Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I had looked but did not see anything on this.If anyone has you can close it.Anyway where work we can smoke outside behind the building, but I know some places like hospitals and such has no smoking what so ever.
Do you think this is unfair or right?

I mostly think it should be up to the employer. Or the owner of the buildings.

True but even hospitals would not hire anyone who smokes at all.and I don't think that is right.Sorry off topic.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
True but even hospitals would not hire anyone who smokes at all.and I don't think that is right.Sorry off topic.
I don't think hospitals discriminate smokers, they just don't let them smoke on their property, no?

if you run a hospital, different regulations about who you can hire should exist than with hiring for an office job.

edit: or what bardock said

Heh, is my post rendered useless since someone else already covered its point?

I agree with Bardock42 on this one. As long as the employer isn't in conflict with any laws in place, the employer should decide.

-Edited for clarity.

No it is a new law that inleast in PA that anyone who smokes can not be hired by the hospital at all.As for this topic being covered there is still room for people to argee or disargee.
Franky I think it is wrong if the boss of the company would not let anyone smoke even in there car or far from the grounds.

I was unaware of that law. Would you mind linking us to that?

That seems interesting, and I am not sure I agree with a law like that.

Tomorrow I will send you a link I have to get going home or I am going to get soak in the rain.

It should be up to whomever owns the building. Public hospitals shouldn't be allowed to allow smoking in the building but I'm not sure about hiring smokers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think hospitals discriminate smokers, they just don't let them smoke on their property, no? Gotta be outside, and like twentyish feet from the door.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Gotta be outside, and like twentyish feet from the door.



So they don't let them smoke on their property, at least not inside or close to inside. I don't see a problem with that, really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So they don't let them smoke on their property, at least not inside or close to inside. I don't see a problem with that, really. Neither do I.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I had looked but did not see anything on this.If anyone has you can close it.Anyway where work we can smoke outside behind the building, but I know some places like hospitals and such has no smoking what so ever.
Do you think this is unfair or right? It's illegal here in the UK for a company to allow smoking in a working environment, just as it is in any indoor public location. We have the same ban that is in a lot of countries.

As a non-smoker I like the bans. Especially when it comes to bars and pubs. I couldn't even it imagine going back to the way it was before.

England's:

Smoking became banned in indoor public places in England, including workplaces, bars, clubs and restaurants, from 1 July 2007. Some places, such as certain smoking hotel rooms, nursing homes, prisons, submarines, offshore oil rigs, and stages/television sets (if needed for the performance) are excluded. Palaces were also excluded, although members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords agreed to ban all smoking in the Palace of Westminster. The on-the-spot fine for smoking in a workplace is £50 (~€70/~$100), £30 (~€45/~$60) if one pays within 15 days, while a business that allows it can be fined £2,500 (~€3,700/~$5,000). Smoking will be allowed to continue anywhere outdoors. However, a confidential government briefing obtained by The Independent on Sunday newspaper reveals that provisions are in place for extending the ban to outdoor areas

What qualifies as a working environment under that law?

When did the law go into effect?

Edit: Ha, you answered my questions as I typed them. You're good people, SP0oONY.

Laws were introduced at different times in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland but the laws themselves are pretty much the same thing.

I don't like walking outside to get some fresh air and then I'm smacked in the face with some nasty-ass, rank, second-hand smoke.

I wish they would ban smoking in any location except for inside your own home. That includes skunk weed, as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like walking outside to get some fresh air and then I'm smacked in the face with some nasty-ass, rank, second-hand smoke.

I wish they would ban smoking in any location except for inside your own home. That includes skunk weed, as well. Smoking, because of the potential risks to others is actually one of the drugs I could see myself supporting such a thing. However I think that is should ultimately be up to the owner of a particular place, for example a bar or restaurant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like walking outside to get some fresh air and then I'm smacked in the face with some nasty-ass, rank, second-hand smoke.

I wish they would ban smoking in any location except for inside your own home. That includes skunk weed, as well. That doesn't really bother me that much. Busy bars/clubs usually have separate smoking areas just off the exit so you don't get hit by the wall of smoke.

It is nice to not even have to think about whether a bar/pub has a non-smoking area though. I remember when I was younger hating walking through the smoking area of a busy pub before getting to the non-smoking area (which was still pretty smoky).

Originally posted by dadudemon
It just so happens that I'm an ***hole when it comes to smoking because of the nose-bleeds and bronchitis it gave me as a child. Usually, I am all for as much liberties as possible...having some libertarian sympathies, of course.



If i were to be unbiased, I'd say that if a place, other than a home, wanted smoking on campus, they should have a room specifically for it, separate in every way from the facility, to avoid the second-hand smoke conundrum.


Edit - lol! I thought a 'non-smoking' area of any joint was the stupidest thing, ever, as a kid. It didn't make a shit of difference. It does make a difference... Especially if the non-smoking area is set at a lower height.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I was referring to the rooms that one side of the room was smoking and the other side of the room was non-smoking. There were those rooms that were completely separate with closed doors, and everything.

But, now,it doesn't matter. Wherever food is served, no-smoking can occur, in Oklahoma. That include pub snacks? Crisps, pork scratchings, peanuts etc?

first off, smokers need to realize that this is not the fifties anymore.. smoking is officially UNCOOL.. you can find a flintstones commercial for winston cigarettes on youtube that was made back then.. remember lucy and ricky smoking in their apartments? now, i can't even find a single cigarette commercial on american TV.. whores are ok though, BUT NO SMOKING!!

second, it just makes sense that some establishments ban smoking.. hospitals are on top of the list.. if you work for a hospital and you do smoke, i believe there is a parking lot you can go to to have a drag.. if you are a smoker and a hospital won't hire you because of it, you have a possible lawsuit against the hospital in your hands.. amusement park, beaches, restaurants, etc should ban smoking because of children.. i use to smoke, and i go out of my way to avoid children..

it's really up to the establishments to make, enforce and uphold their own policies..

Originally posted by super pr*xy
now, i can't even find a single cigarette commercial on american TV.. whores are ok though, BUT NO SMOKING!!


Might have to do with them being banned. Just a thought though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Might have to do with them being banned. Just a thought though. I was thinking exactly that while reading...



But it's obvious that they don't advertise because it's no longer cool.

Originally posted by super pr*xy
first off, smokers need to realize that this is not the fifties anymore.. smoking is officially UNCOOL.. you can find a flintstones commercial for winston cigarettes on youtube that was made back then.. remember lucy and ricky smoking in their apartments? now, i can't even find a single cigarette commercial on american TV.. whores are ok though, BUT NO SMOKING!!

second, it just makes sense that some establishments ban smoking.. hospitals are on top of the list.. if you work for a hospital and you do smoke, i believe there is a parking lot you can go to to have a drag.. if you are a smoker and a hospital won't hire you because of it, you have a possible lawsuit against the hospital in your hands.. amusement park, beaches, restaurants, etc should ban smoking because of children.. i use to smoke, and i go out of my way to avoid children..

it's really up to the establishments to make, enforce and uphold their own policies..

There are smoking on some tv shows and movies through.I am going to go look for the link that stays PA Hospitals will not hire any smokers and I don't think that is right.

I'm not against health requirements for health workers

are you also against random drug tests then, as they constitute something an employee does at home

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not against health requirements for health workers

are you also against random drug tests then, as they constitute something an employee does at home

Absolutely. You can't just infringe on people's freedoms in the name of "safety". That's how police states get started.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. You can't just infringe on people's freedoms in the name of "safety". That's how police states get started. So you'd stop people being breathalised?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. You can't just infringe on people's freedoms in the name of "safety". That's how police states get started.

I always thought it started with the vilification of the social underclasses and heated racial nationalism

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I want to drive drunk that's my business. The police shouldn't be infringing on my natural right to be drunk or my natural right to drive a car.

Or your natural right to kill others, or die yourself.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi

Thank you for the link. I am surprised about Gwinnett and Dekalb. I live in the Altanta Metro Area and I had no idea.

I'm still pondering this one. Employers oft engage in "acceptable" discriminatory practices; I'm not sure if this qualifies.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No it is a new law that inleast in PA that anyone who smokes can not be hired by the hospital at all. Can't even be hired? Even if they smoke in the privacy of their own home? Sounds extreme, possibly unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or your natural right to kill others, or die yourself.

They can stay home if they're scared of getting killed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They can stay home if they're scared of getting killed.

They say that the drunk person usually survives an accident. Therefore, maybe we should make it illegal to drive straight?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They say that the drunk person usually survives an accident. Therefore, maybe we should make it illegal to drive straight?

I'm sure it would cost a lot to make every road winding

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure it would cost a lot to make every road winding

I don't know... a bottle of Jack does it for me.

If they have an area for smoking then that is fine. You cant complain if you chose to enter that area. But, smoking in a public area is pretty rude. If it is allowed, then they should cater to all peoples bad habits; not just one. Maybe I like to spit all the time. How is it fair to allow one bad habit (that is hazardous to your health as well as others), but not allow another bad habit? Hypocrisy.

wouldn't the business owner just cater to the patrons they have?

there is no reason to have a spitting area if it is going to drive more business away than it attracts.

Originally posted by LLLLLink
If they have an area for smoking then that is fine. You cant complain if you chose to enter that area. But, smoking in a public area is pretty rude. If it is allowed, then they should cater to all peoples bad habits; not just one. Maybe I like to spit all the time. How is it fair to allow one bad habit (that is hazardous to your health as well as others), but not allow another bad habit? Hypocrisy.

Because private businesses are just that, businesses, they don't care about "fairness" in the first place. Having a smoking area attracts a some smokers and only drives away a few non-smokers. On the other hand a spitting area attracts only a small number of obsessive spitters and drives away a lot of other people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because private businesses are just that, businesses, they don't care about "fairness" in the first place. Having a smoking area attracts a some smokers and only drives away a few non-smokers. On the other hand a spitting area attracts only a small number of obsessive spitters and drives away a lot of other people.

Originally posted by Mindship
Can't even be hired? Even if they smoke in the privacy of their own home? Sounds extreme, possibly unconstitutional.

Home is ok for the workers but like the link said if anyone smokes they will not get hired and I argee it is very unconstitutional.

I think it should be up to the employer if they wish to allow smoking in the workplace. A sensible employer will have policies which ensure that non-smoking employees aren't ill effected.

I also think smoking should be allowed in pubs/restaurants etc if the owner wishes to allow that facility. If patrons don't like the smell of smoke, they don't have to go to a bar that allows smoking.

I argee that it is up to the employeer and I am grateful that I can smoke outside where I work but the whole hospital thing about not hiring smoking still seens unfair to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think hospitals discriminate smokers, they just don't let them smoke on their property, no?

Hospitals and Insurance agencies in PIttsburgh certainly discriminate against smokers. Highmark has initiated a rule that all of their employers be blood tested to find out whether or not they smoke. If you do indeed smoke, you have six months to quit or find another job. I know the Hospital, Allegheny General is contemplating a similar rule.


I agree, it should be up to the employers on whether or not they allow smoking but to invade in ones personal life is communistic.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I agree, it should be up to the employers on whether or not they allow smoking but to invade in ones personal life is communistic.

When private industry tries to take of your life it certainly isn't communism.

I argee no one has the right to say to someone what they can and can't do.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee no one has the right to say to someone what they can and can't do.

That system falls apart really fast without pages worth of exceptions.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee no one has the right to say to someone what they can and can't do.


Don't tell me what I have a right to do or not do.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think it should be up to the employer if they wish to allow smoking in the workplace. A sensible employer will have policies which ensure that non-smoking employees aren't ill effected.

I also think smoking should be allowed in pubs/restaurants etc if the owner wishes to allow that facility. If patrons don't like the smell of smoke, they don't have to go to a bar that allows smoking.

I agree. Sensible employers would accomodate non-smokers if they choose to accomodate smokers.

As for pubs and bars, I also believe the decision should be up to the business owner, or if he chooses to have both, to have the other room properly placed - that doesn't just include having it properly segregated from non smoking area, but properly ventilated for smokers as well.

here ye here ye...smoking and drinking is not to be allowed in the work place so you must give all your booze and smokes to me ..(Ill dispose of them ..no worries)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't tell me what I have a right to do or not do.

I should say that to the people who will not hire others because they smoke(hospital)or other companys where you can't smoke at all on there land!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I should say that to the people who will not hire others because they smoke(hospital)or other companys where you can't smoke at all on there land!

I was...uh...jokin' n'stuff.

Oh ok sorry about that.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Oh ok sorry about that.
Yeah, that's right!




Nah, no worries.

lol thanks!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When private industry tries to take of your life it certainly isn't communism.


Not even when the private industries make up their own rules that infringe on national law? It doesn't matter, i was only being facetious. Although, it's definitely no longer a free Republic when your quality of life is decided for you by private industries and the federal government.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I agree. Sensible employers would accomodate non-smokers if they choose to accomodate smokers.

As for pubs and bars, I also believe the decision should be up to the business owner, or if he chooses to have both, to have the other room properly placed - that doesn't just include having it properly segregated from non smoking area, but properly ventilated for smokers as well.

yeah I also agree.That was such B.S when they made it a rule you cant smoke inside airports.On the plane I got no problem with that but come on airports? give me a break.and this is coming form someone who is not a smoker.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. You can't just infringe on people's freedoms in the name of "safety". That's how police states get started.

Except it's only the business owners freedom you are concerned about. What about employees and customers? Getting another job or patronizing another establishment is not always an option.

The people who had started the smoking ban is a non smoker so what gives him the right or others to take that away from us?it is our lungs.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
The people who had started the smoking ban is a non smoker so what gives him the right or others to take that away from us?it is our lungs.

You're not just hurting yourself. It's my lungs also

It is not hurting your lungs if I am no where near you when I am smoking.I never go near anyone when I smoke at all.

Obviously you're not aware of how far smoke can travel.

I'm highly allergic to smoke, cigarette smoke in particular, and just the smell of marijuana on someone gives me migraines (seriously, blinding headaches and feeling like I'm going to vomit is not fun). I can generally tell if someone's been within 30 feet of somewhere with a lit cigarette. That stuff smells horribly, and the smoke does carry quite far.

You may claim to be a considerate smoker, but a lot of people are not. I can't even keep track of how many times I enter/leave somewhere and there's a gaggle of people smoking just outside the door...right next to the signs saying they must be at least 15 feet away from any doors.

So yeah. Sorry. I rather enjoy being able to breath.

I see what you are talking about.But like yourself alot of smokers are not aware that you can't stand the smell and I am sure they don't smoke infront of you to be nasty you should tell them that you have a promblem with them smoking infront of you.They do have every right too.

I think it is ok to smoke outside as long as you are alone, because my aunt got emphysema and she does even smoke. Everybody around her smoke though.

I smoke outside where others are smoking where I work.and so far there been no promblems.The non smokers go farther up close to the building where they can seat at the tables or stay in there cars.

Originally posted by Peach
Obviously you're not aware of how far smoke can travel.

I'm highly allergic to smoke, cigarette smoke in particular, and just the smell of marijuana on someone gives me migraines (seriously, blinding headaches and feeling like I'm going to vomit is not fun). I can generally tell if someone's been within 30 feet of somewhere with a lit cigarette. That stuff smells horribly, and the smoke does carry quite far.

You may claim to be a considerate smoker, but a lot of people are not. I can't even keep track of how many times I enter/leave somewhere and there's a gaggle of people smoking just outside the door...right next to the signs saying they must be at least 15 feet away from any doors.

So yeah. Sorry. I rather enjoy being able to breath.

fair enough, and it is understandable why you as a consumer may wish to take your business elsewhere, but do you really feel that all businesses must act in accordance to your personal preferences, even at the expense of alienating their target demographic (smokers)?

my general opinion is that non-smoking establishments would probably be the norm, and this trend will continue so long as the current social propoganda against smoking continues, but are you saying that a company who had no interest in you being their customer should create a policy based on your preferences/conditions?

Originally posted by inimalist
but are you saying that a company who had no interest in you being their customer should create a policy based on your preferences/conditions?

*butts in*

YES!


I'd sleep better at night, know that nasty people aren't smoking their nasty tobacky in nasty establishments that I most likely will never visit.



I wish, though. But I do realize how asinine it is to want to force my personal "health" choices on others.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*butts in*

YES!

I'd sleep better at night, know that nasty people aren't smoking their nasty tobacky in nasty establishments that I most likely will never visit.

I wish, though. But I do realize how asinine it is to want to force my personal "health" choices on others.

ok, yes, in that light, I'd also be happy if people just plum decided not to smoke

for instance, I don't smoke, and though I don't mind people around me doing so, I wouldn't go to a smoking establishment versus a non-smoking one, all other things being equal.

Either way if someone smokes and you happen to be there it is not that person's fault.and also to smoke is a freedom that should not be deny by anyone reather they smoke or not.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Either way if someone smokes and you happen to be there it is not that person's fault.and also to smoke is a freedom that should not be deny by anyone reather they smoke or not.

Unless it is actively harming those around you.

Which it apparently is.

Don't go near anyone smoking then that is what I would do if I did not smoke.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Don't go near anyone smoking then that is what I would do if I did not smoke. If you work in the same place though you have no choice. And if the employer doesn't want smoking on his premises that's within their rights. Honestly, if someone is for a drug ban at all, cigarettes are surely one of the very first that'd have to go.

Most llkly where I work there is a place for smokers to smoke at(outside) and some non smokers go there if they don't mind while others just stay away.,

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
True but even hospitals would not hire anyone who smokes at all.and I don't think that is right.Sorry off topic.

Hospitals discriminate against smokers? This can't be true...

Check out the post I had made on it.

i understand why we wouldn't be allowed to smoke in some work places, IE - Take it outside.
granted, this sucks in the wintertime or in the rain, but we as smokers are giving ourselves lung cancer, do we really give a shit about some friggin' rain?
our bodies are made up of water, our planet is made of water, we take showers and baths, and at most places of work you have to wash your hands a lot anyway.

is it fair to make smokers smoke outside? totally, you don't want to have a fire start, or for the product to get ruined, or for the guy at the desk next to you to cough while you're on the phone making that big sales pitch, and then have it fall though because you cant even hear what the dude is saying.
damnit jim, if you could've only stopped coughing i'd be your boss right now and would totally be shacking up with linda from accounting, damn she was hot. (that was a joke, laugh)

is it fair to subject non-smokers to the harmful cancers of our smoking? no its not, its our choice to smoke, so we have to live with it, why push it onto other people? they aren't pushing their god onto me, so im not going to push my cancer onto them. (yes, that is my "go to" whenever someone starts speaking about god, i light up)

but, hospitals shouldn't say "well you smoke so you cant work here", i don't know about everyone else's hospitals, but at the ones 'round here we have a room for smoking, i don't spend a lot of time at the hospital, because why would i want to?- So i don't know if the doctors and nurses there smoke, but we've got the room, and they've got the stressful job. so it would only be fair if they were allowed.


but you know, that's just what i think.

In here PA it is a new law that anyone who smokes can't work in a hospital.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Smoking, because of the potential risks to others is actually one of the drugs I could see myself supporting such a thing. However I think that is should ultimately be up to the owner of a particular place, for example a bar or restaurant. What about you know, social services, because surely, the government owns them.

I looked into it, up here in ontario, its goes like this, For hospitals anyway.

In health facilities, smoking areas must be enclosed and separated from the rest of the building. Air in the area must exhaust to the outside with a ventilation rate of 30 litres per second per person.
Hospitals may have more than one designated smoking room for in-patients. The room must be set aside specifically for smoking.

Smoking on the grounds of health facilities is allowed, but only at a distance of at least nine metres from any entrance.


pretty standard stuff i should think,
But i cant find anything about our doctors not being allowed to smoke.

I see no reason why doctors shouldn't be able to smoke... So long as it doesn't interfere with work.

Like I said I am not sure about any other states but PA is one state does not allow anyone who works at hospitals to smoke and will not hire anyone who does.
If you look in the beginning of this thread I had posted a clip about it.