Non-Smokers' Rights

We live in an age of smokers.  Everywhere you turn, you see people smoking.  Whether or not you choose to smoke, may or may not play a part in how you feel about non-smokers rights.  Those who choose not to smoke may strongly defend them, while those who do, may feel entitled to smoke wherever.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, it is not that cut and dry.

Smokers, such as myself, do not necessarily like having to smoke outdoors, but do so anyway.   I do it mostly because it is the law here in New York State, but also because I do not like exposing others, who choose not to smoke, to my second-hand smoke.  I am strongly in favor of the steps that have been taken to protect the rights of non-smokers.

Based on the evidence of the serious health risks caused by smoking, those who choose not to smoke have the right to not be exposed to it.  If you simply are a non-smoker, or someone who had asthma or some other condition which prohibits exposure to cigarette smoke, do you want to be out in a public place where you are forced to be around it?  I certainly would like to be able to have the choice to eat my dinner, go out to a movie, ride on an airplane, or take part in other indoor activities, without having to inhale somebody else’s cigarette smoke.  Undoubtedly, many business owners are starting to see things this way as well.

More and more, throughout the country, business owners, at their own choice, have begun prohibiting smoking in their businesses.  So much research has proven the negative effects of second-hand smoke exposure. For business owners, it is not only the concern of the customers’ health, but that of their employees.  Their exposure to second-hand smoke is greater, for if they work in such an environment that allows smoking, their risk for health problems increase.  Second-hand smoke has been proven to have the same effect as if the individual were to experience it first-hand.  It has been proven that, the toxins in second-hand smoke cause respiratory problems, such as wheezing, asthma attacks, dyspnea (shortness of breath), and excessive coughing long after exposure. It is evident that second-hand smokers experience the same dangerous chemicals that first-hand smokers do.  Cigarette smoke contains: Cadmium, benzene, lead, and arsenic are just a few of the over 4,000 hazardous chemical components of second-hand smoke that are also toxins common to blue-collar workplaces.  Synergistically, cigarette smoke and workplace toxins can multiply the risk of getting lung cancer by as much as 53 times in blue-collar workers. It is impossible for business owners to ignore all of this jarring information.  If they do not take into account the long-term effects second-hand smoke may have on their customers and employees, they may end up paying the price.

It is ironic that the impact of smoking on non-smokers, rather than on smokers themselves, is what finally transformed the regulation and cultural perception of the cigarette.  It is not so much the negative health implications, as it is about protecting those who do not wish to experience them.  The concern of infringing upon the rights of other individuals seems to be the main drive.  That is why more and more business owners are choosing to run a smoke-free establishment at the risk of hurting business.  It turns out that, overall, banning smoking has not had that significant of an impact as once thought.

It is considered a milestone that the rights of the non-smoker have prevailed in the workplace.  It should be the concern of the business owner to look out for the health and safety of their employees.  We, as a country, have come a long way in the line of legislation for non-smokers.  Litigation has become more prevalent against the tobacco industry now, mainly because it has been proven to be deadly.  It is only until recently that manufacturers of cigarettes could be held liable for their products.  Tort law indicates that in order for a manufacturer to be held liable for a product, it would have to prove defective.  Because of newer studies proving that cigarettes are the cause of many health problems, including lung cancer, this is now possible.

So with all of this evidence, it is wise to uphold and/or defend the rights of non-smokers.  When the health of other individuals who choose not to smoke is effected by someone else’s smoking, they have the right to not be exposed.