Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands for deals, including promoted items.
Forum Thread

Smoking Ban and Termination

214 84 September 17, 2012 at 05:19 PM in Chat
In Illinois we have had a smoking ban for over 4 years which is long enough for everyone to have heard of in our state. I servie copy machines and do network maintenance and am being forced to go into an accounting firm in Central IL that feels that the smoking ban does not apply to them. The building smells, there is heavy smoke in the air, and the owner is kind of like a dragon. She doesn't even have a cigarette in her hand but she still will have smoke pouring out of her mouth after speaking 2 complete sentences.

Can I be fired for reporting them to the authorities and for letting them know that the reason I am unable to give them good service is due to the fact that I feel ill and get a migraine while in the office and cannot perform under the current circumstances?
Add a Comment
Reply

109 Comments

View Forum Thread

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Mar 2005
Won Car from SD
> bubble2 11,418 Posts
1,384 Reputation
saint.
09-18-2012 at 09:24 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:24 AM.
Go to some other public place.
Reply
Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 09:24 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:24 AM.
Quote from AngryPirate :
I am the LAST person who wants security over freedom. However, there is a fine line between an individual's freedoms and activities that infringe on the freedoms of others. Smoking causes all sorts of lung and breathing issues, both first and second hand. The severity of the second hand issues are directly related to the amount of exposure. This is common sense though. I am a smoker, and although I was initially peeved about the smoking bans, I'm okay with it being forbidden in enclosed public areas such as businesses, restaurants, etc. My habits (freedoms) shouldn't step on the freedoms of others (their ability to have fresh air in an enclosed space).


Plus...on the bright side, I get to go outside and take an extra 4-5 breaks a day (~30 minutes) vs the non-smokers
Your mistake is thinking that a privately held business or restaurant is a public place. Again, all of those profits (at least for small business) are declared on an individuals private income tax return.
Reply
Joined Jan 2008
HER SPOILED HIGHNESS
> bubble2 9,504 Posts
11,379 Reputation
ALVSGIRLY
09-18-2012 at 09:25 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:25 AM.
plus it makes my hair and clothes all stinky EEK!.
Reply
Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 09:25 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:25 AM.
Quote from Landers :
So smokers need to be rich enough to own an island? Guess that's why I don't smoke any longer. laugh out loud

Crazy

Quote from Fallacy :
Iagree If you want to smoke on a deserted island, feel free.

Perhaps I am entitled to my private island and should get the gov't to pay for it.
Reply
Last edited by chevvy September 18, 2012 at 09:26 AM.
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
> bubble2 5,807 Posts
2,347 Reputation
AngryPirate
09-18-2012 at 09:44 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:44 AM.
Quote from chewspam :
Your mistake is thinking that a privately held business or restaurant is a public place. Again, all of those profits (at least for small business) are declared on an individuals private income tax return.
"Most" businesses cater to customers, or have a client base which is in and out of their place of business. I understand that a business is privately owned, but it serves the public. Think about if smoking were allowed in the grocery store you shop at, accountant you get taxes done, Amscot you get your cash advance, and the plethora of other businesses that consumers visit numerous times a day. If all of those places were filled with second hand smoke when you walked in, you wouldn't feel that certain people's freedoms were infringing on your ability to want to be healthy and breathe fresh air.

Don't get me wrong...I get your point. You think it becomes a slippery slope of what should and shouldn't be mandated by the government. But your forgetting that if smoking were in all the public areas and businesses like mentioned above, non-smokers would be the ones without a choice. If it didn't affect anyone else, then I'd 100% be on the same page as you. But one person's freedom cannot be held above another's.
Reply
Last edited by AngryPirate September 18, 2012 at 09:46 AM.
Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 09:56 AM.
09-18-2012 at 09:56 AM.
Quote from AngryPirate :
"Most" businesses cater to customers, or have a client base which is in and out of their place of business. I understand that a business is privately owned, but it serves the public. Think about if smoking were allowed in the grocery store you shop at, accountant you get taxes done, Amscot you get your cash advance, and the plethora of other businesses that consumers visit numerous times a day. If all of those places were filled with second hand smoke when you walked in, you wouldn't feel that certain people's freedoms were infringing on your ability to want to be healthy and breathe fresh air.

Don't get me wrong...I get your point. You think it becomes a slippery slope of what should and shouldn't be mandated by the government. But your forgetting that if smoking were in all the public areas and businesses like mentioned above, non-smokers would be the ones without a choice. If it didn't affect anyone else, then I'd 100% be on the same page as you. But one person's freedom cannot be held above another's.
I agree. It is a very slippery slope, but how did we get to taking people's freedom of choice away? The topic we are discussing now isn't the beginning of the slope. We've been sliding down it for quite some time. I go back to my farmer comment earlier. A farmer had a large plot of land and he used one acre of that land to feed his family. The government came along and ruined him because they said by feeding his family off of his own land he was affecting commerce.

You see people decide what other rights people should have based on what they want, and then they say, "But it can't go beyond this." Whether you smoke or not, whether you like it or hate it, you're deciding who should have a choice and who shouldn't. The bill or rights was written to protect us -- to protect our choices. It wasn't written to prevent us from making choices, but that's where we've gone. We've gone from prosecuting poor behavior to trying to prevent poor behavior. The next step is to prosecuting the thought of poor behavior, and we're already going down that slope with hate crime legislation.

I appreciate your pointing out that you get what I'm saying. I'm just trying to take it a step further by saying that this isn't the beginning; we've been slowly sliding down for quite some time. And when you tell a business owner what they can and can't do as it concerns smoking, you ARE taking that person's freedoms away based on the whims of another person.
Reply
Last edited by chevvy September 18, 2012 at 09:59 AM.
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
> bubble2 5,807 Posts
2,347 Reputation
AngryPirate
09-18-2012 at 10:03 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:03 AM.
Quote from chewspam :
I agree. It is a very slippery slope, but how did we get to taking people's freedom of choice away? The topic we are discussing now isn't the beginning of the slope. We've been sliding down it for quite some time. I go back to my farmer comment earlier. A farmer had a large plot of land and he used one acre of that land to feed his family. The government came along and ruined him because they said by feeding his family off of his own land he was affecting commerce.

You see people decide what other rights people should have based on what they want, and then they say, "But it can't go beyond this." Whether you smoke or not, whether you like it or hate it, you're deciding who should have a choice and who shouldn't. The bill or rights was written to protect us -- to protect our choices. It wasn't written to prevent us from making choices, but that's where we've gone. We've gone from prosecuting poor behavior to trying to prevent poor behavior. The next step is to prosecuting the thought of poor choices, and we're already going down that slope with hate crime legislation.

I appreciate your pointing out that you get what I'm saying. I'm just trying to take it a step further by saying that this isn't the beginning; we've been slowly sliding down for quite some time.
Again....I'm with you on most of this. The only problem is that with your farming example is that it is the government infringing on the rights of the farmers, whereas here we're talking about one person's (smoker) freedom infringing on another persons freedom. There is a big difference here because it elevates one person's freedoms over another's and directly affects their health through no choice/fault of their own. It's not as if people can just stop going to grocery stores, accountants, restaurants, and other businesses.
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 10:04 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:04 AM.
Quote from AngryPirate :
Again....I'm with you on most of this. The only problem is that with your farming example is that it is the government infringing on the rights of the farmers, whereas here we're talking about one person's (smoker) freedom infringing on another persons freedom. There is a big difference here because it elevates one person's freedoms over another's and directly affects their health through no choice/fault of their own. It's not as if people can just stop going to grocery stores, accountants, restaurants, and other businesses.
I disagree that there is a difference. What about the business owner's rights? He or she may want to attract a certain type of clientele. You're just taking one person's rights away to give another person a new right.
Reply
Joined Oct 2007
Get over it
> bubble2 5,807 Posts
2,347 Reputation
AngryPirate
09-18-2012 at 10:11 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:11 AM.
Quote from chewspam :
I disagree that there is a difference. What about the business owner's rights? He or she may want to attract a certain type of clientele. You're just taking one person's rights away to give another person a new right.
Not necessarily. No one is saying that he can't smoke...he most certainly can. However, he just can't do it in an enclosed place of business that affects other people and harms their health long term. The business owner doesn't have a "right" to forcefully impose his habits on others.
Reply
Last edited by AngryPirate September 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM.
Joined Jan 2006
Piece of work
> bubble2 18,933 Posts
670 Reputation
Landers
09-18-2012 at 10:15 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:15 AM.
Quote from AngryPirate :
Not necessarily. No one is saying that he can't smoke...he most certainly can. However, he just can't do it in an enclosed place of business that affects other people and harms their health long term. The business owner doesn't have a "right" to forcefully impose his habits on others.
But those people have the option to not go to that business. No one is forcing an individual to go to that particular business for any reason. Those kinds of decisions should be up to the owner of the business. And on the note of the employees, you can choose to work there, or not. You don't have to apply to or accept a job at a place of business you don't want to work at.
Reply
Joined Sep 2006
IVIodel citizen
> bubble2 19,431 Posts
836 Reputation
Fallacy
09-18-2012 at 10:20 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:20 AM.
Quote from chewspam :
I disagree that there is a difference. What about the business owner's rights? He or she may want to attract a certain type of clientele. You're just taking one person's rights away to give another person a new right.
Quote from AngryPirate :
Not necessarily. No one is saying that he can't smoke...he most certainly can. However, he just can't do it in an enclosed place of business that affects other people and harms their health long term. The business owner doesn't have a "right" to forcefully impose his habits on others.
Exactly. Airports have smokers lounges. If you're a non-smoker, don't go in the lounge. If you're a smoker, you have a dedicated place to smoke and not infringe on other people's space.

Dontknow

Quote from Landers :
But those people have the option to not go to that business. No one is forcing an individual to go to that particular business for any reason. Those kinds of decisions should be up to the owner of the business. And on the note of the employees, you can choose to work there, or not. You don't have to apply to or accept a job at a place of business you don't want to work at.
Now imagine if all the businesses allowed smoking... where would a non-smoker go?
Reply
Last edited by Fallacy September 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM.
Joined Jan 2006
Piece of work
> bubble2 18,933 Posts
670 Reputation
Landers
09-18-2012 at 10:26 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:26 AM.
Quote from Fallacy :
Exactly. Airports have smokers lounges. If you're a non-smoker, don't go in the lounge. If you're a smoker, you have a dedicated place to smoke and not infringe on other people's space.

Dontknow


Now imagine if all the businesses allowed smoking... where would a non-smoker go?
Sorta unrealistic don't you think? Businesses would be able to make their own decisions and cater to the clientele to which they want to cater. Some would allow smoking, some would ban it. Dontknow
Reply
Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 10:28 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:28 AM.
Quote from AngryPirate :
Not necessarily. No one is saying that he can't smoke...he most certainly can. However, he just can't do it in an enclosed place of business that affects other people and harms their health long term. The business owner doesn't have a "right" to forcefully impose his habits on others.
laugh out loud How can you say that? He doesn't have the right to smoke in his own place on his own private property. So yes....THE LAW is saying that he can't smoke. And it affects HIS customers. There's an agreement there. He is saying "I want you to come here." And his customers are saying, "I want to be here." Maybe a customer comes in that doesn't like smoke and they say they don't want to be there. Maybe someone comes in that doesn't like smoke and complains about it, and he can say that he doesn't want them to be there.
Reply
Joined Sep 2006
IVIodel citizen
> bubble2 19,431 Posts
836 Reputation
Fallacy
09-18-2012 at 10:30 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:30 AM.
Quote from Landers :
Sorta unrealistic don't you think? Businesses would be able to make their own decisions and cater to the clientele to which they want to cater. Some would allow smoking, some would ban it. Dontknow
Not really. Remember how it was 10-15 years ago? You could smoke on airplanes (maybe more than 10-15 years ago... damn I feel old) and non-smoking restaurants were pretty much non-existent.
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2007
Brown Recluse Aficionado
> bubble2 7,411 Posts
1,848 Reputation
chevvy
09-18-2012 at 10:31 AM.
09-18-2012 at 10:31 AM.
Quote from Fallacy :
Now imagine if all the businesses allowed smoking... where would a non-smoker go?
To the restaurant that prohibits smoking by choice. Smack

It's really disgusting the rights we have told people they have which infringe on the rights of others. Just today I heard a story of a school that has now prohibited Father/Daughter dances because a single mom filed a lawsuit via the ACLU claiming gender discrimination. So now all of those daughters looking forward to a night with their fathers will suffer.
Reply
Page 4 of 8
Start the Conversation
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.