Smoking in the workplace

Smoking in the Workplace

The dangers of smoking whether from direct or second hand smoke have been exhaustively researched and proven truthful and factual. Despite all these, several people still choose to continue with this deadly habit and some youth of today start taking up smoking because "it simply looks cool" to do so. The grim statistics and numerous death tolls have not hit home those smokers and the danger is not confined only to themselves but others as well who fall prey to second hand smoke. Since it is quite difficult to persuade smokers from quitting the habit and the ill effects it has on themselves and those affected by second hand smoke, there have been initiatives to legislate no smoking in public places. New York, both the state and the city, implemented stringent no smoking policies since the early 2000s in public places. The statute extended the prohibition to bars and restaurants in 2003 and to public open spaces like parks in 2011. The reason for the legislation was to not only prevent the prevalence of death and dreadful diseases due to smoking by primary smokers but the effects thereof from second hand smoke. In New York City, the antismoking law was championed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who saw it as a health initiative to protect restaurant and bar workers from being exposed to secondhand smoke (Hu & Farmer, 2003).

The legislation was a welcome initiative by non-smokers who work in establishments like bars and restaurants, and know very well the problems brought about from second hand smoke. In 2002, approximately 1,000 New Yorkers died because of exposure to second-hand smoke. As a result of passage of the SFAA of 2002, 150,000 fewer New Yorkers are exposed to second-hand smoke. (The City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006) The lessening of exposure to second hand smoke provides a Domino effect not only in terms of health care expenditures but mitigating the various risks brought about by smoking.

Of course like any other matter, the issue has been divisive not only between smokers and non-smokers but advocates of rights and freedoms. Indeed, there are those that argue the legislation is curtailing the freedom of smokers to smoke in public places like bars and restaurants. A rejoinder to this is that proponents of this should look at the bigger picture because in the exercise of rights and freedoms, there are corresponding duties and responsibilities thereto. In this matter, smokers do have the right to do so even if they know very well the dreadful effects of their habits, but when they do so and second hand smoke affects non-smokers then they are infringing on the rights of others, especially non-smoking bar and restaurant personnel, that have the right to a smoke-free environment. Then there would be a counter argument that if these people know that the bar or restaurant is a smoking establishment, they should not work there in the first place. However, the argument is simplistic and does not take into account various principles of normative ethics.

Normative ethics is "that branch of ethics that studies systems of moral rightness and wrongness. It seeks to provide a system of principles and procedures for determining what (morally speaking) a person should do and should not do. (Graziano, 2010)) Often though, rightness or wrongness of actions gets blurred as a result of the differing opinions, beliefs and perceptions of people. Thus, application of normative ethics in a general sense may not be apropos considering there are categories thereto that defines in details specific principles to particular actions. In the case of New York City's ban of smoking in bars and restaurants, the utilitarian and deontological principles of normative ethics may be applied.

Applying utilitarianism to the matter means ascertaining the moral value of a particular action can be determined primarily by the contribution thereto to overall utility. Simply speaking, utilitarianism calls for the "end justifying the means." The application of utilitarianism may open up a can of worms because there have been instances wherein the means are morally reprehensible despite the nobility of the end. The New York case though does not come near this because clearly the means initiated by the government are just and proper. The end or overall utility is not only to prevent non-smokers from the ill effects of second hand smoke but lessen the smoking of smokers. Overall, the end result sees a healthier population and between the rights of the smokers and their health and well-being, the goodness of the action is maximized. It is not even a choice between the "devil and the deep blue sea" but a choice between a bad habit (smoking" and a good one (non-smoking or minimizing it).

From the deontological perspective, which can be differentiated from utilitarianism wherein deontology calls for the rightness or wrongness of the action as opposed to utilitarianism's rightness or wrongness of the ends or consequences. By and large through, banning smoking in bars and restaurants can be deemed as correct because it aims at preventing a harmful action from having ill effects. There is actually a rightness continuum based on the deontological approach because the ban serves to protect everyone and ends up benefiting everyone as well. Never mind the arguments of those who feel that their rights are being trampled on because with their smoking, they are also stepping on others' rights also.

The law may not be perfect or provide satisfaction of everyone but such is the case of any contentious issue. Nonetheless, it "represents a huge step up from the free-for-all that existed before, allowing customers to know where they could have smoke free fun (Solish, 2009)." Besides, taking a closer look at the law, it is not despotic to the point that it criminalizes or complete prohibits smoking. Rather, the law limits the venues where smokers can smoke. There exemptions thereto and establishments can apply for exemption provided "smoking is limited to 25% of seating in a single contiguous outdoor dining area. An outdoor dining area is defined as one with no roof, overhang, or other ceiling enclosure (The City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2006)." If the concern again is with regards to the affects of second hand smoking on establishment personnel, the establishment should consider hiring on smoking staff in the smoking area. This is a win-win solution since there is no dearth of smokers who can work at smoking areas of bars and restaurants.