[JoshTriplett]

> They are not a protected class, but that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to screw them over.

They've gone out of their way to screw themselves over; I see no particular reason to accommodate them. (Obvious exception for people who really do pre-date the widespread knowledge that cigarettes are both addictive and harmful, but that's a decreasing subset of smokers.)

> In your example, they could just move the smoking area, couldn't they?

Off campus, preferably. If you can't go eight hours without your drug of choice (especially one that harms the people around you when you use it), perhaps you have a bigger problem than an intentional lack of accommodations at your workplace.

[ta92929]

  I see no particular reason to accommodate them.

Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

  Off campus, preferably.  If you can't go eight hours 
  without your drug of choice (especially one that harms 
  the people around you when you use it), perhaps you have 
  a bigger problem than an intentional lack of 
  accommodations at your workplace.

See above.

[marcos123]

> Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

Their habit harms the health of everyone around them. Your comments make it seem like you don't understand that fact. Being mean or nice has nothing to do with any of it, it's about not inflicting harm on people that choose not to smoke.

[ta92929]

Did you even read the thread?

"Accommodating them" referred to moving the designated smoking area so that the other poster's path wasn't near it. So "accommodating them" means making a small effort so both smokers and non smokers can get what they want. It does not mean forcing non smokers to breathe smoke.

[Lawtonfogle]

>Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

[JoshTriplett]

> Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

Exactly. The more places it becomes socially unacceptable, the better.

[ta92929]

How did Metallica put it?

  Love is control
  I'll die if I let go

[g8oz]

Perhaps we should flog smokers like ISIS does. Maybe that would satisfy you and your fellow finger waggers.

[Lawtonfogle]

Flog? Since when do we flog anyone? But classifying exposing children to second hand smoke as child abuse... I could get behind a measure like that.

[Domenic_S]

Many non-western countries have very, very different attitudes about smoking (India, Ukraine, Russia, etc), and we get a lot of H1-B's from those countries.