We abolished slavery 151 years ago. If the employees don't want to work around smokers, they can seek employment elsewhere. We had 2 restaurants here, same franchise, less than a mile apart. The owner wanted to make one smoking and one non-smoking. The smoke ninnies were not happy with that and he ended up closing the smoking one. This was a BBQ joint that was full of hickory smoke all the time, selling high fat foods. (the last place I know of that still fries potatoes in animal fat) Health freaks would not go to either of them.
The same doctors who bitch about tobacco have no problem prescribing speed and opium to kids. No matter what the perceived problem is, they have a cocktail of pills for it.
Fire fighters wear breathing equipment because that smoke isn't good to breathe, either. People die from smoke inhalation, and they also have similar physical responses to forest fire smoke that people have from secondhand cigarette smoke.
I don't know why ex-smokers are so offended, but I now absolutely hate the stink of cigarette smoking. Unbelievably horrible smelling habit! Can't believe I did it as long as I did. 8|
The topic is smoking, so the OP singled out smoking as the topic.
No, I disagree. It's a fact that secondhand smoke has caused health problems for people for a long time. We're finally getting around to logically responding to that issue.
Smoking isn't a right - it's a want, a bad habit.
It seems restaurant owners don't want to cater to just smokers because that eliminates a growing population of people who would not ever become patrons of that business because of the health hazards there.
"There is mounting evidence that documents the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke, including in the workplace. In states that permit workplace smoking, employers face significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Employers have been held liable for employee exposure to secondhand smoke in numerous cases, including those based on workers? compensation, state and federal disability law, and the duty to provide a safe workplace. Given this liability risk, employers should voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies. Such policies do more than fulfill an employer?s legal obligation to provide a safe workplace; they also reduce the risk of litigation, potentially reduce workers? compensation premiums, and protect employees from harm.
THERE IS MOUNTING evidence of the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke. Several recent studies have shown that employees? exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace causes significant increases in tobacco-specific carcinogens in the human body (M. Stark, PhD, unpublished data, April 2006).1?6 Smoking in bars, restaurants, and other hospitality venues contributes substantially to poor indoor air quality in these workplaces and exposes employees to carcinogens and other toxic agents in tobacco smoke.7 Specifically, nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at work increase their risk of heart disease by 25%?30% and their risk of lung cancer by 20%?30%, and are susceptible to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system.8 The only way to effectively eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace is to make the workplace a smoke-free environment.9 Studies have shown immediate improvements in air quality10,11 and workers? respiratory health12 when smoking is eliminated from workplaces, including hospitality venues.
To protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke, many state and local governments have passed laws creating smoke-free workplaces, including restaurants and bars.13 In states without smoke-free workplace laws, employers still face significant legal risks from employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. Employers can reduce these legal risks by voluntarily prohibiting smoking at their worksites.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SMOKE-FREE LAWS
Research conducted during the past several decades clearly documents that exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease in nonsmokers. Some research indicates that secondhand smoke is more toxic and potentially more dangerous than the smoke that is directly inhaled by the smoker.14,15 Nationally, the US Environmental Protection Agency has found secondhand smoke to be a risk to public health and has classified secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen, the most dangerous class of carcinogen."
Or someone who wants to host a cigar dinner, a couple times a year in a private room at a restaurant. You don't like it, just don't go. But that isn't good enough for the zealots. They demand that everyone be tolerant to others based on every kooky conceivable situation, but they are the least tolerant of all.
South Park has a good episode on tolerance. Parents force the kids to go to a tolerance museum, where they are shown the evils of intolerance, eg using racial slurs, stereotypes of Mexicans as lazy, Asian as smart, etc. Then when the parents and tolerance museum people walk outside there is a guy 30 ft away who's smoking a cigarette. They all immediately viciously attack him for smoking.
Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available. For example, an employee could file a workers? compensation claim against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer?s workers? compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a ?reasonable accommodation??in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand smoke?if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a common law duty.
Employers may voluntarily adopt smoke-free workplace policies to reduce the threat of litigation in these areas. These 3 risks are examined in turn.
WORKERS? COMPENSATION
State workers? compensation laws are designed to protect workers from injuries and illnesses that arise out of and in the course of employment. The state laws are not based on fault; an injured worker can recover benefits, including compensation for temporary or permanent loss of income and medical expenses, without proving that the employer was negligent. A state administrative agency usually oversees the workers? compensation system so that employees may recover benefits promptly. In most cases, the state workers? compensation system prevents the employee from also suing the employer in tort.26
Litigation Under Workers? Compensation Statutes
Employees have won in individual workers? compensation cases involving secondhand smoke?related injuries when the employee suffered an asthmatic or allergic reaction as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace and the employee had demonstrated exposure to a heavy concentration of secondhand smoke for several years.33 Because the outcomes of workers? compensation cases have varied widely across states, an employee?s ability to recover compensation will depend heavily upon the state in which the employer is located.
Notice the word "puff"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette from 10 ft away.
4 Smoking causes a chronic (or long term)
Notice the word "smoking"? They aren't talking about a whiff of a cigarette from 10 ft away.
It induces chronic irritation of the respiratory lining and
Typical blather from zealots. There is all kinds of junk science out there, where the desperate zealots try to shove their BS down your throat. Brief secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? OMG, who would actually believe that crap? I get one whiff from a cigarette and I have heart disease?
Business owners are wising up to their legal obligations regarding the environment their workers have to live in every day.
"LEGAL RISKS
Workers who are not currently protected by state or local laws that create smoke-free workplaces nevertheless have legal options available. For example, an employee could file a workers? compensation claim against an employer for illness or injury attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke on the job. Such claims may increase an employer?s workers? compensation premiums, an employee could file a disability discrimination claim that an employer failed to provide a ?reasonable accommodation??in this instance protection from exposure to secondhand smoke?if the worker has a disability (such as asthma) that is exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke, or an employee could file a claim that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, based on a common law duty."
Yes and like Gfre, I say that a whiff of smoke from a smoker who's ten feet away, isn't going to kill me. Nor will you be killed by a cigar dinner in a private room at a restaurant that you don't go to, but in many places, that's banned too.
Agree. The classic example is that here and in many places, you can't even have a once a month cigar dinner in a private room at a restaurant. That's where the zealots have brought us. And I think you can probably add that to the list of reasons the angry mob is behind Trump. They are fed up with this crap.
OK fine, why aren't you campaigning to ban wood stoves, fire places and back yard charcoal grills? A neighbor can burn 40 pounds of wood in an evening with impunity but if he is burning a gram of tobacco and you smell it, you go ballistic. I doubt there is s suburb in America where you don't smell a whiff of wood smoke in the winter or the smell of grilling meat in the summer. By your definition, if you can smell it, you are being harmed. When a bagel gets sideways in the toaster, do you evacuate the house and stay in a hotel until the place is decontaminated?
Yes it is. If you don't like working in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, then don't, there are plenty others, right now most of them, that don't allow smoking. You don't want to work in a slaughter house or coal mine, you don't. See how simple that is?
to secondhand
What you just cited is another example of how the zealots work. They are never satisfied and will never stop. Above they are using FUD and threats of legal action. Just what this country needs, more lawsuits. If you have a restaurant and want to allow smoking, the employees know about it, there is no such legitimate case. But with a few million bucks from lib whackos, they sure could drag you through hell and ruin you anyway.
And want to know why you can't get any more gun laws through Congress, why the NRA is opposed to all of them? Because they see how these libs operate. They are never satisfied, whatever is passed is never enough, it's just one more step to make us all conform to their rules, their was of life. That's not my America.
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:17:36 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote: Specifically, nonsmokers who are
are susceptible
I'd like to see someone prove that. It's so patently ridiculous. Show us how walking through a room with some smokers leads to immediate damage to the cardiovascular system. I'm waiting..... You won't be able to, because it's made up BS and it just discredits whatever else they have to say. This is like the risks of getting cancer from cell phones. There have been studies that suggested a link, others that show no link. The zealots focus on the ones that confirm their agenda.
What's the increased risk of death to a fisherman in the Arctic? A steel worker? Roofers? Loggers? Should we ban those too? If someone can choose to be a fisherman and take that risk, why can't they be free to choose to work in a bar that allows smoking? Actually they still are, in some places that haven't gone bat shit crazy yet.
Like most ex smokers, you are actually afraid that if you smell the smoke, you will want one. Once a junkie always a junkie. Why should your will power issues guide other peoples lives? There are plenty of reasons not to smoke but I look at it like not wearing a helmet on a bike. Everyone tries to make the case that they are harmed when the rider doesn't have a helmet on but the reality is it will only be a rider who is harmed. Just like the smokers who die, it is usually going to be cheaper for society than living to a ripe old age and dying from "natural causes" That usually means years in intensive care sopping up social security and medicare bucks, generally ending up in bankruptcy on medicaid when they go to nursing home care.
Yes, threaten everyone with lawsuits. Raise money from the zealots and use the courts to try to accomplish what you can't do with legislation. There already are huge restrictions on smoking, but heh, it's not enough let's sue everyone. This is exactly the method of the left. They want to do the same thing with guns, sue every gun manufacturer, every gun store, to put them out of business. It's the lib way.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.