Smoking's Slippery (Ski) Slope

I'm not a smoker, but I play one on TV. OK, not really, but I'd like to — just to piss off the sanctimonious neo-prohibitionists who get all hot and bothered at the mere sight of a lit cigar or cigarette.

The anti-smoking lobby has come a long way, baby. It all started innocently enough some twenty-five years ago, with the demand that airplanes get designated non-smoking sections. Fine, no problem. Then there was to be no smoking on planes at all. Sure, if it makes you happy. Then airports became smoke-free zones. Annoying, but let's just show our most conciliatory side and give in. Then office buildings and restaurants and pubs no longer accommodated any smokers. Yeah, that's alarming, but thank heavens, people can still smoke outside.

Not so fast.

Per the New York Times:

>> When [Maine's] Black Mountain opened for the season on Dec. 10, it became the first ski resort in the nation where tobacco use was banned everywhere, including the lodge, the alpine and cross-country trails, and the lifts, state and industry officials said. But it probably will not be the last. <<

What, pray tell, is the rationale for the ban? The usual, of course: it's for the children.

>> "I've had one person say they're going to drive by the mountain and blow smoke out the window," [general manager Terrie Anne] Bennett said. "If they feel that way, fine. We have nothing against smokers or tobacco products. We just want to have a safe environment for children to recreate." <<

Got that? You can drive your smoke-belching Hummer halfway up the mountain if the mood strikes, but when you're in the great outdoors and hold a match to a cigarette, you're launching an assault on innocent children's lungs.

All right, but people can still light up in their own homes, no?

You pitiable naïf. Your employer will be the judge of that. If you smoke at home, or anywhere for that matter, you could get fired — just like these people.

Comments

[Jesse]

I agree that this ban is utterly ridiculous. But just to play devil's advocate...shouldn't private corporations be allowed to make their own rules (within the law of course)? If this new rule is horrible, and capitalism works, they will simply lose revenue. Black Moutain certainly has no monopoly on skiing in northern New England.

If this rule were based on a state or federal law, it of course would be another story...

[n]

Do we have a problem when a resort bans alcohol for a better experience? No. Smoking is a terrible thing - "Hey family I'm selfish - watch me die" Find something else to get riled up about. Smoke on your own land.

[t]

I quit smoking 6 months ago. I refuse to be part of the holier than thou clique of anti-smoking loons.
The great outdoors is a great place for people to smoke.
These people just need to get a life.

[Gillian]

If this was "for the children"... saving them from second-hand smoke, then why is chewing tobacco banned as well (according to the NYT article)?

The far left has their twisted version of "family values" just like the far right does.

[Scipio Africanus]

"Smoking is a terrible thing."

Thanks, n, for revealing yet again that the modern antismoking movement is a moral crusade wrapped in public health sheep's clothing.

[syaf75]

Black Mountain is in New Hampshire. And bravo for them for offering a smoke-free mountain. On a chairlift with no wind, I have several times gotten two miles of second-hand smoke. It's not the state doing it. I'm fine with it.

[G A]

I don't have a problem with any of this. The resort is banning it for a business reason - to attract families with children by promising them a complete smoke-free environment. The resort must have some numbers that show that families with children are more likely to visit their resort if they ban tobacco all over. Nobody is forcing a smoker to visit this ski resort. If you are a smoker and are displeased with this, you can take your business elsewhere and not give these guys your money. This is the same situation that us non-smokers face with bars. Bars allow smoking because it is good business for them. As a non-smoker, I choose not to go to such bars and give them my business unless they go smoke-free. Capitalism rules.

As for the company firing workers who refused to take the smoke test, why is this different from a company testing employees for drugs that you may consume in your house? I am pretty sure that if you refuse a drug test, you will not get the job or alternatively you will be fired if you are already employed. Both are harmful and cost the employer money (through higher insurance premiums, risk etc). You don't have the right to any job. There are consequences for behavior that cause harm and you can either stop smoking and keep the job or find another one. It is a free society. The folks who were fired are not being forced to work for this employer.

[catfish]

The anti-smoking ban at Black Mountain is different than the company firing workers who smoke in their own home. This is because people can choose to ski somewhere else. The ban is silly, but so are a lot of other regulations that companies impose on their customers. No big deal.

The ban on smoking at home by an employer is a different story. Of course, the employees could choose to work elsewhere, but I would submit that the employer/employee relationship is differnt than the establishment/customer relationship. It is more difficult to change jobs than change vacation spots. Consumer choices also rarely intrude into the private lives of people.

In short, it's not about anti-smoking, its about privacy. If the smoking ban holds up legally, then you will see all kinds of mandates placed on employees by employers about what they can do in their time away from work. If it becomes widespread enough, we will have lost a good bit of freedom.

[A Hermit]

It's not the second hand smoke that's the concern here. Smokers also leave their butts lying around, where small children and animals will pick them up and eat them.

And before I get any snarky responses, I'm an ex-smoker (OK, almost ex-smoker, I still have one or two on poker night...) who started the process of quitting after seeing my two year old son pick up the butt I'd just crushed on the ground in the great outdoors and stick it in his mouth, to be like daddy...

If smokers all carefully saved their dog-ends and disposed of them with the rest of their trash we'd have a different story, but we all know what happens; the butts get tossed on the ground, often still burning. And chewing tobacco gets spewed out in the snow in thick, ropy streams of saliva. Just what you want your kids skiing through and playing in...

You want to leave crap like that all over your own property, fine, but don't expect others to have to put up with it on their property.

On the other hand, firing people for smoking somewhere else is excessive. Make them pay more for their health insurance, but don't can them.

[G A]

In response to catfish:
I agree that an employee/employer relationship is different but there are some unique circumstances here. The company is a healthcare firm. It sends the wrong message if the employees of a healthcare firm have unhealthy habits (smoking). Imagine if this company pushes a big anti-smoking initiative and some reporter finds that the company's employees are smokers themselves. Seems a little hypocritic doesn't it? What they are doing is trying to get their house in order before preaching to others. Plus, the company has to face extra cost (higher insurance premiums), allow for more frequent breaks (for smoking etc). My main point is that smoking affects their line of business (health).

It is possible that at some future date, a large majority of employers do tests for smoking to offset health insurance costs etc and make that a criteria for hiring. I don't see how smoking is much different than drug use. It is addictive and it is harmful both to you and those around you. Yes, anyone is free to smoke or do drugs at home but there are consequences for such harmful behavior. This is just one example.

[Dave]

Your comparison to Hummers belching smoke is silly. Yes, both tobacco and car exhaust are irritating to the lungs. But the cars probably aren't being driven right next to large groups of people.

More importantly, second hand smoke has immediate effects on the heart, and can trigger heart attacks, mainly in those with heart conditions (clogged or inflamed arteries, for example). And before you say "well those people shouldn't be skiing anyway," consider that many people do not know they have an existing condition. The smoke can also trigger asthma attacks.

Lest you argue that smoking outside should be perfectly okay, consider that the smoke tends to linger. When you walk past someone smoking outside, can't you usually smell it? If you can smell it, you are inhaling the toxic chemicals.

As for the company firing people who smoke, this is mainly an economic decision. Smokers miss more work, and are a greater insurance risk, costing employers money. They also tend to take frequent smoke breaks, making them less productive on average. I admit there is a potential for a slippery slope, however, other unhealthy behaviors such as eating bad foods really don't compare with smoking in terms of how much they increase the risk for various deadly (and costly) diseases, nor with how easy it is to avoid. At least food provides nutrition, and some bad food in small amounts can be offset with healthy foods and exercise. Smoking, on the other hand, is still very unhealthy in moderation, with no actual purpose other than to administer a drug to the smoker.

[SullyWatch]

Black Mountain is in New Hampshire.

Uh, no. Not this one, anyway.

See their website.

Good to see that most of you commenting here are consistent libertarians and support market forces even when you disagree with the outcome.

[Rick]

I'm a smoker who has no problem with smoking/tobacco bans by private entities, whether it's a ski slope or a business. I would rather see an outright ban on tobacco sales than the evertightening restrictions placed on a legal product. It gives the government too much power. Obviously if tobacco were a new product it would never be allowed for sale by the government.

[catfish]

I guess this is at root a philosphical disagreement. There are some for whom a job is an emploment contract, plain and simple. If the employee agress to any terms--low pay, dangerous work conditions, intrusive regulations outside of work--then that is ok. I disagree. I think that it was a big advancement when western nations rid themselves of paternalistic labor relations--from slavery and indentured servitude to some of the master/servant jurisprudence that did not fall until much later. If a company wants to ban frequent smoke breaks that is fine. However, testing people to see if they smoke on their own time is exceeding important boundaries. If only a couple of companies do it, it may not decrease freedom measurable, but if it is allowed to become widespread, then the element of "choice" decreases to the point where employment is moving towards indentured servitude and away from the liberty and autonomy enhancing protections that we have today.

A quick note on drug testing. I oppose drug testing except when the employee stands to injure others (pilots, bus drivers, people who work near heavy machinery), but at least we are talking about an illegal substance.

In some ways this is yet another reason to divorce health care insurance from the employment relationship (but that is a whole nother story)

[G A]

Catfish,
I don't think it is a philosphical disagreement. I am in agreement with you on some things. Dangerous work conditions are not ok. For instance, I am fully in favor of govt. stepping in to make sure that conditions are safe for employees (which is why I think smoking should be banned in bars etc to protect the employees who work there from second-hand smoke). There has to be a minimum standard that we need to follow. As far as low wages go, I believe in free market. If you have a skill that is in high demand, you will be paid more and vice versa. We as individuals can learn new skills (high demand ones) if we need higher wages.

When it comes to privacy concerns, I think it is ok for an employer to ask you to reveal something that you do outside of work only if it is a valid qualification for the job. In this case, the employer felt that all employees must be non-smokers and hence the smoke test was required. I would not support this employer if they asked for someone's religious/sexual preference for instance. However, I would support a catholic missionary if they asked for a candidate's religious preference and only hired practicing catholics. It all comes down to valid qualifications.

[Jeff]

I have a question. Where are these smoking skiers planning to leave their butts. I have no problem with people smoking outside. I do have a major problem with them throwing the remains of their cigarettes wherever the wind takes them.

[Alex]

Jesse is absolutely right. Nusinesses have broad latitude to impose any rules they please on their own premises in order to create the desired atmosphere - imagine if, say, strip club patrons had to follow all the same rules as they would at, say, Chuck E. Cheese... On the other hand, the hysteria over the effect smoking has on people besides the smoker is most likely exaggerated. I obviously can't prove a negative, but pretty much all the data (such as there has been) advanced to support the notion that even mild exposure to secondhand smoke is a massive cancer risk has been debunked.

[Mike]

With things like this I always like to apply the "what's next" test. Sure, we can all agree smoking is terrible and should not be allowed anywhere at any time. But once this is all in place, what's next? And make no mistake, there will be something else.

My father taught me that when any law is passed, no matter how good or just it may seem, just remember that is one more freedom taken away from you

Little cocktail after work? Not if you want to work here, honey...
Like to ride that dirt bike on weekends? Forget about that, insurance risk too high.....
How many kids do you have? Opps, sorry, too many, one will have to go..............

[Dave]

To Alex:
" but pretty much all the data (such as there has been) advanced to support the notion that even mild exposure to secondhand smoke is a massive cancer risk has been debunked."

What about data showing more than a mild exposure leads to a significant (though not "massive") cancer risk? The qualifiers in your post make it so that you are saying "the evidence shows that a little exposure isn't a huge cancer risk" and ignores everything in between.

What's worse, you only mention cancer, and ignore the IMMEDIATE impact that smoke (first or second hand) has upon the heart.

To Mike:
"But once this is all in place, what's next? And make no mistake, there will be something else."

I doubt there will be "something else." Nothing is similar to smoking in that someone doing it in front of other people poses a similar health risk to that person as it does to the smoker. Regarding the "fire smokers" rule, again, there is nothing similar in that smoking is a risk that is so easily preventable. It's not like food where people have to eat and if they eat too much of a wrong thing it could have bad effects. Smoking doesn't serve any other purpose, and nothing is lost by not smoking.

[Anand]

Ah go to hell. Better yet, go to Bhutan. Expect a niche market of private establishment to try to cater to the smoking market. Other than that, network effects will take care of this habit.

[catfish]

G.A.,

I am all for allowing religious organizations to hire and fire based on religious belief. But religion is a special category. Because it deals with the issue of conscience, the state must remain as far away as possible.

While employees are at work, I think it is appropriate for the Michigain company to ban smoking, at least on the company premises or at official functions where the employee is a representative of the company. When it comes to ones own home, however, it becomes none of the employer business. If health costs are the main concern, the company could impose higher premiums on people who engage in risky behavior like smoking. I think that I would be opposed to this too, but I find it much more acceptable than trying to regulate the private behavior of employees. In other words, there are less restrictive ways of accomplishing the same thing.

[Dave]

"If health costs are the main concern, the company could impose higher premiums on people who engage in risky behavior like smoking. I think that I would be opposed to this too"

Those who oppose the anti-tobacco movement often argue about "personal responsibility," but when someone's reckless habit costs his employer and causes insurance costs for his colleagues to go up, they become egalitarians who don't think smokers should be responsible for their actions, but think others should pay for his additional costs.

[Rob]

It sounds like this is a choice made by the resort owners, which makes it case of a business trying to succeed by differentiating itself from its competitors – so consumers now have more choice, not less. This is exactly how a free society is supposed to work.

[Steve]

As a smoker, I have absolutely no problem with a private business choosing to ban smoking on their property, even if that property happens to be a mountain. In fact, I wish more businesses would do that. I wish more bars would do that. More hotels. My reasoning is selfish. If there were plenty of non-smoking bars, then maybe lawmakers would have other things to worry about and leave a few bars where us pariah are still welcome and legal. If there were plenty of options for non-smokers they might leave us to our own squalid places. Zealots on both sides of any issue always push to the extreme and I'm sorry, but wholesale regulations against smoking in bars is an extreme. To tag onto Mike's post on one law leading to another, I can see the day that peanuts will be banned from bars because the drunken fool on the next stool breathes his peanut breath on someone and they die of an allergic reaction. As likely as a puff of smoke killing someone of a heart attack on a mountain.

[Rob]

It sounds like this is a choice made by the resort owners, which makes it a case of a business trying to succeed by differentiating itself from its competitors – so consumers now have more choice, not less. This is exactly how a free society is supposed to work.