English language and literature studies

¶ … tobacco industry has made its business by portraying smoking as hip, debonair, classy, and a symbol of stature in society. The way the tobacco companies went about doing this was by flooding the advertising markets with advertisements in both print and other media and recruiting public figures to promote their products. Over the years the tobacco industry has caused millions upon millions of addictions and deaths due to public opinion and use of their products. However, in recent years they have been getting a taste of their own medicine. Many people have now been steered away from smoking due to the blunt facts about smoking and its effects on everyone, even non-smokers. Due to this deluge of information, I feel very strongly that employers have every right to do anything they need to do to create and maintain a smoke-free workplace, even if this means banning cigarettes altogether and testing their workers for breaking the rules.

A study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has found that efforts that have been made in recent years have been highly successful in cutting down non-smokers' exposure to second hand smoke (cancer.org). In my opinion, any successful information or action that allows for a higher quality of life should be praised and continued with greater conviction. Not only is there legislation in place to support any policy that bans smoking in the workplace (unless negotiated in union arbitration), but an employee has every right to be protected in his or her workplace. Employers are held highly accountable for safety hazards such as unsafe equipment and proper maintenance of working grounds, so why shouldn't they be held accountable for something that slowly diseases, and possibly kills their employees?

A new buzzword has come into the public debate when arguing the effects of second hand smoke: "environmental tobacco smoke." "ETS" and its effects have always been measured and discussed in the medical field, but now appears more prominently in public debate. ETS is the cause of an estimated 3,000 cancer-related deaths in America each year and may be a factor in as many as 62,000 deaths from coronary heart disease each year (cancer.org). While these numbers may seem staggering, they are actually presented as positive figures based on the fact ETS-related effects have decreased in recent years. Dr. Terry Pechacek, the Associate Director for Science with the CDC, lauds these advancements as proof that "clean indoor air legislation and restrictions on smoking in public places are effective in protecting non-smokers (cancer.org). It is my contention that if there is scientific proof that we have made strides in reducing the effects of ETS by putting legislation in place, employers should be encouraged strongly to be militant when enforcing their smoke-free workplace.

While all of these arguments seem quite overwhelming, people still defend "smokers' rights." I feel that in enforcing a smoke-free workplace, an employer still can be compassionate to addicted smokers. Workers do have breaks during the day on which they simply should leave the building for a short time if they need a cigarette that desperately. People do have a constitutional right to bear arms, but their are definite restrictions as to where they can do that. This, along with other similar circumstances sets precedence for the enforcement of designated smoking areas.