Smoker-Only Areas in Privately Owned Businesses: Yes or No?

[Debater Slayer]

Should smoker-only areas in privately owned businesses, e.g. privately owned restaurants and coffee shops, be illegal?

Do you think that the rights to safety of a person who works in such a place should be placed above a smoker's right to consume tobacco in such a setting? Why or why not?

 

[Me Myself]

Drats! I read wrong I meant to say legal

although I would really really want it to be ilegal , I hate cigarrete smoke

 

[Revoltingest]

Smoke away....die young....& keep the cost of Obamacare down.

 

[4consideration]

No I do not think they should be illegal.

If a person applies for a job with the full knowledge that it is a smoking environment, then they are exercising a choice.

 

[McBell]

No I do not think they should be illegal.

If a person applies for a job with the full knowledge that it is a smoking environment, then they are exercising a choice.

I don't know...
It was argued quite strenuously in another thread that non-smokers are completely unable to prevent themselves from entering into smoking areas and therefore there should not be any smoking areas in order to protect the non-smokers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that the rights to safety of a person who works in such a place should be placed above a smoker's right to consume tobacco in such a setting? Why or why not?

When we have areas of factories where everyone agrees that the rotating machinery won't have guards, or when companies offer "fire alarm-free" branch offices for employees who prefer it, or when hospitals (by mutual agreement with staff, of course) offer a wing where nobody washes their hands, maybe then we should consider "smoker only" areas in businesses. Not until then, though.

I see absolutely no reason to give special treatment to one - and only one - workplace hazard.

 

[MoonWater]

Just to clarify as I'm not sure I understand, so are you asking whether or not it should be illegal for a private business to segregate smokers from non-smokers? and in this case what exactly is the alternative that's proposed? Like is it a matter of private businesses should just let people smoke wherever they want in the place, that they should segregate them or not have them on the premises at all?

Sorry I'm just a little confused about the specifics of your question.

Though I will admit I don't have much sympathy for the idea of "smoker's right to smoke" and really don't understand why any one who smokes would try to claim such a thing exists when you consider how dangerous second hand smoke is. If we were talking like people who smoke marijuana I could certainly see that as that has readily proven medical benefits to the user and doesn't bring harm to those around them who may accidentally inhale it (at least not that I am aware of)

As such I will always question this idea of "smokers right to smoke". Why should someone have a right to do, in public, that which has been proven time and again to bring harm to those around him or her?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just to clarify as I'm not sure I understand, so are you asking whether or not it should be illegal for a private business to segregate smokers from non-smokers? and in this case what exactly is the alternative that's proposed? Like is it a matter of private businesses should just let people smoke wherever they want in the place, that they should segregate them or not have them on the premises at all?

Sorry I'm just a little confused about the specifics of your question.

Though I will admit I don't have much sympathy for the idea of "smoker's right to smoke" and really don't understand why any one who smokes would try to claim such a thing exists when you consider how dangerous second hand smoke is. If we were talking like people who smoke marijuana I could certainly see that as that has readily proven medical benefits to the user and doesn't bring harm to those around them who may accidentally inhale it (at least not that I am aware of)

As such I will always question this idea of "smokers right to smoke". Why should someone have a right to do, in public, that which has been proven time and again to bring harm to those around him or her?

Basically, the idea that private businesses accommodate to smokers by having segregated areas for them where they can freely smoke — they aren't allowed to smoke wherever they want on the premises, but they are provided with specific areas to do so.

I'm not sure what the alternative(s) in this case would be, though. I think proposing alternatives (or lack thereof) might be a part of the answer to this question.

The main question here is whether or not private businesses should legally be allowed to provide such accommodation for smokers, when the people who work there could be subjected to second-hand smoke despite not necessarily being smokers themselves.

 

[LongGe123]

It's interesting to see how people have received this idea. People seem to place greater focus on certain key words in it. I personally focused on the term "illegal". I think making smoker-only areas in a privately owned businesses is pretty stupid and wouldn't really work in most places because of layout issues. But would I want them dubbed "illegal" - no. It's an infringement on liberty I think to make it illegal. Discourage it, sure! Tell everyone it's not a good idea because in most cases it's very hard to create an environment that still won't affect non-smoking areas, sure! But make it a crime? No!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think that smoking areas should be legal (though I think 'smoking only' to be a bizarre stipulation) I would however suggest that requiring employee involvement in currently active smoking areas should be illegal (thus no waiting tables etc); I understand the suggestion that employment contract agreements could be arranged to incorporate involvement in active smoking areas, however I think this would be open to employer abuse and would therefore maintain its illegality - unless that involvement was by the owner of the business (not an employee - even a manager).

 

[MoonWater]

Basically, the idea that private businesses accommodate to smokers by having segregated areas for them where they can freely smoke — they aren't allowed to smoke wherever they want on the premises, but they are provided with specific areas to do so.

I'm not sure what the alternative(s) in this case would be, though. I think proposing alternatives (or lack thereof) might be a part of the answer to this question.

The main question here is whether or not private businesses should legally be allowed to provide such accommodation for smokers, when the people who work there could be subjected to second-hand smoke despite not necessarily being smokers themselves.

Well that's what I'm trying to clarify if it's a matter of offering a designated area vs not allowing them at all.

Though granted I am one those one's in favor of outlawing cigarettes so

(not tobacco mind you, just cigarettes in their current manifestation being filled with tar and other junk. Why do cigarette companies put all that crap in those things anyway?)

 

[Cassiopia]

The main question here is whether or not private businesses should legally be allowed to provide such accommodation for smokers, when the people who work there could be subjected to second-hand smoke despite not necessarily being smokers themselves.

Yes I think privately owned businesses should be allowed to provide accommodation for smokers. It should not be illegal to do so. Patrons have a choice whether they want to frequent such places and staff have a choice as to whether they want to work in such places. Neither guests nor staff are forced to subject themselves to cigarette smoke if they don't want to.
What is the problem?

 

[HonestJoe]

What is the problem?

The argument against that is that you could be putting people in a position of deciding whether to put their health at risk or remain unemployed. In some places, remaining unemployed isn't an option since if you refuse a "reasonable" offer of work, you'll loose benefit/welfare payments. There is also a risk of putting unfair pressure on existing staff if something like this were introduced - they'd all have to be asked if they're willing to work in a smoking environment and saying no could (legitimately or otherwise) put their jobs at risk.

The OP question was "Do you think that the rights to safety of a person who works in such a place should be placed above a smoker's right to consume tobacco in such a setting?" - I'd suggest that one individual's safety is much more important than another person's choice of recreation.

That said I'm another person who would prefer that the situation wasn't hadled at the level of illegality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those who voted no: are you against workplace safety laws in general, or are you arguing that tobacco smoke should get special treatment? Either way, why?

 

[Revoltingest]

Those who voted no: are you against workplace safety laws in general, or are you arguing that tobacco smoke should get special treatment? Either way, why?

I favor letting people do things which are bad for them (or at least disapproved of by prudish & progressive types):
Smoke
Play football
Ride fast motorcycles
Have unprotected sex
Eat junk food
Play violent video games
Watch porn
MMA
Low riding drawers
Topless women

No nanny state full of government busybodies making life safe & fair for Willie!
(But a safe workplace.....within reason....is OK.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I favor letting people do things which are bad for them (or at least disapproved of by prudish & progressive types):
Smoke
Play football
Ride fast motorcycles
Have unprotected sex
Eat junk food
Play violent video games
Watch porn
MMA
Low riding drawers
Topless women

No nanny state full of government busybodies making life safe & fair for Willie!
(But a safe workplace.....within reason....is OK.)

How is it not within reason to ask customers who would want to smoke to sit on the patio?

We live in a wondrous age with patio heaters for when it's cold, misters for when it's hot, and umbrellas and awnings to keep off the sun and rain.

 

[4consideration]

I agree with Rev.

Just because I believe something to be harmful or distasteful and would not participate in it myself, or allow my children to participate in it or be exposed to, does not mean that I believe I have the right to erradicate it from the human experience -- if other adults choose to participate in a legal activity in an appropriate setting they have that right.

A setting specifically designed and acknowledged as the setting for a legal activity that I may object to provides me the opportunity to choose to participate, or choose not to.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is it not within reason to ask customers who would want to smoke to sit on the patio?
We live in a wondrous age with patio heaters for when it's cold, misters for when it's hot, and umbrellas and awnings to keep off the sun and rain.

I'd rather not get into the micromanagement of accommodating smokers.
It's more about the general thesis that people ought to have some autonomy
to do things which gov't says is bad for them.

 

[Wirey]

Anyone who is saying that you choose to work in such an environment is pretty lucky. I used to live in a place with a 50% unemployment rate, and you couldn't say no to any job. The laws that keep people from being exposed to cigarette smoke are there to protect people who can't protect themselves. The greatest yardstick for measuring any society is how it treats those who cannot protect themselves. Make it illegal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd rather not get into the micromanagement of accommodating smokers.
It's more about the general thesis that people ought to have some autonomy
to do things which gov't says is bad for them.

And my thesis is that employers often have significant power to coerce their employees - often in subtle ways - so we shouldn't come to these sorts of questions assuming that the employee in the scenario is making a completely free choice.

Even if a manager publicly says that nobody has to work in the smoking area who doesn't want to, it's not unreasonable for a server to think that being willing to work in the smoking area might translate into more shifts.

As an analogy, it's a breach of ethics codes (and downright illegal in some places, IIRC) for a psychiatrist to sleep with a patient, even an adult patient who is fully capable of informed consent. This isn't a declaration that the patient (or doctor) is like a child; it's an acknowledgement of the fact that the counselor/patient relationship is one where the power dynamic is such that coercion - or at least undue influence - is a major concern. I think it's reasonable to have similar concerns with employer/employee relationships.