Quote :

"RALEIGH — The proposed ban on smoking at most workplaces hit a snag Wednesday when the film industry told legislators the bill would hamper movie and television production in North Carolina. The industry asked lawmakers for an exemption for television and film actors to smoke during performances. Lawmakers are working on such a provision, said Sen. Bill Purcell of Laurinburg, co-chairman of the committee. The film industry raised concerns about the bill Wednesday morning, shortly before the Health Committee was scheduled to begin debating the smoking ban. As written, “it would say you can’t smoke in workplaces, and a movie scene is a workplace,” Purcell said. In an interview early this year, Rep. Rick Glazier of Fayetteville, a prime sponsor of the bill, said the ban would also apply to actors smoking in stage shows. The Gilbert Theater and Cape Fear Regional Theatre in Fayetteville sometimes present plays in which the actors smoke. The restriction would make it more difficult for some movies and television shows to be filmed in North Carolina, said Vans Stevenson, a vice president with the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA has asked for an exemption. Television shows and films are made at studios in Wilmington, and some films have been shot in other locations around the state. “We support banning smoking in the workplace,” Stevenson said. Modifying the bill would allow actors to depict smoking when a script or scene calls for it, he added. As an example, Stevenson said, a World War II movie likely would depict soldiers smoking because the Army used to issue cigarettes to soldiers. “There’s a lot of storytelling that calls for those kind of depictions because art imitates life,” he said."

If state politicians feel that smoking is so dangerous that they feel the need to use the force of the state to stop people from smoking in certain places, then why wouldn't it be just as reasonable support the lesser intrusion of preventing images of people enjoying a cigarette from getting out to the public via movies filmed in the North Carolina?

They ban smoking on one hand, and then make allowances for it to be glamourized on the Silver Screen?

I guess their desire to stop people from smoking stops at the point where money is to be made.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=324411

4/23/2009 11:28:10 AM

Quote :

"I guess their desire to stop people from smoking stops at the point where money is to be made."

Stop a moment and think about what you just said.

4/23/2009 11:29:40 AM

Is this board your news aggregator now or something?

4/23/2009 11:30:20 AM

the bill has already been really watered down...by the time it passes (if it does), it'll mainly apply to places that already prohibit smoking on thier own.....so it'll likely turn out to be a huge waste of time when it shouldn't have even been pushed forward in the first place.

yay gov!

4/23/2009 11:36:16 AM

Quote :

"There’s a lot of storytelling that calls for those kind of depictions because art imitates life”"

So what's the problem

Oh yeah, they have to make anohter WWII movie.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM. Reason : -]

4/23/2009 11:38:55 AM

They could use the electronic cigarettes, or CGI in the smoke on fake cigarettes. I mean, you don't see the MPAA asking for them to allow them to crash airliners or fire real missles or do any of the other illegal shit that they emulate with props and special effects.

The smoking ban is stupid, but asking for an exception based on this is also stupid. Does double-stupidity cancel it out or what?

4/23/2009 12:39:50 PM

Meh, this issue just shows what the legislature is about. Then again, its just telliing us something we already knew.

My company (european in origin) recently started an office building smoking ban. You are not even allowed to smoke on the premises, anywhere (includes outside in parking lot or in your car).

4/23/2009 12:59:21 PM

Does this "ban" outlawing designated smoking areas from places of employment; if so even as a non-smoker i find this rediculous. If though you are trying to say that the state should not ban me from smoking a pack a day in my cubicle than you are an bafoon.

If i work at a company where the head hancho is a smoker thus allows smoking; than I should have to put up all day, while at my computer, with my neighbor who smokes like a factor? Free markets will solve the problem; I should just get another job AM I RITE!

Ban on smoking zones at companies- rediculous
Ban on smoking anywhere i fucking feel like it at my office (if my boss doesn't care)- Obviously common sense.

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM. Reason : a]

4/23/2009 12:59:34 PM

^You just inadvertantly made the argument most legislators are making for the overall ban...substitute cubicle worker for bartender.

any smoking ban of this nature on private property is bad imo.

Quote :

"My company (european in origin) recently started an office building smoking ban. You are not even allowed to smoke on the premises, anywhere (includes outside in parking lot or in your car)."

likewise (minus the european part)...which is totally fine, since it's their property and all.

4/23/2009 1:19:49 PM

Quote :

"Smoking ban workaround catches on at bars across state Having patrons become "actors" when entire bar is turned into a "stage" started as a one-night experiment 2 weeks ago, but now it's becoming a way around state law. By MARY LYNN SMITH, Star Tribune Last update: February 22, 2008 - 7:23 AM What started as a quirky idea to get around the statewide smoking ban appears to be spreading like wildfire. Dozens of bars are expected to stage "theater nights'' this weekend in which patrons are dubbed actors. The law, which went into effect in October, permits performers to smoke during a theatrical production. "Two weeks ago, we had one bar doing this,'' said Mark Benjamin, a criminal defense attorney who launched the theater-night idea. He estimates 50 to 100 bars could be on tap for theater nights this weekend based on phone calls, e-mails and requests for the how-to-stage-a-theater-night packet that he's devised. And many bar owners are passing on the information quickly among themselves without getting in contact with him. State Health Department officials didn't return calls Thursday, but said earlier this week that they are waiting for a state attorney general's opinion on the legality of theater nights. State legislators who championed the ban said last week that the loophole likely will be plugged and the bar theater nights will end. But until that happens, Kenn Rockler, executive director for the Tavern League of Minnesota, said he's getting calls and e-mails from bar owners. Lisa Anderson, owner of Mike's Uptown bar in Hill City, said that last Saturday she staged a "theater night" and packed in four times the usual crowd that has come in since the smoking ban took effect. Anderson said she has been helping other bar owners who want to put on their own tobacco productions. "I'm going to continue to do this,'' she said. "It increased my business.'' So will Brian Bauman, owner of The Rock nightclub in Maplewood, which staged a theater night Tuesday and nearly doubled the usual crowd. At least 10 other bar owners wandered through his bar that night, taking stock of the event's success. It won't work for every bar or restaurant because some are carving out a niche with nonsmokers, he said. "We're a rock bar and the majority of the people who come here smoke," Bauman said. Until the state puts a stop to this, "we have every intention of doing this again. ...We have our karaoke night and we have our rock night. Now we will have our theater night."

4/23/2009 1:27:49 PM

Quote :

"Does this "ban" outlawing designated smoking areas from places of employment;"

lol. Yes. There are no designated smoking areas now, nor do I think there were any "official" ones before.

4/23/2009 1:47:34 PM

Oooh, aren't they smart? Exploiting a technicality to go against the spirit of a law. Watch for people complaining about zero-tolerance laws.

Now all they'll do is better define "theater", "stage", and "actor" and then they'll just have to have underground smoking rooms like speakeasies.

wlb420, I wonder why bartenders/waitresses afford less workplace protection than cubicle workers. You say smoking bans are bad. Is this because you don't believe smoking to be a health risk or because it's the gov't sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? I have to assume it's the latter. In that case, why stop at smoking? Surely asbestos bans are bad. All OSHA regulations are bad. Workers don't need protections, they can just work somewhere else amirite?

4/23/2009 1:49:51 PM

4:20 smoke weed every day

4/23/2009 1:50:40 PM

Quote :

"wlb420, I wonder why bartenders/waitresses afford less workplace protection than cubicle workers."

never said that...in fact they deserve the very same protection in this situation...their own free will, unless the property owner makes the decision for them.

Quote :

"You say smoking bans are bad. Is this because you don't believe smoking to be a health risk or because it's the gov't sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? I have to assume it's the latter. In that case, why stop at smoking? Surely asbestos bans are bad. All OSHA regulations are bad. Workers don't need protections, they can just work somewhere else amirite?"

its erosion of property owner rights, which is bad. I've said it before and I'll say it again...your example, as well as food saftey comparisons are off base. When you enter an establishment, it is a reasonable assumption to assume the property owner isn't putting you in an environment with undue heath risks over which you have no control...food regs, and building codes facilitate this, as a customer/employee isn't able to review these things for themselves.

They do know (or can easily find out) if a place allows smoking....at that point it becomes a personal choice to put oneself in that environment

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 2:28 PM. Reason : i]

4/23/2009 2:24:58 PM

But I honestly don't get it. Why is it ok for the gov't to say "you need to clear up asbestos because it's hazardous to workers", but not ok to say "you need to prevent workers from smoking because it's hazardous to workers"?

In your example, why can't business owners just let potential workers know that they dig asbestos and 14 hour workdays and if they don't like it they can just go somewhere else?

4/23/2009 3:01:03 PM

I'd guess it has to do with how easy it would be for an employee to determine the threat of asbestos vs cigarette smoke. Anyone person can walk into a workspace and easily see the threat of second hand smoke and make an informed decision. It's not realistic to expect employees to examine building infrastructure looking for asbestos.



[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : poor choice of words]

4/23/2009 3:26:19 PM

so, asbestos would be fine as long as there was a sign that said "this place is full of asbestos, yo"

4/23/2009 3:35:16 PM

Quote :

"There are no designated smoking areas now"

There is such places at my job where in the 1980s new company policy prohibited smoking in the office. I find it pretty rediculous that before
hand I otherwise would have to smell like the bar everyday leaving work if I was unlucky to sit next to a smoker.

Oh no! evil liberal gov't says my Doctor can't smoke down the hallway while treating patients.

I am kinda torn about the ban as applied to the bars. No longer around my college friends cig smoke bothers me a lot more now than before.
Nonetheless if you choose to visit the bar you do so knowing aside from some sorostitute throwing up in the corner, middle age creeper
guy hitting on your girl, that people smoke cigarettes. If you do not like then do NOT GO! I am sure given the large percentage
of non-smokers that there will be non-smoking bars.
This only applies to stricty bars though. Places to which are restaurants that just happen to have a bar; should continue the status quo
of an isolated smoking area if any at all.

I do think the witch hunt against smokeing has gotten out of control. People know the harms of smoking; if I choose to do so why is
it of anyone's fucking concern as long as I am not blowing smoke in their face or inside a confined area.

4/23/2009 3:37:34 PM

But if you delineate bars from the rules, then you get into the problem that this thread is about: all of the sudden non-bar businesses start calling themselves bars and BAM, smoke whenever you want.

But this still doesn't address:

1)Why is asbestos different from cigarette smoke? Should bars be allowed to have asbestos?
2)What about the workers at the bars? Why do they afford less protection as workers than workers in other industries?

4/23/2009 3:57:09 PM

Quote :

"so, asbestos would be fine as long as there was a sign that said "this place is full of asbestos, yo""

if i'm not mistaken, its ok to be present in existing buildings until disturbed (by remodeling ect...) at which time it must be removed.

but, the basic premise is still applicable...I don't think a business would be very successful posting signs to the effect of "hey, our building is structually unsound, it could collapse at any moment" or "hey, we use tainted ingredients in our food", but somehow businesses still operate, even thrive by posting that they allow smoking...go figure.

Quote :

"2)What about the workers at the bars? Why do they afford less protection as workers than workers in other industries?"

again, they deserve the exact same protections....free will, unless the property owner chooses for them.

4/23/2009 4:03:06 PM

So you're against all government mandated worker protections?

4/23/2009 4:08:12 PM

no you misunderstand...things like building codes/food saftey standards ARE good things (mainly b/c consumers/workers cannot be expected to make educated decisions for themselves)...

point is, notice of unsafe building conditions or questionable food saftey (which the agencies in effect do) would kill a business while smoking establishments survive b/c people (who are informed that smoking takes place there w/o gov needing to tell them) still consume/work there.

and to your point about worker saftey, why aren't commercial fisherman, oil riggers or miners afforded the same protections as joe cubicle worker? It's because their services are in demand, it pays well, and they knowingly CHOOSE to trade the potential hazards for the potential benefits.





[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 4:23:18 PM

Quote :

"of the sudden non-bar businesses start calling themselves bars and BAM, smoke whenever you want."

if i'm not mistaken, a "bar" is a pretty specific designation - a certain percentage of your revenue has to come from alcohol or bar-drinks.

4/23/2009 5:03:25 PM

Even coal miners and commercial fishermen are still protected by OSHA. The fact that the job itself has an element of danger doesn't mean that there aren't still guidelines that prevent the owners of said businesses from cutting corners or allowing unduly unsafe work environments.

Unless smoking is somehow the product of the job, I don't see how this comparison is even valid.

Quote :

"point is, notice of unsafe building conditions or questionable food saftey (which the agencies in effect do) would kill a business"

I truly don't understand where you're going with this. Workers should only be protected from hazards that cannot be revealed to customers without adversely affecting business? The reason why asbestos is different from cigarette smoke is because having an asbestos section would be bad for business?

And working backwards

Quote :

"no you misunderstand...things like building codes/food saftey standards ARE good things (mainly b/c consumers/workers cannot be expected to make educated decisions for themselves)..."

How did you decide that workers can make educated decisions about cigarette smoke but not about other hazards? What's the line? Should a business owner be allowed to hire children and force people to work 10 hours without a break? I mean, if he let's them know before hand and they choose to work there, they could just work somewhere else right?

4/23/2009 5:07:31 PM

Quote :

"2)What about the workers at the bars? Why do they afford less protection as workers than workers in other industries?"

Except for the fact that getting a job at the bar you expect that condition upon signing up for employment. Working at a bar obviously you will

Be in a smoking environment which is a given like other job inconveniences such as you may have to break up a fight between some drunk morons.

If you do not want to work at a smoky bar than work elsewhere. The is not the case for a say an accountant getting hired on at Kirby & Associates accounting firm. Perhaps this company is liberal about smoking and you just happened to get the chair next to the firms chain smoker. SORRY MAN FREE MARKETS GET JOB ELSEWHERE OR DEAL WITH MR SMOKER ALL DAY.

This is kind of reasoning one could argue companies do not have to provide restrooms for employees at a engineering firm b.c trash men do not have bathrooms provided by the company as they ride around the trash truck. Upon taking the job as a trash man you know that you may go long periods without being able to take a leak until your route is done.

4/23/2009 8:20:10 PM

"theater nights" haha

brilliant

4/23/2009 9:23:51 PM

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_042209_news_hookah_bar_ban.10053c1e2.html

Quote :

"Oregon lawmaker takes aim at hookah bars Oregon already has a smoking ban inside businesses and now state lawmakers want to ban businesses from allowing people to smoke flavored tobacco out of a pipe called a hookah. "

Absurd....

The Jesus freak evangelists are just as bad

but seriously do these do-gooder liberals have nothing better to do than sit around bitch about shit that bothers them then try to use political power to prevents it. The drinking and driving as well as the smoking witch hunt has gotten out of hand.

Why can't some thing be left to common sense. If you are at a hookah lounge there will be smoke; and it could be hazardous to your health. So do not go if you don't want to be exposed at 2nd hand smoke. At a BAR people drink and smoke the same applies.
At my desk at work if I want to smoke rather than annoying the people around me (even if my company does not ban smoking) I should go out for a smoke break.


[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 12:08 AM. Reason : l]

4/23/2009 11:55:51 PM

^Incrementalism, give and inch take a mile, slippery slope. It goes by many names but whenever the government gets the power to do X, you can guarantee yourself that at some point in the future they will try (and usually succeed) to get the power to do X+1.

4/24/2009 7:43:26 AM

Quote :

"At my desk at work if I want to smoke rather than annoying the people around me (even if my company does not ban smoking) I should go out for a smoke break."

That's all well and good HUR, but if there was no law in place, how many people would do what they should? There's your problem. People are self-centered assholes that have no decency and care nothing for the well-being of those around them. If people were considerate and didn't have such a sense of entitlement there would be no need for any smoking ban or even many other public health laws.

But there's the rub. History has shown that given the chance, business owners will exploit their workers as much as they possibly can. People would smoke on a crowded elevator with no regard to anyone around them. So there has to be some rule. I think that much we can agree on. What I don't get is how safety hazards like asbestos are magically different than cigarette smoke. Why is it ok for the gov't to control certain health hazards but not others? Would it be ok for a business owner to violate other health controls as long as he has a sign or is up front about it before hand?

4/24/2009 8:37:08 AM

That was my point stu...

Though i do disagree with companies that do not even create designated "smoking areas" although it is their right to do so. If you are a smoker than either find work elsewhere or get a nicotine patch.

4/24/2009 8:43:08 AM

I guess my problem is that given:

1)The gov't has the right to mandate workplace health safety. This is a requirement because in the past business owners have shown us that that they are greedy fucks that have no regard for the safety of their workers.
2)Cigarette smoke has been proven to be a health hazard.

I just can't understand why it's a problem to ban smoking in the workplace. Which of the above are incorrect? Or is there another factor here that I'm missing?

4/24/2009 8:48:50 AM

cigarettes are legal outside of work. If cigarettes were illegal period, you'd be right. But if the government thinks they're ok for private individuals to use, then theres no reason it shouldn't be ok for private businesses to allow their use.

In practicality the only places this affects are bars. If the bar decides it wants to allow its patrons to smoke, its perfectly fair to expect its employees to be ok with that smoke. Theres nothing that says you have to work at a bar that allows its patrons to smoke, so why wouldn't you just get a job somewhere else?

Personally I cant stand smokers or bars where theres alot of smoke, but I understand the draw for certain people. While I would rather go to a smoke free bar than a smoking one, I'm not going to demand that the gov comes in and forces the bars to change. If the goverment really wants to end smoking, they should ban it everywhere.

4/24/2009 9:14:04 AM

The legality of something seems irrelevant to it's level of safety in the workplace. It's perfectly legal to own a ladder with missing rungs, but it is not legal to expect workers to use this ladder.

By the way, in practicality this does not only affect bars.
message_topic.aspx?topic=561219

Given a chance, people will smoke in their offices with no regards to anyone around them.

4/24/2009 9:30:45 AM

Quote :

"I just can't understand why it's a problem to ban smoking in the workplace. Which of the above are incorrect? Or is there another factor here that I'm missing?"

yes...actually more like ignoring. Certain jobs come with circumstances that can be considered 'more dangerous' than others. While all workers in the US are afforded certain protections under law, there comes a point where the individual must knowingly choose for themselves whether or not to work there....you make it seem as if these people have no idea they'll be woking in an environment where smoking is commonplace.

4/24/2009 9:41:39 AM

Thats a rare example. The vast majority of places, especially ones run by major companies are going to have no-smoking rules. And the same point stands. If those people want to work in a place they can smoke, why do you have the right to tell them they cant? Smoking is legal after all. Should we ban drinking in the workplace? After all drunk drivers have probably killed way more people than second hand smoke.

As to the legality of smoking, it does matter. Stores do not sell broken ladders. They do sell cigarettes. The government cant say "hey cigarettes are a-ok(as long as we get tax revenue!)" and then on the other hand say "cigarettes are bad! No one can smoke in the workplace!" The idea that its totally ok for an individual to smoke a cigarrette but its absolutely unacceptable for someone to smell that smoke is ridiculous.

Either ban it entirely or quit bitching about it. This piddling around in the middle is a waste of tax payer money.

4/24/2009 9:44:27 AM

I don't fuck up your lungs by drinking near you. There are laws against drunk driving.

Quote :

"Certain jobs come with circumstances that can be considered 'more dangerous' than others."

So, based on the example above, office workers should expect to have to work in smoky environments? That's my fucking point. Without safety standards, it will not just be bars. It obviously is not at the moment.

Quote :

"As to the legality of smoking, it does matter. Stores do not sell broken ladders. They do sell cigarettes. The government cant say "hey cigarettes are a-ok(as long as we get tax revenue!)" and then on the other hand say "cigarettes are bad! No one can smoke in the workplace!" The idea that its totally ok for an individual to smoke a cigarrette but its absolutely unacceptable for someone to smell that smoke is ridiculous."

So, by your logic, it should be perfectly fine for me to blow my air-horn at you at a decibel level that will result in long-term hearing issues. I mean, shit. I can buy an air-horn at the store and it's legal for me to use it. For some reason I think I'd be arrested for this.

4/24/2009 10:01:53 AM

Quote :

"So, based on the example above, office workers should expect to have to work in smoky environments? That's my fucking point. Without safety standards, it will not just be bars. It obviously is not at the moment."

What office environments do you know of that allow smoking anywhere? You're reaching a bit with this one.

This bill likely wouldn't even cover them anyway, as it only applies to places that employ or directly serve people under 18.

If you apply to a bar, it is a reasonable expectation to encounter cig smoke

Quote :

"So, by your logic, it should be perfectly fine for me to blow my air-horn at you at a decibel level that will result in long-term hearing issues. I mean, shit. I can buy an air-horn at the store and it's legal for me to use it. For some reason I think I'd be arrested for this"

these examples are reaching more and more, but I'll bite....Concernings hearing issues...if you work at a place where you know you'll be consistently exposed to loud music, you'll have to CHOOSE whether or not you want to expose yourself to that....should we make a legal decible limit at concerts to protect the band members from themselves?

4/24/2009 10:15:10 AM

Quote :

"So, by your logic, it should be perfectly fine for me to blow my air-horn at you at a decibel level that will result in long-term hearing issues. I mean, shit. I can buy an air-horn at the store and it's legal for me to use it. For some reason I think I'd be arrested for this."

I dont know of any laws about it, but you'd probably get a punch in the face. At the least you wouldn't be allowed to do it in the workplace because the boss would fire your ass.

Using your same example, what about people working in venues that have bands play loud music? Should they be forced to turn the music down to prevent hearing loss of their workers?

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : a]

4/24/2009 10:24:24 AM

quad post?

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : lol]

4/24/2009 10:24:24 AM

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : lol]

4/24/2009 10:24:24 AM

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : lol]

4/24/2009 10:24:24 AM

Did you not open the link that I posted? An office. There are offices where smoking is allowed anywhere. This was posted on this message board a month ago.

Quote :

"if you work at a place where you know you'll be consistently exposed to loud music"

So that's the difference then. If you know before-hand, it's cool. So as long as I post signs that warn you that the ventilation systems have asbestos or we like to violate other safety regulations, it's fine? Where's the disconnect? What's the difference between asbestos and cigarette smoke? Is it because cigarette smoke is harder to conceal?

4/24/2009 10:26:17 AM

asbestos is illegal. Cigarettes are not. You dont seem to be able to understand that. If a company said "hey we pump asbestos into ur offices non stop every day" it would still be illegal because asbestos is illegal. Not so for cigarrettes because they are not illegal.

Cigarrette smoke is harder to conceal because 1 you can fucking smell it 2 you can see it 3 you can see the cigarrette in someones hand.

Just like I might pass on a bar if I smell or see people smoking, someone who doesn't want to work in a smoking environment should pass on working there.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM. Reason : a]

4/24/2009 10:31:13 AM

^^dude, are you serious? first of all, as I stated before it isn't illegal for asbestos to be present in existing buildings, so it's a bad argument all the way around.

Regardless, the difference between smoke at a bar or loud music at a music venue, or the risk of a collapse in a mine, or the risk of drowning as a commercial fisherman and across the board saftey regulations for unsafe working conditions unrelated to job type is that the former is an expected part of the job, while the latter is not.

Quote :

"asbestos is illegal"

in new construction...and it has to be removed if disturbed

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2009 10:34:09 AM

So are we just ignoring smoking in non-bars then? Sweet.

4/24/2009 10:44:52 AM

Quote :

"So are we just ignoring smoking in non-bars then? Sweet."

What? Who's ignoring them...in fact that's the whole basis of the argument. there are plenty of non-smoking bars/resturants around, b/c the owner chooses to impose the rule on his own property. And likewise, even if someone has no other skills than to work at a restuarant, but can't stand smoke, there are alternatives should they choose to pursue them.

smoking bars exist because there is obviously a demand for them...both for employment and patronage....same for non smoking places. No legislation is needed on the issue.

4/24/2009 10:50:14 AM

There are obviously places which are not bars and which people smoke. I have given you an example of such. Offices are not bars. Offices are not places where one would reasonably expect cigarette smoke based on the type of business that it is. But that's ok, the guy should just work somewhere else, right?

That's the problem. If it's cool with smoking, why have any regulations? Business owners should be able to apply whatever policies they want, let the workers just find the place to work that doesn't give them the shaft.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2009 11:08:52 AM

Quote :

"But that's ok, the guy should just work somewhere else, right? That's the problem. If it's cool with smoking, why have any regulations? Business owners should be able to apply whatever policies they want, let the workers just find the place to work that doesn't give them the shaft."

in all honestly, yes (save what we discussed before concerning basic building codes/osha regs/food safety regs ect) ...but smoking in an office atmosphere is all but non-existent in this day and age....for every example you can find of it being allowed I can find 100 of the counter....I would still be personally against a bill that removes the property owner rights but more open to compromise if it wasn't a blanket all law (the current one is close to a happy medium actually).

Hell, I worked at a place where an office rule was no purfume or cologne b/c the owner was severly allergic to it....it was his place, his rules but there shouldn't be a coverall law banning the stuff from workplaces.

but, this is a moot point with the law in its current form, as it only covers places that employ or directly serve people under 18...which would enable office environments could get around it should they want to.



[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2009 11:29:23 AM

who needs a smoking ban anyway?

4/24/2009 11:47:34 AM

Quote :

"If you apply to a bar, it is a reasonable expectation to encounter cig smoke "

Agreed.

I think the witch hunt against smoking has gotten out of hand. People know the health hazards if they continue to smoke than that is their own agenda.

I think a smoking ban in the workplace could work without effecting venues in which smoking has a precedence of taking place. For examples many bars in NC taht do not serve food are required to be "private clubs" where you have to be a member (usually sign a sheet) or sign up as a guest. Why could not such "private clubs" as well as movie sets, and hookah bars be exempt.

4/24/2009 12:10:18 PM