Before I start this rant I just wanted to comment that while I sympathize with smokers, I despise the tobacco companies. Not because they process and sell tobacco but because they lie and cheat at every opportunity.

So let's begin. There was just a small headline and a very short article, which followed the basic Who, What, When and How of journalism:

A teacher was shot and injured Tuesday outside a high school during an apparent robbery, forcing lockdowns of several schools for more than two hours.

Police detained three men for questioning but released two of them. They were questioning the third. No arrests had been made.

The teacher, identified by school officials as Sergio Miranda, was shot in the upper torso, Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta said.

Miranda had been taking a cigarette break across the street from the school during lunch when he was confronted by a man who tried to rob him, said Quintin Taylor, a spokesman for Miami-Dade County Public Schools.


Yet, there is a larger question here. The point is, the teacher was not permitted to smoke on school grounds. So, he was forced to go across the street, to a high crime area to take his smoke - where he was shot and robbed. The whole idea of treating smokers this way, to keep them isolated, is to prevent the health risks of smoking. Yet, our smoker in question probably suffered far greater "health risks" as a result of the school policy, which put him at an even greater risk.

School officials are not idiots, yet their thinking, at least at times, becomes so autocratic that one wonders just who is really served best by these policies. But it's not just the schools, for how many large corporations have the same policies? There are some that completely ban smoking, even in their parking lots. An employee caught smoking even in his/hers car can be fired for smoking on "company property." So it's not just the "liberal, PC" schools with questionable policies, but even the "draconian" Wal-Marts that share in these "considerate" policies. My feeling is that every public place is under an obligation to provide a reasonably safe and healthy environment for all - teachers, students, employees, customers, etc - even for those who do the smoking. End of rant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21657114/

[exceedingly inflammatory bit self-edited]

Addiction does not deserve public accomodation. It's not tolerated for other vices to be imposed on non-participants, why does smoking get a pass?

Smoking should be made as inconvenient, uncomfortable, and expensive as possible. Isolation is part of that.

Chandos,
by being forced outside smokers are exposed to many risks, adverse weather being one of them. The problem to me appears not to be the smoking but the high crime in the high crime area. Of course, wanting to see smokers smoke in safety is commendable, but it ought to be so that it is safe everywhere (except, say, gas stations, dry forrests etc.)

I don't share Rally's zeal though. In my view smoking is the most communicative of all bad habits. Without smoking some people wouldn't socialise at all. In a sense, smoking bans are a boon to them - they force them out where they together can feed their addiction, bringing new people together over and over again.

[exceedingly inflammatory bit self-edited]

Addiction does not deserve public accomodation. It's not tolerated for other vices to be imposed on non-participants, why does smoking get a pass?


It's not? What about the alcoholic who gets in his car and wipes out a family of "non-participants" on the way home from a bar? We have legal alcohol limits in place, but the fact is, in reality, there is nothing that prevents these individuals from sharing their addiction with others -- with immediate death sometimes being the consequence. I don't think you can even remotely classify second-hand smoke in this category.

It's not tolerated for other vices to be imposed on non-participants, why does smoking get a pass?


No one is suggesting that vices should be "imposed" upon anyone.

Smoking should be made as inconvenient, uncomfortable, and expensive as possible. Isolation is part of that

That's fine, Rally, if that's your take. But any policy needs to consider the general safety of those for whom the policy is crafted. I used to work at store which was across from a large home improvement store. A number of its employees would come over and stand in front of our store to smoke because of their store's policy of non-smoking. Being the antagonist that I am, I was over shopping at their store one day and just causally asked why all their employees did this. The reponse from a management member was "because we want a safe, pollution free environment."

"Great," I replied. "I then will assume that your store does not sell products that contain flourocarbons. Nor do you sell wood products that have been treated and contain arsnic or formaldehyde." While I understand that my comments were a bit over the top, I find it strange that I live with tons of pollution dumped into the air I breathe everyday, but smokers are kicked around because of their habit.

Given what we know are the health risks, it's not an intelligent move to have the "addiction" of smoking. Why anyone would want to smoke is beyond me. And you are not going to catch me defending smoking, Rally. Nevertheless, policy should be sensible. It doesn't have to be convenient, but it shouldn't put people at even greater risk.

As I just became a non-smoker earlier this year, I can certainly sympathise with this smoker. While I think that it is extreme to have a policy that prohibits smoking even in your car on the school parking lot, this school is not unusual in having a non-smoking policy on school grounds. It is state law in Maryland that smoking is prohibited on school grounds at all public schools.

There has been a lot of changes in the past 20 years or so regarding smoking laws. I can remember that when I was a teenager, smoking was still permitted at the mall. You couldn't smoke in the individual stores, but in the gallery area smoking was permitted.

The next step was that employers would provide employees a "smokers lounge", which usually was nothing more than a glorified closet where they can keep the smokers away from everyone else and bother others as little as possible.

For the past 5-10 years though, the most common practice is if you smoke, you have to leave the building and go outside to have your cigarette. This is the policy where I work now, and as I understand it, that's how most companies operate. This rule never bothered me much, except when it was pouring rain or freezing cold. However, I think it WOULD have bothered me if I was requried to leave the comapny grounds.

Lots of states have laws banning smoking in public buildings, and a public school would certainly qualify as a public building. But because it is a school, I think there are other factors that come into play. Many children look to teachers as role models, so I can understand if it would not be proper for them to light up just outside the school for all the students to see. The only other reason I can see to ban smoking on school grounds is to expand the area where you can bust kids for having cigarettes.

I believe that there could always be a compromise. There could be a designated area outside of the school, around the corner out of sight, where teachers could go and have a cigarette. Clearly, forcing teachers to leave the grounds when the surrounding neighborhood is unsafe is a poor policy.

I agree that there should be a compromise. There is something like principle and there is common sense. If a neighbourhood is not safe it is plain silly to expect people to go ut there to smoke, for the sake of principle. Heck, a female smoker probably would have been at risk not only be shot and robbed but to be raped as well :eek: The risks of smoking manifest in her getting harmed? :eek: Of course not. There has to be a pragmatic solution.

Last I heard, smoking was voluntary. There are things a person can do to cut down the cravings -- and yes, they are hard.

Where I work, employees are not allowed to smoke (because of the many flammable chemicals we have) and they are not permitted to leave the company grounds with their uniform on (which may have hazardous chemicals on them).

I see absolutely no problem with banning smoking in places where children are being taught or cared for. People in those professions either need to quit smoking or learn to control the cravings while at work. Period. This teacher VOLUNTARILY crossed the street into the high crime neighborhood. I may be a little harsh, but this teacher had to know the risks when he went over there and made a conscious decision to smoke in spite of the risks. To me, this is akin to parachuting or having unprotected sex (or driving drunk for that matter) -- if a person knows the risks and still decides to follow through, then it's their decision and all I can say is good luck.

(which may have hazardous chemicals on them).


So if the smoke doesn't kill you, the chemicals will? :)

I agree with Rallymama for the most part - I have no sympathy for the smokers. It's a fact that they will smoke anywhere that they're not expressly prohibited from doing it. Usually in the spot non-smokers would like to be at too, but can't without being forced to gulp down their second-hand smoke. We have just such a situation at my academy at the moment. Smoking is now banned in all public buildings country-wide, so everyone smokes right at the entrance to the building. You can't get in or out without inhaling their smoke.

More importantly, since we all have breaks at the sime time, you can't go out for a breath of fresh air, because the air in the immediate vicinity of the entrance is full of second-hand smoke, and, obviously, disgusting to all non-smokers. So smokers now routinely occupy and pollute the entrance area, and all us non-smokers stay inside during breaks unless we need to talk to one of the smokers about something important enough to be force-fed second-hand smoke.

So, based on this practical example, I don't see the banning of smoking on school grounds as extreme at all. It would really be the only way to make sure that non-smokers are not exposed to second-hand smoke.

I think there should simply be small, designated areas in most places where smoking is allowed. It is a problem if it's a school (as I doubt that there would be a smoking area for students, and frankly would not grieve if there isn't one), but teachers could have a small lounge or terrace where to take their "cancer-stick breaks." Having to go out of the school bounds is not just possibly unfair, but possibly counter-productive.

Ideally, people would not smoke - I myself am a non(active)-smoker. However, unless the school makes a policy to hire non-smokers, it will have to deal with the issue somehow. It's better for teachers to have a small place to smoke when they have to instead of hiding in the toilets or having to spend 20 minutes to go out of the school and back for a 5-minute cigarette.

Last I heard, smoking was voluntary....This teacher VOLUNTARILY crossed the street into the high crime neighborhood. I may be a little harsh, but this teacher had to know the risks when he went over there and made a conscious decision to smoke in spite of the risks.
That sums it up quite nicely IMO.

In my opinion the right to be free of any kind of passive smoke and especially having the children free of it overrides any possible rights a smoker might have regarding smoking. Finland banned all smoking in public places including restaurants a few months ago and while I'm a bit disappointed for not being able to smoke the occational cigar at parties, I'll accept the fact that the employees as well as customers have the right not to be subjected to the hazards of passive smoking.

[exceedingly inflammatory bit self-edited]

Addiction does not deserve public accomodation. It's not tolerated for other vices to be imposed on non-participants, why does smoking get a pass?

Smoking should be made as inconvenient, uncomfortable, and expensive as possible. Isolation is part of that.

I'm always shocked by your 'intensity' on this subject Rally. I hope you don't mind me asking, but have you lost people close due to smoking or something? I'm just trying to understand this 'hatred' (for want of a better word really). Smoking isn't THAT bad, and in this day and age (due to public bans etc.) is harmful only to the smoker.

There are MANY addictions accepted in society. Admittently, few as harmful as smoking, but still, they're there. It's legal to smoke, I know more smokers than I do non-smokers and they're all cool people ;). If I was to come to your house, sit down for a meal, go outside for a quick fag, then come back in, would you look down on me? What would it be, the smoke on my breath? Or would you just not bat an eyelid?

By the way, I agree with Morg on this subject. Sometimes it's bloody annoying when you can't just have a smoke with your beer, but before the ban, I bet it was annoying to have to be subjected to harmful smoke everytime you go out.

I, grudgingly, support public bans :P.