1) Why is there a new smoking ban in England?
The government has identified that second-hand smoke is a threat to health in non-smokers exposed to it. As such, they have decided to protect non-smokers from the negative effects of 'environmental tobacco smoke in enclosed spaces.
2) When does the new smoking ban in England take effect?
1st July 2007 - smoking in enclosed public spaces is already banned in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
3) Where does the new smoking ban in England specifically ban smoking from?
The new law bans smoking in virtually all enclosed public places, including pubs, bars, restaurants, offices, factories, cinemas and sports stadiums.
4) How will I know what areas are smoke-free?
Smoke-free places will be clearly sign-posted with no-smoking signs. It is a legal requirement for places where smoking is now no longer allowed, to display no smoking signs.
5) But what does smoke-free really mean?
If you light up in a public place, workplace or company vehicle you'll be breaking the law. Or if managers let you smoke in no-smoking zones, they'll be breaking the law.
6) Will this new smoking ban in England mean all smoking is banned?
The ban covers the smoking of tobacco or anything that contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance. This includes manufactured cigarettes, hand-rolled cigarettes, pipes, cigars, herbal cigarettes and water pipes (including shisha, hookah and hubble-bubble pipes).
7) Will smoking be banned outdoors too?
The Health Act 2006 includes powers to make non-enclosed places smoke-free, but at present the Government does not intend to make any non-enclosed places smoke-free.
8) What happens if I smoke in a smoke-free area?
Smoking in smoke-free premises or vehicle will give a fixed penalty notice of £50, which is discounted to £30 if paid within 15 days. Business owners can expect a fine of up to £2,500 for failing to prevent smoking within enclosed public spaces.
9) What about hotels and private clubs?
Hotels will be non-smoking but there may be designated rooms where guests can smoke. Private clubs are covered by the ban. This includes working men clubs and golf clubs.
10) How will the new smoking ban in England be enforced?
The government has set aside funds for councils to employ 'smoking officers' who are tasked with ensuring businesses follow the letter of the law. It is expected to be enforced on a 'softly, softly' basis at first. All businesses are expected to be given a 'warning' before any legal action is taken against them.
11) Did you know?
If a business owner were found guilty of breaking this law and then failed to pay the fine, resulting in a custodial sentence, they would be allowed to smoke in enclosed public areas of the prison!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Argument For Legislation Limiting Children's Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Children and infants are especially susceptible to the effects of second hand cigarette smoke. This is because young children their lung capacity as related to their body weight is larger than that of an adult, their immune system is not as developed as that of an adult, and they are less likely to complain and/or remove themselves from the environment that causes the exposure. In other words, children are biologically geared to inhale more of the toxins present in cigarette smoke than their adult counterparts. Second hand smoke exposes children to a number of carcinogens (cancer causing substances), and when the environment is such that air flow is limited, such as inside a home or vehicle, those carcinogens are especially concentrated. There are more than four thousand substances present in tobacco smoke, more than forty of which are known carcinogens. These substances include formaldehyde, arsenic, vinyl chloride, lead, cadmium and nickel, as well as a host of other chemicals that are completely unpronounceable.
The effects of environmental tobacco smoke range from the relatively benign to serious health consequences. The irony of tobacco smoke is that the chemicals that are present in second hand smoke are often more concentrated than the smoke that a smoker takes into his or her lungs. Among the effects that second hand smoke has on children are increases in the frequency of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, an increase in the severity or frequency of existing asthma episodes and/or symptoms, a reduction in the flow of oxygen to tissues and reduced lung function in general, and an increase of fluid in the middle ear. Second hand smoke has also been associated with frequent ear infections, throat infections, an increase in the frequency and severity of colds and sore throats, poor or slowed growth, childhood cancers, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Second hand smoke is thought to be responsible for more than 10% of all cases of childhood asthma, more than 16% of all physician office visits for cough and more than 20% of all lung infections in children under the age of five. Smoking is also responsible for a number of children's deaths from cigarette-related home fire.
There is little doubt that adults are aware of the overall dangers of cigarette smoke. Less than 10% of individuals believe that second hand smoke presents no danger whatsoever to the non-smoker. However, many people are not aware of how the effects of second hand smoke are compounded in children. Because of the increased danger of tobacco smoke, several states are considering legislation that would ban smoking around children under a certain age (generally fifteen) in any enclosed area, especially a vehicle.
Arguably, smoking is not against the law for any individual over the age of eighteen. Therefore, many adults do not consider their smoking as anything other than a legal right. Any attempts to limit that right are generally met with significant resistance and protest. However, as cigarette smoke is so dangerous to others, especially children, it can be argued that the only way to prevent harmful effects to non-smokers is to effect legislation that limits the rights of smokers. To date, most states have initiated some form of indoor smoking bans. These bans have been met with protest and resistance from smokers and non-smokers alike. The smokers protest that they have a legal right to smoke and the non-smokers protest that the government is limiting the rights of the smoker, and that those limitations may lead to the limitation of other rights. Non-smokers that are in favor of legislation that limits the rights of smokers argue that the legislation would not deny the right of a smoker to smoke, but would instead enforce the right of the non-smoker to remain healthy. Much like the use of alcohol, the use of cigarettes would, under the enactment of such legislation, be legal only in the sense that such use would not violate the rights of others. As alcohol is legal only in as much as it does not endanger others, so would the use of tobacco be legal only in as much as it does not endanger others.
To date, Arkansas, Louisiana, Washington, Vermont, and Texas have already initiated some form of legislation that bans smoking around young children. Many states are ordering that children involved in custody disputes and/or divorce cases are provided with a smoke free environment. However, these cases are often the result of one parent complaining about the other parent's smoking around the children. Additionally, as the courts are intervening in a child's home environment, there the legal system must either stop requiring a smoking ban in such cases or that it must apply the ban uniformly across every household, not merely the ones involved in civil litigation. Children's rights groups are calling the exposure of young children to second hand smoke a form of child abuse and are rallying for legislation that limits the smoking of any individual around children. In Arkansas, any individual who is caught violating the ban against exposing children to second hand smoke can be fined $25, but can avoid the fine if they show proof of enrollment in a stop smoking program.
It can be argued that legislation that bans smoking around children, in cars, homes, or other enclosed areas, is a position that places the health of children above the bad habits of the adults that care for them and above the civil liberties of those adults. Regardless of their oppositions, adults must realize that current research overwhelmingly indicates that the effects of second hand smoke on children are predominantly negative and that these effects must be curbed in any way possible and as quickly as possible. With many states already employing statewide smoking bans that protect all non-smokers from the effects of tobacco smoke, it must be realized that states cannot enact such legislation without also considering what they can do to protect children. Smokers have been presented with the knowledge that second hand smoke is harmful to others for many years, yet parents and other caregivers continue to smoke around their young charges. Obviously, something other than educating smokers to the harmful effects must be done to prevent smoking around children.
It can be argued that such a ban would be inherently difficult to enforce. It has also been argued that seat belt laws and drunken driving laws would be difficult to enforce, yet fewer people drink and drive and more people buckle up on the nation's highways. However true the argument regarding enforcement is, remember it is often not the legal system itself that prevents individuals from violating ordinances such as smoking bans, drunken driving laws, and seat belt laws, but the fear of the legal repercussions of violating the laws. Additionally, many individuals have found that the enactment of smoking bans have given them the incentive they needed to stop smoking themselves, just as states' enactment of new seat belt regulations spurred more individuals to employ the use of their seat belts, regardless of their initial resentment of the legislation. For some people, the right to harm themselves just isn't worth the fight in the long run.
The effects of environmental tobacco smoke range from the relatively benign to serious health consequences. The irony of tobacco smoke is that the chemicals that are present in second hand smoke are often more concentrated than the smoke that a smoker takes into his or her lungs. Among the effects that second hand smoke has on children are increases in the frequency of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, an increase in the severity or frequency of existing asthma episodes and/or symptoms, a reduction in the flow of oxygen to tissues and reduced lung function in general, and an increase of fluid in the middle ear. Second hand smoke has also been associated with frequent ear infections, throat infections, an increase in the frequency and severity of colds and sore throats, poor or slowed growth, childhood cancers, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Second hand smoke is thought to be responsible for more than 10% of all cases of childhood asthma, more than 16% of all physician office visits for cough and more than 20% of all lung infections in children under the age of five. Smoking is also responsible for a number of children's deaths from cigarette-related home fire.
There is little doubt that adults are aware of the overall dangers of cigarette smoke. Less than 10% of individuals believe that second hand smoke presents no danger whatsoever to the non-smoker. However, many people are not aware of how the effects of second hand smoke are compounded in children. Because of the increased danger of tobacco smoke, several states are considering legislation that would ban smoking around children under a certain age (generally fifteen) in any enclosed area, especially a vehicle.
Arguably, smoking is not against the law for any individual over the age of eighteen. Therefore, many adults do not consider their smoking as anything other than a legal right. Any attempts to limit that right are generally met with significant resistance and protest. However, as cigarette smoke is so dangerous to others, especially children, it can be argued that the only way to prevent harmful effects to non-smokers is to effect legislation that limits the rights of smokers. To date, most states have initiated some form of indoor smoking bans. These bans have been met with protest and resistance from smokers and non-smokers alike. The smokers protest that they have a legal right to smoke and the non-smokers protest that the government is limiting the rights of the smoker, and that those limitations may lead to the limitation of other rights. Non-smokers that are in favor of legislation that limits the rights of smokers argue that the legislation would not deny the right of a smoker to smoke, but would instead enforce the right of the non-smoker to remain healthy. Much like the use of alcohol, the use of cigarettes would, under the enactment of such legislation, be legal only in the sense that such use would not violate the rights of others. As alcohol is legal only in as much as it does not endanger others, so would the use of tobacco be legal only in as much as it does not endanger others.
To date, Arkansas, Louisiana, Washington, Vermont, and Texas have already initiated some form of legislation that bans smoking around young children. Many states are ordering that children involved in custody disputes and/or divorce cases are provided with a smoke free environment. However, these cases are often the result of one parent complaining about the other parent's smoking around the children. Additionally, as the courts are intervening in a child's home environment, there the legal system must either stop requiring a smoking ban in such cases or that it must apply the ban uniformly across every household, not merely the ones involved in civil litigation. Children's rights groups are calling the exposure of young children to second hand smoke a form of child abuse and are rallying for legislation that limits the smoking of any individual around children. In Arkansas, any individual who is caught violating the ban against exposing children to second hand smoke can be fined $25, but can avoid the fine if they show proof of enrollment in a stop smoking program.
It can be argued that legislation that bans smoking around children, in cars, homes, or other enclosed areas, is a position that places the health of children above the bad habits of the adults that care for them and above the civil liberties of those adults. Regardless of their oppositions, adults must realize that current research overwhelmingly indicates that the effects of second hand smoke on children are predominantly negative and that these effects must be curbed in any way possible and as quickly as possible. With many states already employing statewide smoking bans that protect all non-smokers from the effects of tobacco smoke, it must be realized that states cannot enact such legislation without also considering what they can do to protect children. Smokers have been presented with the knowledge that second hand smoke is harmful to others for many years, yet parents and other caregivers continue to smoke around their young charges. Obviously, something other than educating smokers to the harmful effects must be done to prevent smoking around children.
It can be argued that such a ban would be inherently difficult to enforce. It has also been argued that seat belt laws and drunken driving laws would be difficult to enforce, yet fewer people drink and drive and more people buckle up on the nation's highways. However true the argument regarding enforcement is, remember it is often not the legal system itself that prevents individuals from violating ordinances such as smoking bans, drunken driving laws, and seat belt laws, but the fear of the legal repercussions of violating the laws. Additionally, many individuals have found that the enactment of smoking bans have given them the incentive they needed to stop smoking themselves, just as states' enactment of new seat belt regulations spurred more individuals to employ the use of their seat belts, regardless of their initial resentment of the legislation. For some people, the right to harm themselves just isn't worth the fight in the long run.
Friday, July 16, 2010
State Smoking Bans - Good Or Bad For Business?
Recently business owners in many parts of the country are alarmed as they learn that their state has passed a law banning smoking in public places. Typically, these are restaurants, bars, sporting arenas, bowling alleys and similar pubic places. Disputes consistently arise over the advantages and disadvantages that this legislation causes businesses. Many of their best customers smoke while patronizing their businesses.
Typically when a state passes legislation to ban smoking in public areas, the business owners are given a designated period of time (i.e. 90 days, 1 year, etc.). Most recently, Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting smoking in public places and gave a 90-day notice before all restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. must make their businesses smoke-free.
Pennsylvania's new law is a compromise bill, allowing some bars, private clubs, and casinos to maintain their right to allow smoking. This exception allows smokers to continue lighting up while gathering with friends at certain public locations.
Politicians responsible for bills preventing smoking in public places claim to be taking measures to protect public health. Not only will smoking bans discourage smoking altogether, but it will protect innocent, non-smoking bystanders from the unwanted health risks of second-hand smoke. A person is responsible for their own health when they choose to light up a cigar or cigarette, but it is not their right to endanger the health of others. Without smoking bans, non-smokers' only choice in avoiding smoke may be to avoid public places altogether. Smoking bans free people to venture into public places without worrying about the health risks from outside sources.
Other reasons politicians may promote such a bill is to reduce health care costs. In an age where health coverage is expensive and sometimes not available for all, it is important to reduce the risks that can be controlled.
While some smokers are angered by bans, others understand the reasons and are willing to comply. One smoker implied that since he must go outside to smoke at home, he might as well go outside to smoke when he's in public.
Often business owners are apprehensive that these laws will hinder business. Others take such bans in stride by helping their consumers adjust to new laws by restricting smoking privileges before laws go into effect. Still other entrepreneurs are bothered by a feeling of being discriminated against due to bans in certain establishments while not others. Jim Mitchell, restaurant owner in Pittsburgh commented, "All I've ever asked for was a level playing field, but what that Legislature [PA Smoking Ban Bill] has done is said that smoking is unhealthy in my establishment but it's not unhealthy in casinos, clubs and small restaurants, and it just shows that public health takes a backseat to money."1
Store owners are understandably disturbed by the presence of smoking bans, but oftentimes, to their surprise, business actually increases due to these prohibitions. Restaurants and bars in Massachusetts saw sales rise in the first six months following their ban in July of 2004. Additionally, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health tested 27 bars and restaurants to find that, "Dangerous, cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished."2 The Boston Globe reports that, "An increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses."2 Rise in business is attributed to people gathering in bars for food and enjoying sitting at the bar without concern about whether someone will be sitting with them smoking.
While restaurants seem to benefit from smoking bans, other businesses, as predicted, suffer. Bowling alleys are one type of business that seem to take a hit. Hundreds of league bowlers have quit, causing several thousands of dollars of losses for bowling alley owners.
Most likely, there will continue to be some dissension about laws prohibiting smoking in public areas. Overall, the health benefits heavily outweigh any monetary losses suffered by business owners, and many businesses benefit from the bans as well. Over half of the states in the nation now have at least some kind of prohibition against smoking in public establishments.
What is your state's smoking regulation?
Smoking banned in restaurants:
- Georgia
- Idaho
Smoking banned in non-hospitality workplaces:
- South Dakota
Smoking banned in bars and restaurants:
- New Hampshire
Smoking banned in restaurants and non-hospitality workplaces:
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Louisiana
- Nevada
- North Dakota
- Pennsylvania
- Tennessee
Smoking banned in restaurants, bars, and non-hospitality workplaces:
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- Montana
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- Vermont
- Washington
No statewide smoking ban:
- Alaska
- Alabama
- Indiana
- Kentucky
- Michigan
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Typically when a state passes legislation to ban smoking in public areas, the business owners are given a designated period of time (i.e. 90 days, 1 year, etc.). Most recently, Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting smoking in public places and gave a 90-day notice before all restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. must make their businesses smoke-free.
Pennsylvania's new law is a compromise bill, allowing some bars, private clubs, and casinos to maintain their right to allow smoking. This exception allows smokers to continue lighting up while gathering with friends at certain public locations.
Politicians responsible for bills preventing smoking in public places claim to be taking measures to protect public health. Not only will smoking bans discourage smoking altogether, but it will protect innocent, non-smoking bystanders from the unwanted health risks of second-hand smoke. A person is responsible for their own health when they choose to light up a cigar or cigarette, but it is not their right to endanger the health of others. Without smoking bans, non-smokers' only choice in avoiding smoke may be to avoid public places altogether. Smoking bans free people to venture into public places without worrying about the health risks from outside sources.
Other reasons politicians may promote such a bill is to reduce health care costs. In an age where health coverage is expensive and sometimes not available for all, it is important to reduce the risks that can be controlled.
While some smokers are angered by bans, others understand the reasons and are willing to comply. One smoker implied that since he must go outside to smoke at home, he might as well go outside to smoke when he's in public.
Often business owners are apprehensive that these laws will hinder business. Others take such bans in stride by helping their consumers adjust to new laws by restricting smoking privileges before laws go into effect. Still other entrepreneurs are bothered by a feeling of being discriminated against due to bans in certain establishments while not others. Jim Mitchell, restaurant owner in Pittsburgh commented, "All I've ever asked for was a level playing field, but what that Legislature [PA Smoking Ban Bill] has done is said that smoking is unhealthy in my establishment but it's not unhealthy in casinos, clubs and small restaurants, and it just shows that public health takes a backseat to money."1
Store owners are understandably disturbed by the presence of smoking bans, but oftentimes, to their surprise, business actually increases due to these prohibitions. Restaurants and bars in Massachusetts saw sales rise in the first six months following their ban in July of 2004. Additionally, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health tested 27 bars and restaurants to find that, "Dangerous, cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished."2 The Boston Globe reports that, "An increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses."2 Rise in business is attributed to people gathering in bars for food and enjoying sitting at the bar without concern about whether someone will be sitting with them smoking.
While restaurants seem to benefit from smoking bans, other businesses, as predicted, suffer. Bowling alleys are one type of business that seem to take a hit. Hundreds of league bowlers have quit, causing several thousands of dollars of losses for bowling alley owners.
Most likely, there will continue to be some dissension about laws prohibiting smoking in public areas. Overall, the health benefits heavily outweigh any monetary losses suffered by business owners, and many businesses benefit from the bans as well. Over half of the states in the nation now have at least some kind of prohibition against smoking in public establishments.
What is your state's smoking regulation?
Smoking banned in restaurants:
- Georgia
- Idaho
Smoking banned in non-hospitality workplaces:
- South Dakota
Smoking banned in bars and restaurants:
- New Hampshire
Smoking banned in restaurants and non-hospitality workplaces:
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Louisiana
- Nevada
- North Dakota
- Pennsylvania
- Tennessee
Smoking banned in restaurants, bars, and non-hospitality workplaces:
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Minnesota
- Montana
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- Vermont
- Washington
No statewide smoking ban:
- Alaska
- Alabama
- Indiana
- Kentucky
- Michigan
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Monday, July 12, 2010
Cigarette Smoke and Tenant Rights
Renters in apartment dwellings can get irritated by other tenants who enjoy cigarettes. Another occupant's smoke can creep into your residence through an open window or the air conditioning system. Unfortunately, until the rental lease agreement makes it a requirement for the landlord to stop such happenings, there is currently very little that is possible to do with regards to California law. Local laws may change soon, but that doesn't assist those being put off by by smoke currently.
Even though a few cases have been submitted in California against landlords or other renters due to the sharing of secondhand smoke, the legal answers are still unknown. Results submitted by the California E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) that connect someone else's smoking to a variety of diseases, which include brain damage and pregnancy complications, may affect a law's perspective of this situation, but that is yet to become clear. If you happen to be a renter thinking about legal action against a property owner or renter for subjecting you to his second hand smoke, due to the newness of the situation, you may need to consult a lawyer.
Renters Rights Against Their Property Management Company
Even though there is no law that prohibits smoking in private domiciles, all California property managers owe a diversity of responsibilities to their renters, to include: The implied warranty of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet peacefulness.
With regards to the implied warranty of habitability, a part of every single one of California rental lease agreements, a property owner makes certain that the grounds are and will remain livable. Livability is usually discovered by the owner's obedience with specific code obligations, such as providing required heating and ventilation.
But, California judges have not determined that code obedience is the only deciding factor of whether a break has happened. That way, it is conceivable that, when under specific situations, the judge might rule that a renter's openness to secondhand smoke breaches the warranty of livability.
The implied covenant of quiet peacefulness champions the renter's use and peacefulness of the grounds for the reasons outlined by the rental lease agreement. The property owner can breach the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by doing something or failing to do something, such as failing to cease other renters from creating too much noise. The inquiry the courts would ask is whether the other tenants smoking greatly affects the renters ability to enjoy of a specific part of the grounds. It is unknown how a California judge would rule on this situation.
In the rest of the U.S., a few judges have permitted lawsuits to stand when a occupant's smoking is severe enough, or made the property owner to extend to the renter a lessening in rent due to the smoke. But, it is unknown whether a property owner would be responsible for the relocation costs of a renter who decided to discontinue a renal lease agreement because of secondhand smoke problems. Due to the fact that these outcomes were made by an out-of-state judges, the rulings are not applicable in California and it is unclear how California judges would rule on the same evidence.
Renters Rights Against Their Neighbors
In California, a renter now has little if any legal rights opposing another tenant for exposing them secondhand smoke. There is no legality that prohibits smoking in private domiciles, like the law that prohibits smoking at work. That way, the tenant who smokes has not violated the law by smoking in her apartment.
A occupant's smoking might not reach the legal requirement for a "nuisance" as determined by the California judges. Even though California law outlines a nuisance as that which is dangerous to a person's wel-being, . . . Or is not decent or irritating to the senses, . . . So as to meddle with the peaceful happiness of life or property," judges also make it a requirement to that a plaintiff give proof that the action is both "substantial" and "unreasonable."
Going by the present California case laws, a occupant's smoking might not be viewed as either substantial or unreasonable, but it depends on the consistency, length of time and degree of exposure. A judge might see the secondhand smoke challenges as just the renter's inability to live together in the same building.
Rights of Physically Challenged Occupants
Renters with specific physiological disabilities might have other legal answers at their disposal to stop drifting smoke from coming into their domiciles. Under state and local law, those with limitations are enabled with feasible quarters and/or changes of guidelines from their property managers to make sure that commensurate availability to and happiness of their living space.
To certify for these exceptions, the renter has to qualify for the legal explanation of "handicapped" or "disabled," meaning that their circumstance "limits" (under California law) or greatly limits" (under federal law) a substantial life ability."
Someone with a genuine lung situation may be considerably limited in her breathing. If a renter is "handicapped" or "disabled" according to the legal definition, and openness to secondhand smoke is stopping the renter from appreciating the property, the law makes it a requirement for a feasible living space. The property owner might be made to stop smoking in joint areas of the property, if that is the origination of the smoke, or let the tenant move to an alternate apartment, further from straying smoke. Rather, the renter might be able to discontinue his/her rental lease agreement without being penalized.
What Can a Property Owner Do to Halt Such Problems?
To not run into challenges caused by renter's smoking, property managers in California might:
Start a smoke-free rule by not allowing new occupants from lighting up;
Establish non-smoking parts of properties; or
Not allow smoking in all joint areas, such as stairs or garages.
Conclusion
If a renter in a property is put off by occupant's smoking, the legal answers are unclear. Property owners have certain responsibilities to renters (implied warranty of habitability and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment). These property owner-renter law guidelines may offer some reprieve for renters depending on the seriousness and length of the openness to secondhand smoke. Due to the fact that this is a recently discovered part of the law, it is unknown how a California judge would decide. If a renter is physically challenged she might have other legal cures under state and local anti-discrimination laws.
Rather, the apartment manager is allowed to stop smoking in an apartment. Or a local government might establish an law putting limits on smoking in joint areas or stating that property managers have the ability to create areas of the property smoke-free.
So, make positive you are clear as best you are able the parts of the building where smokers are hanging out before you agree to your rental lease agreement.
Even though a few cases have been submitted in California against landlords or other renters due to the sharing of secondhand smoke, the legal answers are still unknown. Results submitted by the California E.P.A. (Environmental Protection Agency) that connect someone else's smoking to a variety of diseases, which include brain damage and pregnancy complications, may affect a law's perspective of this situation, but that is yet to become clear. If you happen to be a renter thinking about legal action against a property owner or renter for subjecting you to his second hand smoke, due to the newness of the situation, you may need to consult a lawyer.
Renters Rights Against Their Property Management Company
Even though there is no law that prohibits smoking in private domiciles, all California property managers owe a diversity of responsibilities to their renters, to include: The implied warranty of habitability and the implied covenant of quiet peacefulness.
With regards to the implied warranty of habitability, a part of every single one of California rental lease agreements, a property owner makes certain that the grounds are and will remain livable. Livability is usually discovered by the owner's obedience with specific code obligations, such as providing required heating and ventilation.
But, California judges have not determined that code obedience is the only deciding factor of whether a break has happened. That way, it is conceivable that, when under specific situations, the judge might rule that a renter's openness to secondhand smoke breaches the warranty of livability.
The implied covenant of quiet peacefulness champions the renter's use and peacefulness of the grounds for the reasons outlined by the rental lease agreement. The property owner can breach the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment by doing something or failing to do something, such as failing to cease other renters from creating too much noise. The inquiry the courts would ask is whether the other tenants smoking greatly affects the renters ability to enjoy of a specific part of the grounds. It is unknown how a California judge would rule on this situation.
In the rest of the U.S., a few judges have permitted lawsuits to stand when a occupant's smoking is severe enough, or made the property owner to extend to the renter a lessening in rent due to the smoke. But, it is unknown whether a property owner would be responsible for the relocation costs of a renter who decided to discontinue a renal lease agreement because of secondhand smoke problems. Due to the fact that these outcomes were made by an out-of-state judges, the rulings are not applicable in California and it is unclear how California judges would rule on the same evidence.
Renters Rights Against Their Neighbors
In California, a renter now has little if any legal rights opposing another tenant for exposing them secondhand smoke. There is no legality that prohibits smoking in private domiciles, like the law that prohibits smoking at work. That way, the tenant who smokes has not violated the law by smoking in her apartment.
A occupant's smoking might not reach the legal requirement for a "nuisance" as determined by the California judges. Even though California law outlines a nuisance as that which is dangerous to a person's wel-being, . . . Or is not decent or irritating to the senses, . . . So as to meddle with the peaceful happiness of life or property," judges also make it a requirement to that a plaintiff give proof that the action is both "substantial" and "unreasonable."
Going by the present California case laws, a occupant's smoking might not be viewed as either substantial or unreasonable, but it depends on the consistency, length of time and degree of exposure. A judge might see the secondhand smoke challenges as just the renter's inability to live together in the same building.
Rights of Physically Challenged Occupants
Renters with specific physiological disabilities might have other legal answers at their disposal to stop drifting smoke from coming into their domiciles. Under state and local law, those with limitations are enabled with feasible quarters and/or changes of guidelines from their property managers to make sure that commensurate availability to and happiness of their living space.
To certify for these exceptions, the renter has to qualify for the legal explanation of "handicapped" or "disabled," meaning that their circumstance "limits" (under California law) or greatly limits" (under federal law) a substantial life ability."
Someone with a genuine lung situation may be considerably limited in her breathing. If a renter is "handicapped" or "disabled" according to the legal definition, and openness to secondhand smoke is stopping the renter from appreciating the property, the law makes it a requirement for a feasible living space. The property owner might be made to stop smoking in joint areas of the property, if that is the origination of the smoke, or let the tenant move to an alternate apartment, further from straying smoke. Rather, the renter might be able to discontinue his/her rental lease agreement without being penalized.
What Can a Property Owner Do to Halt Such Problems?
To not run into challenges caused by renter's smoking, property managers in California might:
Start a smoke-free rule by not allowing new occupants from lighting up;
Establish non-smoking parts of properties; or
Not allow smoking in all joint areas, such as stairs or garages.
Conclusion
If a renter in a property is put off by occupant's smoking, the legal answers are unclear. Property owners have certain responsibilities to renters (implied warranty of habitability and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment). These property owner-renter law guidelines may offer some reprieve for renters depending on the seriousness and length of the openness to secondhand smoke. Due to the fact that this is a recently discovered part of the law, it is unknown how a California judge would decide. If a renter is physically challenged she might have other legal cures under state and local anti-discrimination laws.
Rather, the apartment manager is allowed to stop smoking in an apartment. Or a local government might establish an law putting limits on smoking in joint areas or stating that property managers have the ability to create areas of the property smoke-free.
So, make positive you are clear as best you are able the parts of the building where smokers are hanging out before you agree to your rental lease agreement.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Anit-Smoking Slogans
At least half of the world seems to enjoy the pleasures of smoking. However, the other half seems to be really up against it. From anti smoking laws to zero cigarette campaigns... this half of the world seems to have taken really serious steps in its battle against the fumes. The most effective tools that they employed are the slogans.
Slogans are words combined to form simple sentences or phrases which promote ideas. Since time immemorial, this has been used to promote general thoughts and even eccentric ideas. From "skin is in" to "no gut no glory", there are just too many slogans that have made their marks in the shaping of history. The same is true when it comes to the battle against smoking. Anti smoking slogans abound all over the world, in order to be a little closer to the elimination of this abominable vice.
Anti smoking slogans tackle every aspect of smoking and its effects in very few words. The most prominent ones are those which delve into the health concerns of people around the world. A perfect example of a health related anti smoking slogan is "Save your lungs, save your life". Indeed, the message here is clear. It says that the cause of various physical diseases can be traced down to smoking cigarettes. Other examples are "Breathe healthily, live happily" and "If you can't stop smoking, cancer will." These easy to remember and rhythmically rhymed slogans have been used by various anti smoking organizations in their campaign posters, banners and even televised public service plugs.
There are also anti smoking slogans which deal with the pollution that the use of cigarettes can cause. As you may know, smoke is harmful for the air. The constant smoking of millions of people everyday actually contributes to the air pollution here on earth. As such, slogans like "Share clean air" and "Everyone has a right to clean air" have been popular adages when it comes to discouraging smoking for environmental causes. Even the improper throwing of cigarette butts have been choice topics among environmental anti smoking slogans.
Last but not the least, there are also anti smoking slogans which discuss financial disadvantages caused by smoking. As you may well know, cigarettes are not the cheapest things on earth. In some countries like Singapore, they can even cause up to $10 a pack. As such, it can cause financial strain on average earners which have been hooked to the habit. An example of this is "Too much smoke will leave you broke". It is a clear statement on proper use of resources, instead of splurging on deadly vices.
If you are into the same cause, then you might want to make your own anti smoking slogan now if you can. It's fun, challenging and worthy of doing. The best thing about this is that you can actually save lives once your anti smoking slogan's message gets heard.
Slogans are words combined to form simple sentences or phrases which promote ideas. Since time immemorial, this has been used to promote general thoughts and even eccentric ideas. From "skin is in" to "no gut no glory", there are just too many slogans that have made their marks in the shaping of history. The same is true when it comes to the battle against smoking. Anti smoking slogans abound all over the world, in order to be a little closer to the elimination of this abominable vice.
Anti smoking slogans tackle every aspect of smoking and its effects in very few words. The most prominent ones are those which delve into the health concerns of people around the world. A perfect example of a health related anti smoking slogan is "Save your lungs, save your life". Indeed, the message here is clear. It says that the cause of various physical diseases can be traced down to smoking cigarettes. Other examples are "Breathe healthily, live happily" and "If you can't stop smoking, cancer will." These easy to remember and rhythmically rhymed slogans have been used by various anti smoking organizations in their campaign posters, banners and even televised public service plugs.
There are also anti smoking slogans which deal with the pollution that the use of cigarettes can cause. As you may know, smoke is harmful for the air. The constant smoking of millions of people everyday actually contributes to the air pollution here on earth. As such, slogans like "Share clean air" and "Everyone has a right to clean air" have been popular adages when it comes to discouraging smoking for environmental causes. Even the improper throwing of cigarette butts have been choice topics among environmental anti smoking slogans.
Last but not the least, there are also anti smoking slogans which discuss financial disadvantages caused by smoking. As you may well know, cigarettes are not the cheapest things on earth. In some countries like Singapore, they can even cause up to $10 a pack. As such, it can cause financial strain on average earners which have been hooked to the habit. An example of this is "Too much smoke will leave you broke". It is a clear statement on proper use of resources, instead of splurging on deadly vices.
If you are into the same cause, then you might want to make your own anti smoking slogan now if you can. It's fun, challenging and worthy of doing. The best thing about this is that you can actually save lives once your anti smoking slogan's message gets heard.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Entire Smoking Ban Or "Non-Smoking Sections?" How Smoking Can Ruin Your Vacations
Resorts are beautiful, when they are maintained well. The good maintenance, especially if the place is "all inclusive", means, in my humble opinion, transparent care about many things, that can be easy noticed when it is bad and should be fixed. Water, if you cannot drink from tap, is replaced by bottles, maid and bar services can be motivated by tips, food quality is enforced by health regulations. All things, among any others, we paid for, can be questioned and claimed to management. But what we really should claim for free, any time and without questions, it is a fresh air and it cannot be substituted.
This is privilege of cheap motels to have smoking smell in the rooms, though, why should we feel the same in resorts, that claim five-star service, where we chose to bring our families and kids to have ultimate holidays? Many countries joined the banning smoking in resorts and hotels, but still, we have nice places that may be contaminated with single snap of smoker's fingers. Being in Greece, Cuba, Costa Rica and Germany, we experienced smokers proximity, but it was not so annoying and uncontrollable like in Riu Mambo resort, in Dominican Republic. And it's not just about this particular resort, but it's a rising question concerning entire vacation industry.
Recent experience in Riu Mambo has showed incredibly perverse approach to caring about smoking tourists. Here, it looks like smokers are ruling the world and anybody who are non-smokers should only escape in so-called "non-smoking sections". Instead of "smoking areas", entire resort is free for smoking. People smoking in restaurants, in pools, in hot tabs, in lobbies, on the beach. Seems to be, only physical inability makes them not to smoke underwater, otherwise they would.
Now we are going to the point - if those "poor", "addicted", "suffering" people are so miserable that should be given support, treatment and understanding, (some specialists claim, comparable to cancer-ill patients), why are they so arrogant to make enjoying themselves by abusing non-smokers in any place they want, completely ignoring "No Smoking" signs and claiming they can smoke everywhere where no such signs posted? They are not looking unhappy and suffering. Indeed, they are just grinning and sadistically entertaining themselves to watch how non-smokers should just leave the areas infested by smokers. Why those "poor fellows" are need to be understood, if they don't want to understand and respect non-smokers?
I believe, there will be voices to sound arguments about right of freedom, but if they are really considerable? Let see a couple of excuses.
Excuse #1 - Property managers tell that "... people here to relax, they are on vacations.." so they cannot restrict them. Excuse me, but with all respect, poor people with diarrhea restricted to unload themselves in any place they want, right? Or, you think that smokers stink less disgusting?
Excuse #2 - "There is no "No smoking" signs here (there), therefore smoking is permitted". Just another nonsense. If this is the case, there are also should be signs "No pissing on the walls", or any other, that your imagination can tell you.
Excuse #3 - "This is no anti-smoking law in that country, I can smoke whenever I want". I have heard that at Cuba. Besides the arrogance, it's even more absurd than claiming the absence of "No Smoking" sign. Lets think, if there is no law to prohibit burping garlic odor directly in other person's face, would it be considered normal to do so? If not so, why is it normal to blow smoke in other person's face?
The proposition is simple - if resort management wants to claim 3, 4 or top 5-star service rating, they should ban the smoking in their area entirely. This is the time, when non-smoking is not any more just personal habit, it should be the operational requirement for resort before claiming high class vacations.
People should unite for pressing travel agencies to specify clearly the amenities as non-smoking, refuse the service if they fail to do so and request compensations for their ruined vacations due to not complying to their non-smoking requirements. In other hand, if we have warnings for TV broadcasts that is not suitable for children, why we have no warnings about, let say, Riu Mambo resort, kind of "SMOKING ALERT - NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN"? And please, don't cry about declining business activity due to smoke bans, it's absurd as much as claiming declining business due to ban of drugs and prostitution.
Here are the facts - Localities that entirely banned smoking in public venues, saw a 17 percent drop in heart attacks in year later and a 36 percent reduction after 3 years. This is according not to one or two, but to 13 (!) different surveys in Europe and North America. Yet, kids shouldn't pay by their health for adult's disgusting habits and it would be interesting to find anybody who can say it's wrong.
This is privilege of cheap motels to have smoking smell in the rooms, though, why should we feel the same in resorts, that claim five-star service, where we chose to bring our families and kids to have ultimate holidays? Many countries joined the banning smoking in resorts and hotels, but still, we have nice places that may be contaminated with single snap of smoker's fingers. Being in Greece, Cuba, Costa Rica and Germany, we experienced smokers proximity, but it was not so annoying and uncontrollable like in Riu Mambo resort, in Dominican Republic. And it's not just about this particular resort, but it's a rising question concerning entire vacation industry.
Recent experience in Riu Mambo has showed incredibly perverse approach to caring about smoking tourists. Here, it looks like smokers are ruling the world and anybody who are non-smokers should only escape in so-called "non-smoking sections". Instead of "smoking areas", entire resort is free for smoking. People smoking in restaurants, in pools, in hot tabs, in lobbies, on the beach. Seems to be, only physical inability makes them not to smoke underwater, otherwise they would.
Now we are going to the point - if those "poor", "addicted", "suffering" people are so miserable that should be given support, treatment and understanding, (some specialists claim, comparable to cancer-ill patients), why are they so arrogant to make enjoying themselves by abusing non-smokers in any place they want, completely ignoring "No Smoking" signs and claiming they can smoke everywhere where no such signs posted? They are not looking unhappy and suffering. Indeed, they are just grinning and sadistically entertaining themselves to watch how non-smokers should just leave the areas infested by smokers. Why those "poor fellows" are need to be understood, if they don't want to understand and respect non-smokers?
I believe, there will be voices to sound arguments about right of freedom, but if they are really considerable? Let see a couple of excuses.
Excuse #1 - Property managers tell that "... people here to relax, they are on vacations.." so they cannot restrict them. Excuse me, but with all respect, poor people with diarrhea restricted to unload themselves in any place they want, right? Or, you think that smokers stink less disgusting?
Excuse #2 - "There is no "No smoking" signs here (there), therefore smoking is permitted". Just another nonsense. If this is the case, there are also should be signs "No pissing on the walls", or any other, that your imagination can tell you.
Excuse #3 - "This is no anti-smoking law in that country, I can smoke whenever I want". I have heard that at Cuba. Besides the arrogance, it's even more absurd than claiming the absence of "No Smoking" sign. Lets think, if there is no law to prohibit burping garlic odor directly in other person's face, would it be considered normal to do so? If not so, why is it normal to blow smoke in other person's face?
The proposition is simple - if resort management wants to claim 3, 4 or top 5-star service rating, they should ban the smoking in their area entirely. This is the time, when non-smoking is not any more just personal habit, it should be the operational requirement for resort before claiming high class vacations.
People should unite for pressing travel agencies to specify clearly the amenities as non-smoking, refuse the service if they fail to do so and request compensations for their ruined vacations due to not complying to their non-smoking requirements. In other hand, if we have warnings for TV broadcasts that is not suitable for children, why we have no warnings about, let say, Riu Mambo resort, kind of "SMOKING ALERT - NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN"? And please, don't cry about declining business activity due to smoke bans, it's absurd as much as claiming declining business due to ban of drugs and prostitution.
Here are the facts - Localities that entirely banned smoking in public venues, saw a 17 percent drop in heart attacks in year later and a 36 percent reduction after 3 years. This is according not to one or two, but to 13 (!) different surveys in Europe and North America. Yet, kids shouldn't pay by their health for adult's disgusting habits and it would be interesting to find anybody who can say it's wrong.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Second Hand Smoking Declining
Second hand smoking came to the lime-light in the early 1980s when a Japanese researcher noticed that people who lived with smokers also suffered from smoking related illnesses and disorders. Since then numerous other studies have been completed which soundly point to these initial Japanese findings.
The wide acceptance of the effects and dangers of second had smoke has largely encouraged most measures that limit smoking in public places. This acknowledgment of the dangers of second hand smoke made the problem and concern not only that of the smoker but a society wide problem. In as much as pro-tobacco groups cry human rights violations of smokers rights, the counter argument is that smokers violate the right to health and right to life of the general public.
Recently the CDC released a report that showed a decline in second hand smoke compared to the 80s and 90s levels. The decline is in the region of 70% and is arrived at by comparing study results from cotinine tests done in the 80s to those done recently. Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. Nicotine does not stay long in the body in its original form. Once inhaled and in the bloodstream it changes after a short period of time to cotinine. Researchers do blood tests to test the presence of cotinine which is a tell-tell sign of the presence of nicotine.
The announcement by the CDC of the decline of second hand smoke even though still showing that a significant number of people especially young children are still affected by second hand smoke is a cause for celebration. It clear shows that anti-smoking laws and regulations preventing public place smoking have been well hided. Children remain vulnerable because they often live with smoking parents or siblings. What then is required is to extend the laws banning public smoking into homes in order to once and for all protect children from smoking parents and siblings.
The success of stop smoking laws leading to second hand smoke decline is sadly confined to the developed world. In poorer developing countries such as China with 350 million smokers, second hand smoke is still affecting millions of innocent people on a daily basis. The problem is not only at the smokers level but also at the government level which is not keen to tamper with lucrative tobacco tax dollars. More pressure and campaigning is needed to convince these particular governments of medium to long term health costs of a sick population.
The decline is second hand smoking in western countries shows that it is possible to bring into control second hand smoking even in the developing countries when the right policies and willingness is established.
The wide acceptance of the effects and dangers of second had smoke has largely encouraged most measures that limit smoking in public places. This acknowledgment of the dangers of second hand smoke made the problem and concern not only that of the smoker but a society wide problem. In as much as pro-tobacco groups cry human rights violations of smokers rights, the counter argument is that smokers violate the right to health and right to life of the general public.
Recently the CDC released a report that showed a decline in second hand smoke compared to the 80s and 90s levels. The decline is in the region of 70% and is arrived at by comparing study results from cotinine tests done in the 80s to those done recently. Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. Nicotine does not stay long in the body in its original form. Once inhaled and in the bloodstream it changes after a short period of time to cotinine. Researchers do blood tests to test the presence of cotinine which is a tell-tell sign of the presence of nicotine.
The announcement by the CDC of the decline of second hand smoke even though still showing that a significant number of people especially young children are still affected by second hand smoke is a cause for celebration. It clear shows that anti-smoking laws and regulations preventing public place smoking have been well hided. Children remain vulnerable because they often live with smoking parents or siblings. What then is required is to extend the laws banning public smoking into homes in order to once and for all protect children from smoking parents and siblings.
The success of stop smoking laws leading to second hand smoke decline is sadly confined to the developed world. In poorer developing countries such as China with 350 million smokers, second hand smoke is still affecting millions of innocent people on a daily basis. The problem is not only at the smokers level but also at the government level which is not keen to tamper with lucrative tobacco tax dollars. More pressure and campaigning is needed to convince these particular governments of medium to long term health costs of a sick population.
The decline is second hand smoking in western countries shows that it is possible to bring into control second hand smoking even in the developing countries when the right policies and willingness is established.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Bad Effects of Smoking in Public
It's no longer considered acceptable in most places for people to smoke in public. In fact, there are specific anti-smoking policies in many counties and cities. Some states have even enacted smoking bans.
No one has been allowed to smoke on plane trips for many years. Now, most restaurants have followed suit.
Much of this is because of health warnings. We see more and more health warnings, as tobacco companies produce anti-smoking ads for TV and the Internet as part of their settlements of lawsuits.
Years ago if someone asked "do you mind if I smoke" they were being polite, it was expected that no one would object. That is no longer the case. Smoking exposes both the smoker and those around the smoker to smoke, and thus can be unhealthy for everyone around. Because of this, asking if it is OK before lighting up is just simple manners.
Our society no longer accepts smoking. If you think on it, recent movie portrayals of smokers use smoking to show a character who is ignorant, evil or desperate.
In many states, smokers can no longer smoke in public places at all. In others, there are laws that mandate how far away a smoker has to be from a building before lighting up.
This can even mean jail time if a smoker in America breaks the law. Fines for breaking smoking laws can lead to fines of hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Even when there are no laws or official rules, smokers need to worry about causing offense and inconvenience.
Smoking is not terribly socially acceptable any more. If you do smoke in a restaurant, you should ask those who are seated to either side if this is OK and respect their wishes. If those at your table have a problem with your smoking, try to arrange the seats so they are not exposed to your smoke.
No one has been allowed to smoke on plane trips for many years. Now, most restaurants have followed suit.
Much of this is because of health warnings. We see more and more health warnings, as tobacco companies produce anti-smoking ads for TV and the Internet as part of their settlements of lawsuits.
Years ago if someone asked "do you mind if I smoke" they were being polite, it was expected that no one would object. That is no longer the case. Smoking exposes both the smoker and those around the smoker to smoke, and thus can be unhealthy for everyone around. Because of this, asking if it is OK before lighting up is just simple manners.
Our society no longer accepts smoking. If you think on it, recent movie portrayals of smokers use smoking to show a character who is ignorant, evil or desperate.
In many states, smokers can no longer smoke in public places at all. In others, there are laws that mandate how far away a smoker has to be from a building before lighting up.
This can even mean jail time if a smoker in America breaks the law. Fines for breaking smoking laws can lead to fines of hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Even when there are no laws or official rules, smokers need to worry about causing offense and inconvenience.
Smoking is not terribly socially acceptable any more. If you do smoke in a restaurant, you should ask those who are seated to either side if this is OK and respect their wishes. If those at your table have a problem with your smoking, try to arrange the seats so they are not exposed to your smoke.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Pros and Cons of Workplace Laws
Workplace laws are set up to set guidelines for appropriate behavior and to let employees know what is acceptable and what is not within the walls of your office space. Not only do these laws talk about acceptable behavior, but it also clarifies rules and regulations regarding your place of business. This can include such things as a smoking policy, rules about food and beverages at your desk or the use of the work phone for personal calls. Laying a list of guidelines out for your employees puts in place rules that can be produced if an employee were to abuse these regulations.
Let's talk about smoking laws. It is getting harder and harder nowadays to find any establishment where smoking is accepted. Places of employment are no exception. Most states require that you refrain from lighting up a cigarette until you are at least 25 feet away from the entrance to any building or in the confines of your own car, with the windows rolled up. If you are one of the few companies who do allow smoking, it is important to set certain guidelines of where the designated smoking are in the building at that any smoking should be reserved for only in that area. This will give your employees the freedom to go and smoke but will give your other employees who choose not to smoke the luxury of not having to breathe in any second hand smoke.
Many places of business do not allow food or beverages at their desk. This is for many reasons. One reason is for the protection of the equipment at your desk. There have been many instances where an employee has spilled a giant soda on their key board or spilled something on their computer ruining the entire thing and losing valuable information stored on it. Another reason for restraining from bringing food to your desk is for smell purposes. Many people are very sensitive to smells and if everyone under the sun brought a different cuisine to their desk, can you imagine what it would smell like? Probably not too great!
The guidelines for workplace laws is essential in making sure that the business is run smoothly and that all employees are courteous and respectful to one another.
Let's talk about smoking laws. It is getting harder and harder nowadays to find any establishment where smoking is accepted. Places of employment are no exception. Most states require that you refrain from lighting up a cigarette until you are at least 25 feet away from the entrance to any building or in the confines of your own car, with the windows rolled up. If you are one of the few companies who do allow smoking, it is important to set certain guidelines of where the designated smoking are in the building at that any smoking should be reserved for only in that area. This will give your employees the freedom to go and smoke but will give your other employees who choose not to smoke the luxury of not having to breathe in any second hand smoke.
Many places of business do not allow food or beverages at their desk. This is for many reasons. One reason is for the protection of the equipment at your desk. There have been many instances where an employee has spilled a giant soda on their key board or spilled something on their computer ruining the entire thing and losing valuable information stored on it. Another reason for restraining from bringing food to your desk is for smell purposes. Many people are very sensitive to smells and if everyone under the sun brought a different cuisine to their desk, can you imagine what it would smell like? Probably not too great!
The guidelines for workplace laws is essential in making sure that the business is run smoothly and that all employees are courteous and respectful to one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)