I recently started a new job a few months ago. While i like the job im not too fond of my work environment. I'm currently in a small office with 2 other people. Both these people smoke nonstop throughout the day. Most of my work involves starting at a computer screen and all the smoke is bothering me. I've mentioned a few times that it bothers me around my boss and a good friend who has been here for awhile but im still stuck in this office with smoke all around me.

I don't want to quit and I've said several things, maybe i need to be more harsh but i don't want to come across like a dick head. Suggestions on how to deal with this matter and not lose my job.

3/16/2009 9:43:28 AM

i'm pretty sure there are laws for that.
"safe working environment" laws or whatever

3/16/2009 9:44:48 AM

Yea, i would either decide if you want to make it an issue or not. If it really bothers you (as it would me) i would approach the boss with some safe working environment angle, or even go to a doctor to get a note saying you are allergic to the cigs.

3/16/2009 9:45:55 AM

if your boss is a good one and agrees with you, the order should come down from his own mouth to the other coworkers and it shouldnt appear to come from you (even if it obviously did)

ive made several coworkers quit smoking around me, even got one to go on the patch and the gum, but after 2 months of not working with me they always start again

3/16/2009 9:49:47 AM

the boss smokes. He regularly walks around with a cigar in his mouth.

3/16/2009 9:53:57 AM

Where the fuck do you work? I was under the impression that smoking was generally non existent in any office in America these days.

3/16/2009 9:55:10 AM

my 90 days are coming up. I'll be pretty clear in my 90 review that i don't like the smoking.

3/16/2009 9:58:35 AM

Dude below me smokes in his office, but he owns the building.

PS, they probably know you don't like the smoking. They probably don't care.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : +]

3/16/2009 10:04:48 AM

yeah, owner where I work smokes..but he has a huge ass office, keeps his door closed when he does it and has an air purifier thing that he basically blows the smoke into. It does a good job of keeping the smell out of the offices

..and he's in a different building than me

3/16/2009 10:06:52 AM

Get a ridiculous gas mask and wear it every time they start smoking.

3/16/2009 10:07:25 AM

^ winner

3/16/2009 10:11:17 AM

^^ winner

3/16/2009 10:22:12 AM

First off, it's 2009. I'm glad to hear that some workplaces are still keeping it real with the smoking.

And I don't think there's anything you can do about it. If management is cool with smoking, and you're outnumbered 2 to 1, you don't have much power.

Maybe get some eye drops to keep your eyes from drying out with the smoke. Also, a few industrial air filters and the like will help.

And write your congressman.

3/16/2009 10:45:28 AM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure there are laws for that. "safe working environment" laws or whatever"

Any such laws are unconstitutional. If it's private property, they can do what they want *. By entering the private property where smoking is going on, you are consenting to being harmed by it. If you do not consent, you are free to leave or not enter in the first place. Just because you simply want to work there, doesn't mean you get to deny the private property owner's right to do as they wish * on their own private property.

(* so as long as they don't, without consent, harm anyone's person, property, liberty or right to the same.)
message_topic.aspx?topic=559153

Quote :

"If it really bothers you (as it would me) i would approach the boss with some safe working environment angle,"

Or, instead of threatening to use popular yet unconstitutional laws to deny your boss and co-workers their right to consensually smoke on private property, WHY DON'T YOU JUST QUIT? All you can really do is ask. If the boss and co-workers decline, then simply quit. You don't have a right to work there, and no one is forcing you to.

Quote :

"or even go to a doctor to get a note saying you are allergic to the cigs."

What bullshit is this? Being bothered by smoke does not equal being allergic to it. But still, you're suggesting that he and/or a doctor lie (immoral and illegal,) to get a note? Besides, what power do you think such a note would have? This isn't high school.

Quote :

"if your boss is a good one and agrees with you, the order should come down from his own mouth to the other coworkers..."

I got nothing on this. It's his property, right? If he agrees with you and he decides to disallow it on his property, that's 100% fine. Using a bullshit law is very different. However, if you can't change his mind, then simply quit your job.

Quote :

"the boss smokes. He regularly walks around with a cigar in his mouth"

Well, there goes that idea. Looks like you either need to quit, or just continue consenting to being around it. (You are consenting to being around it by being around it. It is not being forced upon you.)

Quote :

"I was under the impression that smoking was generally non existent in any office in America these days."

Why would you think that? All three offices I've worked in, plus a few of my friends' offices allow smoking. Seriously, why would you think that?

Quote :

"gas mask"

There you go -- problem solved.

Quote :

"And write your congressman."

Saying what?

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2009 10:51:00 AM

Quote :

"First off, it's 2009. I'm glad to hear that some workplaces are still keeping it real with the smoking."

Why? It's fucking disgusting.

3/16/2009 10:51:35 AM

did anyone see ron paul and stephen baldwin (on the other side of the argument, ironically) on larry king?

cigarettes are by far the most addictive substance sold to consumers
alcohol is probably the most destructive

yet weed is a no-no?

3/16/2009 10:54:01 AM

I'm pretty much staring at php/html code all day and i have two full time smokers within 5 feet of me. It's killing my eyes and gives me a headache.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ff]

3/16/2009 10:54:12 AM

Quote :

"keeping it real with the smoking"

you and joe camel have a date tonight, yes?

^^ that sucks...i stare at code a lot of the day, too, and smoke would probably send me over the edge...talk to your boss about working from home a couple of days a week to see how it works out, maybe? can't hurt to ask...if you're really that unhappy there due to the smoking (as i would be...the indoor smoke would be a major deal-breaker), try asking the boss and explain that it's uncomfortable for YOU and that to avoid being "that guy" or inconveniencing everyone else to decides to partake in such a disgusting habit (i'd probably leave out the disgusting part ), ask if you could try being absent from the office itself 2 days a week or something

^^^ agreed...i'd love to see pot legalized and cigarettes made illegal...that shit is nasty

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 10:58:12 AM

i knew before i clicked on this thread that Willy Nilly had posted in here and was a complete douchebag.

p.s.

Quote :

"By entering the private property where smoking is going on, you are consenting to being harmed by it."

this is entirely false

3/16/2009 10:58:33 AM

where do you work, a 1930s newsroom?

3/16/2009 11:00:38 AM

Quote :

"All three offices I've worked in, plus a few of my friends' offices allow smoking. Seriously, why would you think that?"

just because this has kind of gotten me curious I checked with a few friends and my dad quick. Any office ive worked in as well as the 3 friends I asked and my dad all say their buildings are non-smoking. My dad said he hasnt worked in an office building in close to 15 years that allowed smoking inside.

That being said, I wouldnt work for an office that allowed it inside. Immediately tells me they dont have the productivity of their workers in mind. yes you could argue that making people get up to smoke decreases their productivity but thats too bad for them. Its something they CHOOSE to do.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2009 11:00:46 AM

any office that's a decent place to work will at least restrict smoking to outside and away from entrances.

3/16/2009 11:01:34 AM

yeah, any office that allows smoking INSIDE is guaranteed to be full of assholes...smoking is disgusting, but a lot of smokers, despite their dumb choice, are at least considerate enough to confine it to open air areas where it doesn't affect others nearly as badly

3/16/2009 11:03:20 AM

Quote :

"Why would you think that? All three offices I've worked in, plus a few of my friends' offices allow smoking. Seriously, why would you think that?"

I guess I just never worked shitty dumpy jobs where the company can count their employed on 1 hand.

3/16/2009 11:08:51 AM

Quote :

"First off, it's 2009. I'm glad to hear that some workplaces are still keeping it real with the smoking."

Quote :

"Why? It's fucking disgusting."

Because what makes america great is that we protect unpopular rights. Some speech is ugly, but we allow it because everyone has a right to it. Some religions are crazy, but we allow them because everyone has a right to them. Similarly, some actions are unhealthy to those who consensually engage in them on private property, but we allow them because everyone has a right to do whatever they on their private property. * Some workplaces allow fighting, spitting, belching, which are all disgusting to some, but as long as they're done on private property and everyone consents to any physical or psychological harms associated with them, then they are all 100% fine. (She may have meant it sarcastically, though.)

Quote :

"I'm pretty much starting at php/html code all day and i have two full time smokers within 5 feet of me. It's killing my eyes and gives me a headache."

In other words, you're consenting to being around the harmful smoke. That's your decision.

Quote :

"By entering the private property where smoking is going on, you are consenting to being harmed by it"

Quote :

"this is entirely false"

Nope. It's 100% correct. You are wrong.

Quote :

"That being said, I wouldnt work for an office that allowed it inside."

Exactly. That's what everyone should do. You simply decide whether or not you consent to being around it. It's pretty simple, really.

Quote :

"any office that's a decent place to work will at least restrict smoking to outside and away from entrances."

I suppose many people would share that opinion of what makes an office "decent". It's also a good business decision, because by allowing smoking, you're likely missing out the skill and talents of potential employees that don't consent to being around smoke.

3/16/2009 11:11:07 AM

AHA, I got challenged by the pro-freedom-to-smoke crowd and the anti-freedom-to-smoke crowd.

SHE'S REASONABLE!!! GET HER!!!!!!!!!

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM. Reason : !!!!!!!!!!!]

3/16/2009 11:13:39 AM

you're not reasonable, though.

you're batshit nuts.

3/16/2009 11:14:26 AM

^^ i think youre giving yourself WAY too much credit.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

3/16/2009 11:18:09 AM

Quote :

"Nope. It's 100% correct. You are wrong."

sorry, i'm not. from a legal standpoint, i do not consent to anything whatsoever by merely entering a private property.

Quote :

"Because what makes america great is that we protect unpopular rights. Some speech is ugly, but we allow it because everyone has a right to it. Some religions are crazy, but we allow them because everyone has a right to them. Similarly, some actions are unhealthy to those who consensually engage in them on private property, but we allow them because everyone has a right to do whatever they on their private property. * Some workplaces allow fighting, spitting, belching, which are all disgusting to some, but as long as they're done on private property and everyone consents to any physical or psychological harms associated with them, then they are all 100% fine. (She may have meant it sarcastically, though.)"

fighting, spitting, and belching are not carcinogens. furthermore, if someone fights with you, belches on you, or spits on you, that could be considered assault and is a criminal charge. if someone is smoking, you have no choice but to breathe - if someone is belching or spitting, you can just look away.

Quote :

"Exactly. That's what everyone should do. You simply decide whether or not you consent to being around it. It's pretty simple, really."

no, it actually isn't.

Quote :

"I suppose many people would share that opinion of what makes an office "decent". It's also a good business decision, because by allowing smoking, you're likely missing out the skill and talents of potential employees that don't consent to being around smoke."

employees who smoke usually

a) have increased healthcare costs, driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone else at the company
b) from my experiences, aren't the most motivated or talented workers
c) could have their sense of judgement called into question for choosing to smoke in the first place, regardless of the fact that they are a consenting adult.
d) will have their tenures at the company cut short due to the whole early death thing

i really don't see where it's a wise business decision whatsoever to hire someone who smokes.


i don't give a fuck what you do as long as it doesn't harm me. if you smoke, and i'm forced to breathe your exhaust, that's harming me and i have a problem with that.

3/16/2009 11:19:07 AM

Quote :

"i don't give a fuck what you do, as long as it doesn't harm me. if you smoke, and i'm forced to breathe your exhaust, that's harming me and i have a problem with that."

pretty much the same thing with me, though, as i mentioned in the other thread, i don't bitch and moan about bars, pool halls, bowling alleys, etc. because i feel that i have an actual choice about whether to go (also, an evening of inhaling probably won't kill me)...and yes, i realize the same could be said about a person's job (in that, you don't HAVE to work there), but everyone knows they're not the same argument, despite the fact that some in this thread would have you believe that they were

would someone complained if you took thumbtacks and poked them all day? i mean, why? they don't HAVE to work there, right? the idea is the same...both cause bodily harm and neither is necessary

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 11:23:15 AM

^ 10/10.

going to a bar and going to work every day are two entirely different things.

3/16/2009 11:24:05 AM

^^ win

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ss]

3/16/2009 11:27:06 AM

Quote :

"^^ i think youre giving yourself WAY too much credit."

Not possible!

I enjoy smoking, and I'm happy to hear there are still workplaces that allow smoking.

However, I recognize my view as unpopular, and smoking at work will very soon be outlawed.

I gave practical advice to Novicane on how to handle the immediate issues his co-workers' habits present. And I also suggested he join the political process by writing his congressman.


This thread blew up with quote bombs in a matter of minutes: It's so disgusting! It harms my health! Well, then get another job! It's a constitutional right to smoke!!!

Both sides of this debate are uncompromising and self-righteous.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : To be clear.]

3/16/2009 11:29:41 AM

Quote :

"It's a constitutional right to smoke!!!"

where, exactly, in the constitution does it state that smoking is an unalienable right?

3/16/2009 11:32:46 AM

Ask Willy Nilly. I was mocking him.

3/16/2009 11:35:37 AM

i see.

3/16/2009 11:36:06 AM

Quote :

"Both sides of this debate are uncompromising and self-righteous."

you could say that about any debate...the difference is that in this case, there's the FACT that smoking is harmful to both the one CHOOSING to partake and those choosing NOT to...the solution of "if you don't like it, get another job" is unreasonable and immature, ESPECIALLY in this economy...your "right your congressman" suggestion is also asinine

people deserve any right to personal freedoms that DO NOT infringe on someone else's personal freedoms OR harm others...the smoker has the right to smoke ONLY around others who know the risks and also choose to indulge...as soon as someone comes in and says "i choose not to poison myself", the smokers need to remove themselves to a position in which they're no longer harming others

you really don't get it, though, do you?

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 11:37:57 AM

Quote :

"you could say that about any debate...the difference is that in this case, there's the FACT that smoking is harmful to both the one CHOOSING to partake and those choosing NOT to...the solution of "if you don't like it, get another job" is unreasonable and immature, ESPECIALLY in this economy...your "right your congressman" suggestion is also asinine people deserve any right to personal freedoms that DO NOT infringe on someone else's personal freedoms OR harm others...the smoker has the right to smoke ONLY around others who know the risks and also choose to indulge...as soon as someone comes in and says "i choose not to poison myself", the smokers need to remove themselves to a position in which they're no longer harming others you really don't get it, though, do you?"

Actually I do get it. I've written arguments against smoking in the workplace that are far more eloquent than any shit you've posted in this thread.

Now am I giving myself too much credit, Arms?

3/16/2009 11:48:50 AM

see, that's just it...you can be a parrot and just repeat the same argument against smoking the workplace and still not get it...the FACT is that smokers engage in an activity that HARMS OTHER PEOPLE in a situation like this

there is no debate regarding this FACT...the very creation of this thread indicates that there are people who, by their voluntary actions, are hurting other people

eloquent or not, the FACT is that they are infringing upon another person's right to work effectively and safely, end of story

3/16/2009 11:53:21 AM

I'm no parrot.

I actually pride myself on not reading very often for that reason.

3/16/2009 12:01:33 PM

Quote :

"I'm no parrot. I actually pride myself on not reading very often for that reason."

...really? you should be so proud! ignorance IS bliss!

I'M AFRAID TO READ BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I CAN FORM MY OWN OPINIONS.

3/16/2009 12:04:56 PM

This feels like another of Bridgets pseudo-trolling.

3/16/2009 12:07:25 PM

^ yea i almost got caught in that as well. smokers who spread their filth should die, well at least quicker than the rest of us.

3/16/2009 12:10:18 PM

you're probably right...i think i might have actually just been successfully trolled

i sure hope so...i can't think she's that stupid, but it's possible

3/16/2009 12:10:47 PM

Quote :

"RIGHT TO WORK"

3/16/2009 12:20:16 PM

No one mentions case law.

Advocates for "smoke-free workplaces" contend that since nonsmokers work in bars and restaurants, and that since even second-hand smoke contains so-called Class A carcinogens that in large doses can cause cancer, people should be entitled to "safe" places wherein to work. In other words, by banning smoking in these places, government simply is protecting the "rights" of workers.

On the surface, such arguments may sound good, but when one barely scratches the surface, they not only are specious, but downright dangerous. Such laws amount to a confiscation of property. Whatever governing body makes the ruling is using force to limit behavior that can occur on private property, yet it is the owner who is liable for enforcing the rule—on pain of losing the property and perhaps even his or her freedom. Property owners, who in a free market would be able to decide on their own whether or not they want to permit smoking, have that right taken away from them by the state.

One forgets that people who either are employees or patrons of a bar or restaurant are there by choice. To put it another way, those individuals who decide either to work at such an establishment or to eat and drink there freely have made the decision to spend time at that place. No restaurant or bar owner can force anyone to work or eat at his or her establishment, so at best, the state is "rescuing" people from their own free choices, which means that the political authorities—and the activists cheering them on—are in effect also coercing those workers and patrons into making choices that meet state approval.

Much has been made of nonsmokers being "victims" of passive smoke created by smokers. Those of us who are nonsmokers on occasions have complained about breathing the smoke of others, to be sure, and there have been times when I have not gone to certain places where people were smoking. However, it is one thing for me to refuse to patronize a place where people are smoking; it is quite another to employ the state as a vehicle to impose my desires upon others.

The anti-smoking policies in effect give disaffected persons (along with politicians and activists) de facto property rights, something I pointed out to the activist. His response was as follows: "I think ALL Group A carcinogens should be prohibited in the workplace, to the extent possible."

The "Class A Carcinogens" argument, while at first sounding good, is yet another rhetorical trick. According to cancer researchers, tobacco smoke carries the "Class A" carcinogens, and these supposedly also have an effect upon nonsmokers. Given the political motivation of much anti-tobacco research, one must take these results with a very large bag of salt. (For example, the media recently trumpeted a "study" which claimed that smoking bans could cut heart attacks in half. Jacob Sullum of the Reason Foundation clearly debunks that and other studies.

However, as I pointed out in my responses, there are many hazards in this world, and his reasoning would give unhappy people an absolute veto power over nearly everything. For example, if one is able to walk into any establishment and demand people stop smoking, would not someone who is offended by "R" rated movies have the right to order the theater to stop showing that particular film? For that matter, all of us are quite aware of the dangers of alcoholic beverages, and if it is dangerous for people to smoke, it certainly can also be dangerous for them to drink.

That being the case, one would expect the political authorities to be so concerned about alcohol abuse that they order bars and restaurants to stop serving such beverages, or at least permit anyone to enter a bar and declare that all drinking must be stopped.

In fact, if one really wants to get at the source of most cancers, there is the sun. If these public health cancer fighters truly were serious about keeping Americans from being exposed to the dangers of cancer, then they would demand legislation that either would prevent the sun from shining or at least require that we block all windows during the day and venture out only at night, something reminiscent of Frederic Bastiat's "Petition of the Candlemakers."

Carcinogens, you see, come in all places, including clothing and carpet. It is nearly impossible to go through life without coming into contact with such things.

Thus, the safety issue is nothing more than a red herring, or yet another version of the "Camel's Nose." Anti-tobacco activists most likely will not stop until we have something akin to the 1920s version of Prohibition, this time tobacco being the target, the failures of alcohol and drug bans not affecting them in the least.

While many libertarians have fashioned the argument as a contest between the rights of smokers and nonsmokers, it is a mistake to stop there. There are no doubts that conflicting rights exist here, but legislation targeting tobacco use is not the answer. The real issue here is not whether the law will be used as a mediation device between smokers and nonsmokers, but rather the fact that activists are using the state as a vehicle to hijack private property rights and to take choices away from individuals who are quite capable of thinking for themselves.

"If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away," writes Mises.

The decision of whether or not to ban smoking on private property should be solely left up to the property owner, period. Furthermore, individuals who choose to work or patronize such places should not be permitted to claim later that secondhand smoke made them sick (and then have a jury make them multimillionaires).

For all of the "halo-effect" that supposedly surrounds anti-smoking activists, they are little more than closet thieves. Yes, free speech dictates that they should be able to say what they want in a proper forum. And, yes, private property rights should also dictate that they mind their own business when it comes to the property of others.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : a]

3/16/2009 12:20:45 PM

Would you stop fucking passing off someone else's words as your own trying to look smart to this website?

http://mises.org/story/1244

For fucks sake man.

3/16/2009 12:29:23 PM

holy god, words!

3/16/2009 12:30:44 PM

^
just you wait:

Quote :

"By entering the private property where smoking is going on, you are consenting to being harmed by it"

Quote :

"this is entirely false"

Quote :

"Nope. It's 100% correct. You are wrong."

Quote :

"sorry, i'm not."

Yes, you are.

Quote :

"from a legal standpoint, i do not consent to anything whatsoever by merely entering a private property."

That's not what I said. I said that "By entering the private property where smoking is going on, you are consenting to being harmed by it." As in, you are aware of the smoke and choose to expose yourself to it.

Quote :

"fighting, spitting, and belching are not carcinogens."

No one said they were.

Quote :

"if someone fights with you, belches on you, or spits on you, that could be considered assault and is a criminal charge"

Nope. If it's on private property and is consensual, then fighting, belching and spitting are not criminal. When you fight with your buddies or spit on your girlfriend's twat, you're not a criminal. You seem to need a better understanding of this thing called "consent".

Quote :

"Exactly. That's what everyone should do. You simply decide whether or not you consent to being around it. It's pretty simple, really."

Quote :

"no, it actually isn't."

Yes, actually it is.

Quote :

"employees who smoke usually a) have increased healthcare costs, driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone else at the company"

This is only because they choose to have their insurance set up that way, assuming they even offer it. Smokers can simply pay more. If an insurance policy makes anyone have to pay for someone else's unhealthy habits, that's not the fault of the person with the unhealthy habits -- it's both the fault of the person who chooses to have that job and that type insurance, as well as a failure of the employer to pursue a more sensible type of insurance where those that choose to smoke pay more.

Quote :

"b) from my experiences, aren't the most motivated or talented workers"

Your experiences don't matter one bit. (Unless you wish to feed people's prejudices.)

Quote :

"c) could have their sense of judgement called into question for choosing to smoke in the first place, regardless of the fact that they are a consenting adult."

Your judgment of their judgment doesn't matter one bit. (You elitist health-care types fucking suck.) Smoking could be helping them work -- and if they choose to accept whatever harm may come from it, that is their choice. Suggesting that such a judgment is bad is simply your opinion. Also, suggesting that a bad judgment in the area of self-medication necessarily translates into making bad judgments elsewhere is just plain prejudiced. Of course, if you're the boss, that's your decision.

Quote :

"d) will have their tenures at the company cut short due to the whole early death thing"

First of all, not every smoker experiences early death. Second, plenty of non-smokers experience early death. Life is life, and death is a part of it. Again, though, if you're the boss, you can base your policies on whatever prejudices you like.

Quote :

"i really don't see where it's a wise business decision whatsoever to hire someone who smokes."

For most any job, I don't see how whether someone smokes or not matters one bit.

Quote :

"i don't give a fuck what you do as long as it doesn't harm me. if you smoke, and i'm forced to breathe your exhaust, that's harming me and i have a problem with that."

You're not forced to breathe anyone's smoke. However, I find it funny that you work around a vehicle all day, right? Does it put out exhaust that you're forced to breathe? Just saying....

Quote :

"everyone knows they're not the same argument, despite the fact that some in this thread would have you believe that they were"

No, they're the same. They are both privately owned places of employment. Either it's wrong to allow smoking at bars where people have jobs and at other buildings where people have jobs, or it's up to the private property owner to decide whether to allow smoking at bars where people have jobs and at other buildings where people have jobs.

But then you say:

Quote :

"would someone complained if you took thumbtacks and poked them all day?"

which is clearly apples and oranges. In order to poke someone, you must make contact with them. Emitting hazardous smoke is, and should always be, legally distinct from such cases of assault.

Quote :

"10/10"

Quote :

"win"

Except that he's completely wrong -- and he should know it. A privately owned place of employment is a privately owned place of employment is a privately owned place of employment. Equality under the law means that the government can't say, "This privately owned building must follow this set of rules, but this other privately owned building must follow this other set of rules."

Quote :

"However, I recognize my view as unpopular, and smoking at work will very soon be outlawed."

Sadly, you're very likely right. Our democratic constitutional republic has devolved into a populist nanny-state. We must fight back, because liberty and justice are on our side.

Quote :

"where, exactly, in the constitution does it state that smoking is an unalienable right?"

Where does it say that having sex is an unalienable right? (The constitution doesn't have to explicitly say everything, you know...)

Quote :

"the solution of "if you don't like it, get another job" is unreasonable and immature,"

Wrong and Wrong. It is perfectly reasonable and mature.

Quote :

"ESPECIALLY in this economy"

Translation: "Money is more important than civil liberties".

Quote :

"as soon as someone comes in and says "i choose not to poison myself", the smokers need to remove themselves to a position in which they're no longer harming others"

If the smokers are on private property and are allowed to smoke by the owner, then no one (other than the owner,) can force them to stop. When they come on to the property, they are consenting to being around the smoke. By your logic, someone can just climb into a boxing ring during a fight and stand in between the boxers and say "I choose not to be punched, so you boxers need to remove yourselves to a position in which you're no longer harming me." The boxing is consensual, and the ring is privately owned. The smoking is consensual and the property is privately owned.

Quote :

"you really don't get it, though, do you"

You're the one who doesn't get it.

Quote :

"...the FACT is that smokers engage in an activity that HARMS OTHER PEOPLE in a situation like this"

AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE CONSENTING TO IT.

Quote :

"there is no debate regarding this FACT.."

except that you're leaving out the most important aspect -- the consent.

Quote :

"the very creation of this thread indicates that there are people who, by their voluntary actions, are hurting other people"

AND THOSE PEOPLE, BY THEIR VOLUNTARY INACTION TO GET UP AND LEAVE, ARE CONSENTING TO THE HARM.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

3/16/2009 12:32:17 PM

Quote :

"I guess I just never worked shitty dumpy jobs where the company can count their employed on 1 hand."

Haha, seriously... I don't even care about the arguments one way or another for/against it. I've never even heard of a reputable job in an office building that allows smoking in the office since I've been out of school...

3/16/2009 1:24:43 PM