Should United States office buildings allow smoking indoors in designated smoking lounges?

  • It's our right.

    The government should not scare people into not smoking by forcing them to go outside because they can not light up in an office building that is fascism. Smoking has been one of America's favorite past time since the stone age and we shouldn't have to stop now. Some people are allowed to store alcohol in there office but smokers are not allowed to smoke that isn't fair. An office is a person's. Having you do not smoke in public areas because of second hand smoke that is understood. Though an office a personal work place for people, it's where business people spend seven hours out of their day they should be able to work in comfort. Though we all know that no smoking indoors has nothing to do with "second hand smoke" it is solely for the government to scare people into not smoking.

  • Yes, because it is a form of customer service.

    Nowadays, there are not many public places that allow smoking. Buildings having designated smoking lounges would be smoker-friendly, thus increasing patronage to the building. In addition, having a smoking lounge would do a favor to employees who smoke, when they need to take a puff to relieve them from stress work brings.

    Posted by: FeIBuddy
  • I support having designated smoking lounges in office buildings; it is better than forcing second-hand smoke onto co-workers.

    If a worker truly can not function without smoking, then by all means, they should take breaks to smoke. In an office building, this might prove difficult if it is required to go outside. But the break room would not be the place to smoke either, as non-smoking co-workers would have to receive second-hand smoke. Therefore, a designated smoking room would be the safest, most convenient way to handle smoking in a business environment.

    Posted by: MitchInferno
  • United States office buildings should allow smoking indoors in designated smoking lounges if the office is a private company, not a government office.

    If the office is owned by a private company, they should be able to freely do what they want with their property, within reason of course. Anti-smoking policies have destroyed businesses such as bars, because their patrons cannot smoke in them anymore.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • No, smoking lounges are not much better than having a smoking section in a restaurant, because some of the smoke would seep into the common areas.

    Smoking lounges in government buildings are a bad idea. Every time the door gets opened, some of the smoke gets into the common areas. I can understand if it were in a bar or a night club, where people can choose whether or not they want to expose themselves to the air pollution. In the case of government buildings, they sometimes can not be avoided.

    Posted by: ChangeableKieth31
  • I do not agree with letting smokers smoke inside of buildings, due to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

    Why should others be possibly exposed to second-hand smoke? Besides the health issues that come with smoking, the smell of it is disgusting. Even if confined to a certain area, the smell tends to travel to others parts.

    Posted by: GrubbyMariano
  • Second-hand smoke can affect people by going through existing HVAC system air vents.

    Smoking indoors is dangerous, because exposure to second-hand smoke has been shown to be even more dangerous than inhaling smoke through a cigarette. Smoke can linger within buildings for days. Many buildings have one heating and cooling system that takes air and blows it throughout the building, which could, in turn, blow second-hand smoke throughout the building. Building owners creating designated smoking areas would need to make sure to have a separate HVAC system for those areas. Many building owners would not want to make improvements such as this, which, in turn, would lead to dangerous situations.

    Posted by: AmusingTanner32
  • Smoking is not just bad for the smoker, but it is also bad for people around the smoker, which is why buildings should not have designated smoking lounges.

    Studies have shown that second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer, and third-hand smoke can also cause major issues. This smoke is the residue left on the smoker's clothes and body, which non-smokers are exposed to, no matter where the smoker was smoking. Having a designated smoking lounge would not decrease the third-hand smoke, and it would put non-smokers' health at risk.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • The United States office buildings should not allow smoking indoors because, even if there would be designated areas, smoke would still make it through the building.

    Cigarette smoking is unhealthy for both the smoker and the person breathing in second-hand smoke. Even if office buildings allowed smoking in designated areas, the smoke would find its way to other parts of the building through the vents. Also, by allowing smoking, the government would be giving smoking their thumbs up.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • United States office buildings should not allow indoor smoking in designated smoking lounges for heath reason.

    Despite the smoking occurring in designated lounges, the effects of second hand smoke and agitation to allergies still effect others in the building, albeit in a more limited area. All buildings with a centralized air system will carry at least some of the smoke to nearby areas. This trace amount is enough to effect those with sensitive allergies and, over time, can register as second hand smoke.

    Posted by: CardM0w3r
  • Smoking lounges are a thing of the past due to public opinion regarding the health hazards to the general public that live or work near smoking sections.

    Medical science has confirmed that secondhand smoke is in some cases more dangerous to breathe in than first hand smoke. Cities across the nation are already seeing declines in lung cancer cases as people are no longer exposed to secondhand smoke. Numerous former smokers are acknowledging that not being able to smoke at work or at restaurants has made it hard to keep up their habit and so many of them are reporting that it actually helped them quit. If they were still allowed to smoke they'd be risking their own and others health.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith
  • Office buildings should not allow smoking indoors in a designated area because it is harmful to the majority of people.

    Smoking indoors, even when it's contained, is a hazard to the majority of people. Many people are allergic to the smell, and second-hand smoke could have serious affects on people's health. It is a distraction to workers if the smell drifts to their workplace. Also the smell sticks to the smokers more if they are indoors. At least outdoors the fresh air takes away part of the smell. If someone wants to smoke, they should go outside.

    Posted by: EImerN4th
  • I disagree because if you are going to make a law. Make a law.

    If you are going to make a law, make a law. The whole point of this law was to help Americans be healthier. To stop killing them needlessly and to start correcting mistakes that the government made in the past. It's like saying. Ok well I guess there can still be some slaves.

    Posted by: SpuffyOlag
  • I oppose the indoor smoking lounges, having a smoking area will cause massive health issues/problems.

    Firstly, it would be someone who did not smoke who would end up having to go into the smoke filled room to clean it up, as smokers usually run out of breath.

    Secondly, the health issue, If they fail to incorporate enough ventilation, as soon as someone opens the door to go to the lounge, it will quickly fill the other room(s) that have non-smokers in them.... Causing us to all cough and gag... Also... Second hand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking. I do believe in some states smoking near a minor is also against the law.

    Thirdly, due to our huge national deficit ( We should not waste additional money to add smoking lounges in office buildings for an unhealthy cancerous addiction.

    Furthermore, If we allow them to build indoor smoking lounges, Where would these additions stop? Would we then allow them to add bars?

    Posted by: SoundBoy

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.