Smoke-Free Workplace Laws

Tobacco has and still is the most important public health issue faced in Australia and internationally. (Jochelson, 2006). Many countries such as North America, England, Australia, Canada and Ireland have introduced policies regarding smoking in public areas and restriction of smoking in indoor areas. (Thomson, Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The government, community leaders and policy makers work towards introducing policies that will stop consumers from smoking in public areas. (Pizacani, maher, Rohde, Drach & Stark, 2012). Government intervention should extend public smoking bans so that second hand smokers can be safe, a better environment and less death incidents relating to smoking.

This problem, which plagues all Americans, should have action taken on a local scale to help protect the health of the public. The Ames City Council is in the process of debating a city ordanince which whould ban smoking in all public places, with the exception of those designated as "smokng areas". A public place shall be defined by Subsection

The Company’s pledge to provide a safe and healthy work environment bans smoking on Company properties, including but not limited to break areas, bathrooms, and work areas. Employees who smoke will be able to do so only on break and lunch times. They will have to go outside of the Company’s facility in the designated smoking areas on the property.

The 1997 Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Group of Eight countries on Children’s

Field, P. (1922, October 10). Coffee and Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. Retrieved October 10, 1927, from www.sciencecases.org/secondhand_smoke/secondhand_smoke.pdf

Even though the workers know tobacco is harmful, it is how they make a living. Workers make tobacco to make money and do not want it banned. Tobacco companies make tobacco, put it in products, and sell it. If tobacco is banned, the companies will not have a product to sell and will go bankrupt. The banning of tobacco products is unacceptable for tobacco companies.

I don’t think its fair for an employer to discriminate someone for a position because they smoke or are overweight as long as it does not affect their ability to perform or affect others. Unfortunately, its is the business owner or manager who determines the image they want to sell for their business and what is best in the interest of the business or the services they provide. Depending on their line of work the position may require the person to be fit and someone who is overweight or smokes may not be able to perform certain tasks.

My name is Pasquale Oppedisano and I think smoking should be banned in the workplace (inside and out) for many reasons. One is smoking is considered to be a dirty habit by most people, two passive smoking is just as bad if not worse than smoking, smoke shortens and damages equipment for example computers, higher risks of accidents like fires, loss of work time because of smoking activities and difficulties in hiring/keeping employees that are sensitive to smoking.

Specifically, implementation of rules is on the overall safety of each and every person within the workplace. Unfortunately, there will be people who feel triumphant and those who feel discriminated against and defeated. The manufacturers, distributors, and retailers who sell tobacco and now the e-cigarette that creates a vapor for the customer, feel defeated as they and the customers continue to receive push-back from those who do not smoke. Allowing the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace creates a double edge knife for the employer. In defense of the e-cigarette user production will not diminish, and the person will be more enjoyable to be around, since they are able to receive their nicotine addiction. On the other hand, for the worker who does not smoke, while there is still evidence Trtchounian, Williams & Talbot (2010) the vapors released from the e-cigarette and the smoke exhaled by the smoker, possess a health risk to others purely on the chemicals used within the e-cigarette. Moreover, further findings indicate the non-cancer exposure of nicotine and propylene glycol still exceed the minimum of 1.0 parts, which creates a health risk for anyone who inhales the smoke exhaled from another person (Offermann, Francis (Bud), 2014). Any time a person’s actions in the workplace can possibly bring pain and

The smokers who choose to bring harm to themselves have the right to damage their health if they choose. The alternatives non smokers have are to not be in presence of smokers. Where public places advertise no smoking, and still supple designated areas for smokers they should still take in account that the smoke still ventilates the surrounding areas. My advice is not to engage where there is no smoking, and smoking areas. The fumes from the non smoking area cannot be contained completely. If you don’t want to stop passive don’t attend these public places. The article on line indicated if there was enough non-smokers going to these public facilities there would be no need to post no smoking () .

“After several companies adopted smoker-hiring bans a couple of decades ago, the tobacco industry and the American Civil Liberties Union lobbied for smoker rights. As a result, 29 states and the District of Columbia passed smoker-protection laws.” (Koch, 2012) So, the government can be influenced from both sides.

During this clip of “Young Frankenstein” there were a few HR issues that I observed. The first issue I observed was smoking in the workplace. The issue of smoking in the workplace is the impact of second-hand smoke, which could affect the health of other employees and the comfort of non-smokers. People who are non-smokers usually don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke and this could make them unconfutable, which could lead to irritation or even a violent dispute as shown in the clip.

Smoking should not be permitted in public areas, since it’s not reasonable to force a non-smoker into inhaling unwanted toxic smokes into his own body. Just like one has the option of being a smoker, they other may have the right to pick the option of not wanting to be a passive smoker.

The research design is appropriate for answering the research question, which was determining the consequences and perspectives from patients and health care providers on the new policies mandating smoke-free hospital properties. The research design is appropriate because ethnographic research is based on studying patterns of behaviour within a culture. This study was based on studying patterns of behaviours on smoking-policies but the study mostly aimed to gain perspectives from a variety of individuals. Ethnographic method is great for the study in the fact that it can be used to include behavioural and cognitive perspectives, which in this case the study focused on observing behaviours of smoking and if the policies were being followed and also included the perspectives on the new smoke-free policies. Also ethnographic research usually focuses on studying one culture. This study did try to focus on one specific culture, but the population had “diversity” consisting of smokers and non-smokers. The culture that was viewed in the study was tobacco use and management.

Nicotine is highly addictive, which is one of the reasons why it is so dangerous. The nicotine withdrawals a person might go through can be one of the biggest reasons they cannot/will not quit. Smokers may know the dangers it causes, but have too much difficulty quitting and it is no longer an option for them. They may decide to continue smoking, accepting the risks simply because of the psychological and physical traumas quitting takes them through. One of the employees fired by Weyco in Michigan due to its ban on smoking, Cara Stiffler, spoke out about the policy. She strongly disagrees with the ban and she believes that quitting smoking is a fight about personal liberty. She says “I want to quit, but I want it to be on my terms, not someone forcing me to make that