the smoke who now were happy to go out. Smoking is bad for business.
You are both quite correct, of course. I was just explaining the justification for the law rather than my opinion.
HeLLLLLLllllLLLLlllLlllllLLL yes! In all (that is to say, every one) of the places I have worked. The current state, after a prolonged war against workplace smoking, is that smokers get as many breaks as they feel they need.
Nonsmokers get the two 15-minute breaks unless the boss thinks something important is happening, but if they take them regularly, they’re seen as making a pissy little point about the smokers and thus not counted as team players. And sometimes they spend their breaks covering for the smokers.
But it does cause harm and it does piss me off. Your claim that it doesn’t count does not, in itself, count.
Remember to police your brass!
Thats hurt my career way more than I care to admit.
Michigan enacted a smoking ban in bars restaurants and most other businesses last April and it’s been very bad for most businesses. Do you have cites for what happened in LA after the smoking ban?
I’m a smoker and anecdotally: I used to meet up with a group of people on Sundays (about half of us smoke) at a local restaurant…we haven’t patronised that or any other restaurant on a regular basis since. Also anecdotally: a friend in a neighboring county went regularly to a little Greek restaurant - sometimes I went with her - they closed last fall saying the smoking ban was the death knell on top of a terrible SE Michigan economy.
Not so anecdotally, editorials and reports in local news indicate that bars and restaurants here have suffered because of the ban.
That said: as a smoker, I think a property owner has every right to decide whether or not they want people to smoke on their property (or the air above it.). Then it’s up to potential employees or patrons to decide whether or not to patronize that business.
In that article I see evidence of correlation but not of causation. How do they know the decline in business isn’t just due to the worsening economy?
How do you feel about restaurants that serve salmonella contaminated food? Still up to the customers?