Slashdot Mirror
Hiring Smokers Banned In South Florida City
Penurious Penguin writes "On October 2, City Commissioners of Delray Beach finalized a policy which prohibits agencies from hiring employees who use tobacco products. Delray Beach isn't alone though; other Florida cities such as Hollywood and Hallandale Beach, require prospective employees to sign affidavits declaring themselves tobacco-free for 12 months prior to the date of application. Throughout the states, both
government and businesses are moving to ban tobacco-use beyond working hours. Many medical facilities, e.g. hospitals, have implemented or intend to implement similar policies. In some more-aggressive environments referred to as nicotine-free, employee urine-samples can be taken and tested for any presence of nicotine, not excluding that from gum or patches. Employees testing positive can be terminated. Times do change, and adaptation is often a necessary burden. But have they changed so much that we'd now postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had toked his pipe? Would we confine our vision to the Milky Way or snub the 1373 Cincinnati because Hubble smoked his? Would we shun relativity, or shelve the works of Tolkien because he and C. S. Lewis had done the same? If so, then where will it stop?"
Why not just make smoking illegal? The policy seams to be that it is bad and that should not do it, so maybe it should be enforced.
Tobacco products complying with the world’s first plain-packaging laws started arriving in Australia’s stores around Oct. 1.
New government standards set out the images and health warnings that must cover 75 percent of the front of cigarette packs. Among them: a gangrenous foot, a tongue cancer, a toilet stained with bloody urine, and a skeletal man named Bryan who is dying of lung cancer. Further warnings must appear on the sides and cover 90 percent of the back.
The High Court of Australia in August dismissed a claim by British American Tobacco (BTI), Philip Morris (MO), Imperial Tobacco, and Japan Tobacco International that the law illegally seizes their intellectual property by banning the display of trademarks. Appeals have also been lodged by Honduras, Ukraine, and the Dominican Republic at the World Trade Organization, claiming the law restricts the tobacco trade.
Cigarette makers are right to fear the regulations, says David Hammond, an expert in tobacco rules at the University of Waterloo in Canada: “Once tobacco control measures are established in one country, they spread.”
-1 troll is not supposed to be used simply because you don't agree
Now Tobacco/Nicotine, soon to come:
Meat eaters need not apply, only strict vegetarians. The risk of eating high fat dietary items carries a higher risk of medical issues.
For some strange reason, nicotine addiction is viewed in society as acceptable. If someone would stop working every few hours and go out for a drink they would be called an alcoholic and fired quickly. Yet when others take 'smoke breaks' with the same frequency noone seems to care. It's not a problem when you smoke every now and then (at least it's not my problem), but if you can't survive without nicotine for 8 hours that's a serious addiction.
I couldn't stand the highly technical coding I do for a job without my periodic "Cigarette Break". Every couple of hours I go outside into fresh air, light up a cig, see some daylight, and let my mind relax for a moment, to recharge for another 2 hour bout of the highly quantitative stuff I do. Nobody should be hired/fired or not based on whether they smoke cigarettes. ------ Yes, cigarettes are not good for you in the long run. But it isn't anybody's business what you do or don't do with your own body. ---- It is idiotic how harshly non-smokers try to wean smokers off cigarettes. Tobacco products are not illegal. Nobody has a right to tell me that I can't smoke if I want to "keep my job".
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Or at least not the cancer causing problem. The tarry tobacco smoke builds up inside your lungs and prevents them from cleaning themselves properly. While nicotine does have circulatory implications its not transmissable by touch as far as I'm aware. Applying tests typical for contraband narcotics is not justifiable unless nicotine use is ruled as a hazard or detrimental to productivity or health and safety.
Fark has a section dedicated to Florida for a reason I guess.
that's the real reason from the article.
so next up, banning for anything else that kicks up the insurance a notch.
had a heart attack? don't apply. high risk sports? forget about it. maybe they should have instead asked for the employee to pony up the extras for the health insurance.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
If the rest of us are going to pay for their health care through insurance, we deserve the right to shut them off from their carcinogenic cigarettes.
There is a bit of a slippery slope here. If diet soft drinks cause cancer, we should have the right to shut those off, too. At some point, we're going to find certain genes are responsible for susceptibility to cancer too (well beyond the 17% of smokers who get lung cancer). We should have the right to shut them out, too.
Right?
Futurist Traditionalism
have they changed so much that we'd now postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had toked his pipe? ...
Many things have been allowed or tolerated in distant or recent pasts that are now forbidden. It doesn't stop history.
Smoking was hype at the time, so Oppenheimer was smoking. Smoking is disgusting nowadays, maybe Oppenheimer would never have started smoking in the first place.
If pigs could fly...
I don't like cigarettes; in fact, I despise them.
But what the hell? Why should we be telling people what they can do in their own lives outside working hours? Especially when such activities are legal?
What's next? NO ALCOHOL USE EITHER! Can't even go out to the bar with friends on a weekend because you might lose your job?
Riding a motorcycle is risky to your health as well. CAN'T DO THAT EITHER.
This is one HELL of a slippery slope and we should all be greatly concerned about it.
This is just ridiculous. We need federal laws specifying that an employer has no right to dictate or ask what employees does when they're not working.
If they want control over workers 24/7 and need to control their future health, it isn't called employment, but something else, which already is illegal.
If I want to spend my time off doing things people don't like, that shouldn't be anyone's business but mine. Whether it's smoking, skydiving, wild orgies, satanic rituals, or all of that at the same time.
Why not prohibit them too? they are just as bad if not not worse on one's health and cause the same burden on the health system
I personally have been impacted with this. My son was born 3 months early and was in the NICU for the duration of the 3 months to stabilize his breathing and other things. During that time frame he was receiving care from the nurses directly. The nurses mentioned to us that we shouldn't have any family members near the child who smoked or hold him with smoke on the clothing.... There were times when I would walk in the room and it would wreak of smoke, and low and behold it was the nurse who just came off smoke break.
I don't know if I necessarily agree that someone should be fired for using a nicotine patch or gum, but these are scenarios that are absolutely necessary that should enforce a no smoking policy for employees. Just hire the people who don't smoke.
They're doing it to save on insurance costs. The sad part is, a lot of people will support the idea, but they don't consider that it's a very short slide down the slippery slope to not hiring obese people, or people with a chronic disease like diabetes, etc. That way lies madness.
Then legalize other drugs that are not harmful in doses that still give a better result than stupid cancerous crap like that.
Note that I mean things taken, not smoked. Smoking is cancerous, period. Burning of pretty much anything organic is.
I don't take anything just to point that out. But I certainly know damn well that there are drugs out there that don't do any damage in sensible dosages and still give some result in the end. (feeling good, painless, creative, whatever the hell you want)
Pain killers are already abused. You think it is going to make a damn difference that these would be? THEY ALREADY ARE WITH THE LAWS.
At least this abuse would be LESS damaging than the damn street drugs that are mixed with DIRT and BRICK DUST and CLEANING AGENTS.
Even ecstasy is now being looked at again after all those retards using street drugs as a reason to ban them were pushed aside.
Street drugs != pure drugs. At all.
Legalization of drugs has already been proven to cut down abuse various times in various countries and cities. Only a moron would question it.
So, I am completely behind this. Ban actually dangerous drugs, legalize the others that give something more productive and not damaging in sensible doses.
No, banning it in public doesn't work. What it does is just hurt children more because they are being infected by their disease. And in turn causes more children to take up that crap.
Outright ban for blatantly damaging activity.
..like, maybe this should be done for alcohol. That stuff is nasty, will kill the liver over time and is considered a poison. Surely that would be a good thing to do.
Oooooh, wait, the United States tried that already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
For those not reading well, THIS IS SARCASM.
Anything is possible given time and money.
If this was the late 90's, HR would say "Smoking ban? You kiddin'? We got bowls of free smokes in the commissary, right next to the foosball table! Help yourself!"
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Have gnu, will travel.
I was a smoker for 25 years, and quit just short of 3 years ago. I moved to the electronic cigarette. My respiratory function, blood pressure, and general health couldn't be better. There are risks in using nicotine, however, the nicotine is not the dangerous part of the cigarette. All the cancers, emphysema, heart attacks and so on are from all the carcinogens and chemicals in the tobacco.
I can see the point of wanting to hire a non-smoker. But, I don't take the same risks as a smoker does. My health is not that of a smoker anymore. I don't ingest the same chemicals as a smoker does, and I have reduced my risk of receiving cancer greatly. I don't inhale tobacco smoke...ever. So now I would be at risk of getting canned because I use nicotine? Probably in the safest form possible? Bloody nonsense.
So the government can discriminate against people who participate in legal but unhealthy activities? So no more hiring people who drink alcohol soda or coffee, people who don't exercise enough, and people who participate in contact sports.
The land of the freeeeeee.........
the home of the non-smokers.
You can't handle the truth.
Support the rights of your fellow human beings, please.
Here in Uruguay, we've had that for a couple of years, I think. A quick google images search of "uruguay paquetes de cigarrillos" will show you what that will look like (only the ones in Spanish are Uruguayan: www.google.com/search?q=uruguay paquetes de cigarrillos&tbm=isch).
They say that, in conjunction with a broad prohibition of smoking everywhere inside, it's working very well, esp. with young people
Well I'm addicted to caffeine, my nephew is addicted to world of warcraft. My dad's addicted to hard work, he can't relax.
I think you've just heard 'addicted to crack' so often that you're putting too much weight on the word 'addicted'. Nicotine addition isn't a big problem to society, it's the *tar* that's the big problem in cigarettes. The nicotine is just a problem in that it makes them smoke and smoking is bad m-kay.
Coffee addition IS acceptable, not just VIEWED AS. There's nothing wrong with needing a coffee, even less than 8 hours.
I bet you're not so perfect that someone doesn't need to cut YOU some slack.
I wonder how many of the smokers never voted against politicians who made the war on drugs, and particularly drug testing in the workplace, part of their campaign platform.
First they came for the coke fiends, but I didn't speak out because....
you know how it goes.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The bigger government gets the fewer our liberties become. I despise tobacco in any form, but overarching government is infinitely worse. Government itself does have a quandary, on the one hand it makes huge sums from taxes on tobacco products, on the other hand the urge to control EVERYTHING is irresistible. Not that I'm expressing sympathy for government.
Anyone who thinks it's a good idea, please stop to consider that if government gains control in this situation, it's not going to stop. Sooner or later they'll come after each of us and exert increasing control over every aspect of life.
No, I'm not paranoid; they really are after all of us.
.
We need to remove health care from most* jobs.
*Ok some high risk jobs can have there own add on plans (not basic health care)
I'm an ardent anti-smoker but that doesn't lead me to support idiotic employment rules. The overall problem of health care (and guess what: I support single-payer) really should be none of a company's business. So long as the employee gets his work done, is reliable, and doesn't adversely affect his cow-orkers, what he does off the clock is his business. I have no problem with a company banning tobacco use on company property&time (or banning alcohol; and I wish they'd ban cube radios playing country music too), but testing employees for off-work use of either legal or controlled substances should be flat out illegal.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Think the australian one is a bit different as they can't even use their own logos or colors etc - the ones on the google link you gave do have the images on them, but also still have the company logo. a lot of packaging does now have warnings and stuff on them ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages ) but i think they are saying that the australian one is the first to ban any form of branding.
Let me open by saying that I am one of those asshole sanctimonious ex-smokers who is now in favor of banning public smoking. Allow me to moderate it by saying that I believe there should be public spaces, including those with alcohol, which permit smoking, provided they demonstrate a serious effort to prevent smoke levels from being any higher than necessary. But your employer should never be able to fire you for consuming anything or using any substance which it is legal to consume, period, the end. As long as we consider labor law to be a legitimate concept, law should be the only standard upon which you should be able to be fired for what you choose to put into your body.
I smoked for years, now I don't, and now it pretty well disgusts me. As well, the people who feel a need to stand where other people will have to walk past them while they smoke disgust me. Logically extended, any vehicle with higher-than-zero emissions should be put to death, but hopefully that's coming and frankly I'd be glad to see cars go provided we got working public transportation, let alone the infernal combustion engine. In a city it's difficult to find a place to smoke where no one else will have to breathe in what you're breathing out, but nobody else has a good excuse. Addiction just doesn't cut it as an excuse, though it works as an explanation for inexcusable behavior.
At the same time I think the CAL-OSHA argument that people are forced to work in smoky places of employment by economic circumstances is bullshit. Smokers need jobs too. If they're not going to be able to work in hospitals, they'd better at least have bars to take refuge in.
Whether or not laws about substances are even valid, the law ought to be the only arbiter of whether your employer can fire you for consuming them, since the law is your protection from abuse by your employer in the first place. I know "there oughta be a law" are the five (wink) scariest words ever heard but shouldn't people be protected from the prejudices of their employers? Because while we may not have to take a particular job, most of us ultimately do need a job even if we own property and have very low expectations, just to pay fees and taxes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
''if you can't survive without nicotine for 8 hours that's a serious addiction.''
I have noticed you, friend, leaving your cubicle frequently to urinate. Sometimes you even stop in the hallways and greet others, as if to compound this waste of valuable productive time. But then you have been observed stopping yet again -- for a big long gulp of water. Clearly this is an abusive cycle and you know that ingestion of water leads directly to urination, it's a fact.
If you'd just sip a cup of water at your desk, no more than your body needs, you could easily make the 8 hours without wasting the company's time.
Don't you think it's time you got some help??
You wouldn't hire somebody who was actively trying to slit their wrists... Tobacco users are actively making a choice to do something that is unquestionably unhealthy. By excluding such a population from your bargaining unit, you've likely significantly lowered your insurance premiums. This saves both employees and employer money and leads to more governmental efficiency in a time when revenues in state and local governments are definitely hurting. Ban smokers or lay off a cop?
Rob
Funny how employee drug testing is all well and good until they come after your own personal vice.
So, It's illegal to refuse to hire somebody because of sexual orientation,skin color, country or origin,religion, and a bunch of other stuff. But it's ok to discriminate based on after-hours smoke-inhaling? The world is fucking stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I believe any business should be allowed to hire whoever the fuck they want,and discriminate based on anything, even race and other protected characteristics. If you don't wanna hire black people, smokers, or homosexuals, it's up to you. I refuse to hire religious idiots, and it's my fucking right too.
But the government belongs to EVERYBODY, so the government CAN'T engage in such discriminatory activities. And they can't promote it. Blacks, Jews and Woman have acquired equal rights, and are rarely discriminated anymore. Homosexuals are towards that goal. Right now, the single most attacked and discriminated group are smokers. Marijuana users aren't as discriminated against as tobacco smokers. WTF
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
A better idea is to ban government. Governments kill the most peoples.
...especially if they're paying for your health insurance. As you admit, smoking is not good in the long run and you're probably not feeling the effects of cumulative smoking. But for others, I'd never employ someone who's much older - meaning, this individual has been smoking for decades. So this person whom I'm hiring will most likely request more sick days and more frequent medical bills.
However, if you're a contractor or freelancer, I don't care what you do with your health. I don't care if you're 500lbs and can't fit through the door (tele-commute).
This is what decent people get for putting up with drug tests.
How hard is it to understand that fascists will never stop taking more?
As I've aged I've become more cynical and even something of a misanthrope, I really didn't think much could surprise me any more so congratulations, Delray Beach, for a level of douchbaggery I hadn't thought possible.
The land of the free. Indeed.
Yes, hiring African Americans is legal. And Muslim Americans. And Jewish Americans. And lesbian Americans. And gay Americans. And drinking Americans. And eating Americans. But, not smoking Americans?
No institution would allow a product like cigarettes to enter the market nowadays.
They exist and they are tolerated, but were they invented nowadays, they'd never be legalized.
This is what slippery slopes arguments do best: show us the ultimate conclusion of our present path.
However, I'm not sure we'll even get to such a healthy place. If we're going to go Nietzschean, and implement an uebermensch, humanity will be better for it!
But instead we're going to penalize anyone who does anything other than conform, and claim it's progress.
Compared to what we will do, Aktion T4 and The Eugenics Movement are at least whole plans.
We'll just chip away at "negatives" until we're left with the Nietzschean last man, who lives to work, consume and die with no greater depth of thought than Honey Boo-Boo.
Futurist Traditionalism
classifies me as a "non-smoker" because I smoke less than a pack a day.
Actuarial science trumps political correctness.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
You are right. They let them keep their logos, the only prohibition on brands is that they can't have "modifiers" like a Light version and stuff, they need to sell each version with a new brand name. Of course, they can't advertise on tv, on the streets, and inside the shops all signs also have the ugly images.
They were talking on tv last week about a decrease of more than half of teenage smokers. When al this started I thought it was nonsense, but it's funny how it works. Smokers tend to hide their boxes, because they are unpleasant, and they don't keep them in sight of kids. They even tend to smoke more privately. It should come naturally, without the offensive images, but they seem to work.
While I hate tobacco with every fiber of my being. It killed my grandfather, and my cousin's on his way there too. Not to mention I'm allergic to it and with enough exposure to tobacco smoke I start sneezing, getting a sore throat, etc.. I find this a complete and total violation of a person's rights. Fine that they don't smoke around me, or at work. But they should be able to smoke as much as they want in their own privacy.
As a smoker, I truly wish that they would make smoking -- or at least the sale of cigarettes -- illegal. One of the big challenges in quitting is that it is so EASY to get another pack of cigarettes. I'm not the sort of person who would go looking for a "dealer", but what tends to happen when I quit is that the minute I get stressed I buy a pack of cigarettes -- and it's too easy to do so.
I'm not alone in this. Virtually all adult smokers desperately want to quit.
Do I really give a fuck? No. Stop posting non-Slash garbage like this. I've been reading almost since the beginning. Don't give me a reason to stop.
Among them: a gangrenous foot, a tongue cancer, a toilet stained with bloody urine, and a skeletal man named Bryan who is dying of lung cancer.
In the US some of us would have to collect the whole set.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
That's how it sounds for me. (Sorry for bringing up Godwin's Law so early.)
The next logical step is, of course, to exterminate all overweight people. Or, just don't give them a job, which is about the same in the US.
It is all a matter of looking for the rights that are being violated,
If it is a private company they have the right to hire/fire anyone under any criteria they deem important to the well being of the company (and yes this also includes discrimination of color, sex, religion, IQ, etc.). You will not hire an active smoker to treat lung cancer patients, or at least it doesn't make much sense. Hence a private company should have the right to make decisions on how to conform itself (by the criteria defined by the owners/stakeholders).
In a depressed work market, people could be "forced" to accept these working conditions, but if anyone is not happy with the decisions made in a company then they should go ahead and leave the company.
The use of drugs (any drug) should not be prohibited. The right to liberty presumes the responsibility of the actions one takes, be it good or bad. If I decide to smoke or take any soft or hard drug, then I am making a conscious decision to accept any and all consequences of using that substance. no excuses.
Again, any company would dictate the rules in which they are to hire and fire the personnel. If a little smoke/dope/coke will make someone more productive, then the company may say it is OK to allow it.
On a more broad scenario, smoking should only be discouraged if it does force a person that is not a smoker to have second hand effects related to it.
Perhaps it was just my bias, but I found that there was a clear difference in the productivity and attendance between smokers and non-smokers. Said another way: I think I made more money from non-smokers.
Truly , the US is becoming a very sad place right fast.I'd never let anyone tell me what i can or cant do period. .. you let them do it. Don't come complaining.
The day that people will understand how to say NO to privacy invasions then ill have a sympathetic ear.
But the people in the US just bend over to the business owners to get jobs. Once you realise that the way to preserve
individual freedoms in the USA is say NO to people who just want you to be their obedient slaves , a big step in turning
civil liberties in the US will have taken place. Until then boo hoo
someone mod orasio's post up.
rather than making it actually illegal to smoke, putting measures in that make it socially awkward and socially unacceptable (more so than it already seems to be in some places) would seem to have the desired effect.
illegal things make some people want them, just because you are not supposed to have them. making it so that everyone else thinks you are a moron for doing something, and maybe less people do it.
I believe they are looking, in part, on the costs to the company in health insurance and lost work hours. My problem is, more people die from weight-related disorders, and more money is lost, than smoking. So, are we gonna ban fatties from working?
In the US some of us would have to collect the whole set.
Not sure if that should be modded funny or insightful
Tying employment to health insurance has lots of downsides, and this is one of them. Without that coupling, there would typically be no reason for employers to know anything at all about what you do in private outside of working hours.
Every company that sells a product spends money advertising that product.
That is how things work. This should be outright obvious.
We are moving more and more to a culture where it isn't individuals who bear the consequences and take the responsibility for the risks they take, but governments (and to a lesser extent employers and other groups). This shift has come disguised as the offering of "free" services -- a way to take responsibiliy and stress off an individual's life and simplify some of the choices they make.
However, it is now up to whatever group has taken responsibilty for the risks to keep costs down. The individual is no longer as motivated to make correct choices on his or her own because they have no exposure to the true cost of those risks. So, the "group" (bureacracy?) will step in and make those decisions -- sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but in almost all cases undoubtedly leaving many unhappy.
It's not really surprising... this is how we've been voting as a country for years. This sort of thing will expand to where employers or even governments are mandating certain diet, exercise and mental health requirements before individuals may participate or take advantage of health or retirement benefits (for which there may be no legal alternative).
But have they changed so much that we'd now postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had toked his pipe?
Ha! Things have changed so much that Oppie would never get a security clearance.
Anyway, this is a straw man argument. In 1942, nobody thought smoking was a big deal. Pick somebody who whose contribution to society was as major since smoking was linked to cancer in the 60s. You can't, can you? The only public figure I can think of who even smokes is Barack Obama, and he only does it when nobody (including Michelle) is looking.
And while this is intrusive and a restriction on personal freedom, it is not "health fascism". Employers aren't on some moral crusade. They're trying to control insurance costs and other health-related costs. You refuse to hire smokers, you get people who use their insurance less and miss work less.
Discrimination lawsuit time!
This is no different than not hiring Mexicans if they have been Mexican in the last 12 months. Oops, you celebrated cinco de mayo, that's not an American holiday... you're fired. Companies are not allowed to discriminate against people doing LEGAL things that aren't on company time / property.
They would be perfectly in their rights to say you can't smoke on their property without being fired but are not within their rights to say you can't smoke / drink / wear the color magenta / do yoga / sleep on your back ( or side or whatever way the CEO feels is "wrong" ) at home.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
I despise smokers. They are addicts in the true sense of the word. It is highly pathetic to see them constantly steal away from life's important activities to seek the cheap pleasure of a "smoke." Then it becomes highly irritating to see them return dragging and shedding the residual ashes upon their neighbors.
Smokers are not in control of themselves. They are literally enslaved to the tawdry allure of tobacco. The incessant craving for a smoke completely dominates their lives. Are these the kinds of people that we want in our workplace? I strongly say "No!" and consider this kind of legislation to be long overdue.
I'm not a smoker. I hate the smell. But I don't agree with this. The last time I checked tobacco was legal to purchase and use. If it's a question of health insurance costs then what's next? Should we also exclude hiring people that are overweight, or have high blood pressure, or their lipid count is too high? Because surely they will consume health care dollars at some point too. What about people that have too much stress? Exclude them too? What happens if nobody will hire people that smoke? Should we just categorize them as permanently disabled and have society support them...or maybe just send them to a leper colony?
This is a clear example of exactly why I don't want employers involved with health insurance. Sooner or later it comes down to money and then things like this happen.
Personally I think that alcohol is a far, far greater problem to society than tobacco. Here is an indisputable fact - 100% of all drunk driving accidents and deaths are caused by alcohol. All of them...every single one. I can't prove this but my feeling is that a good percentage of assaults and domestic violence incidents are fueled, at least in part, by alcohol. In nearly every bar fight I have ever seen both of them were drunk. I'm not suggesting that alcohol has the same effect on everyone but it sure messes up a lot of people.
Smoking is bad for you no question. Anyone that smokes should try to quit. People can get addicted to tobacco much like people can get addicted to alcohol. Instead of excluding tobacco users from the work force why not try to help them quit? If a smoker has the qualifications then hire them but tell them, look we'd rather you didn't smoke. Science has proven that it's bad for your health and we'd rather have healthy workers than unhealthy workers. It's better for you and it's better for us. So here's what we're going to do. We have a smoking cessation program and we'd like you to attend it. It's going to be part of your on-boarding process. We're going to pay for it and our expectation is that at the end of it you're going to be tobacco free. We're doing this because we think you'd be a good employee and we like to treat our employees right. At the end of it you're going to thank us. Your children will thank you because you'll live long enough to see their children. You'll feel better about yourself and that's the kind of people we want working here. What do you say?
The chocolate ration for April has gone up to 25 grams per week.
Fuck you retard, your dad died because you are a fucking retard. Obviously.
Being bad for you is NO JUSTIFICATION for making something illegal.
People should be free to seek happiness, even if the mechanism of doing so is self-destructive. That includes the freedom to overeat, sit around and relax instead of exercise, spend too much time keeping their skin tan, watching movies/TV that makes them stupid, and on and on.
When your pleasure-seeking causes direct and significant harm to others, THEN you have a case for making it illegal. If it only harms yourself, self-determinacy trumps the nanny-state (or should, at least).
I will add, from a completely practical perspective, that when you make highly-desired goods illegal you create black markets (because humans make lousy slaves). The black markets then funnel significant money into the hands of criminals who have no qualms about murdering people to maintain their power base. Not only must I then live with these threats, but my tax money gets spent on more law enforcement which is generally ineffective no matter how much is spent and which takes away even MORE of my freedom in order to search for crime. So...making these things illegal causes very direct harm to me...much greater harm than keeping them legal causes me (should I free choose not to indulge).
This is an images search for "cigarette packages of brazil":
https://www.google.com.br/search?q=embalagens+de+cigarro+do+brasil&hl=pt-BR&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_U1wUL2fEoXo8QTxq4HgAQ&ved=0CCMQsAQ&biw=1214&bih=866
When will they forbid hiring fat persons?
You wanted socialized health care? Well, you get baby sitter government. If everyone has to pay for everyone's healthcare, then we can't just allow people to do whatever they want. Paying for all these smokers cancer bills is going to be expensive. You want to pay for that? You wanted government to babysit, you got it.
-Nick B. (Libertarian)
Or maybe it disgusts you! Heh heh heh. Don't mind me. I'm really just guessing when I look into the heart of my fellow man. If there's anyone you shouldn't lie to, it's yourself.
I think it's an inherently self-destructive thing, smoking. That the only reason you can start in the face of the evidence that it will eventually kill you, and the only reason to keep doing it, is that you are in some way depressed with your life. It's easier to not smoke when you are satisfied with how everything is going. When I'm at my most miserable, that's when I want a smoke and that's when it's hardest to resist and damn the consequences. But unlike most nicotine addicts, I can smoke a cigarette and then walk away and not touch tobacco again for years. Not that I'd want to do that. I smoked a pipe when I was younger and technically never quit, I just haven't done it in years. At the heaviest, I might do that a couple of times a week. I eventually realized that every time I smoked, I had a VERY nasty headache the next day and stopped on my own.
Caffeine on the other hand... I quit that once... withdrawal was a bitch -- headaches, nightmares, chills, hot flashes, lasted about a week. I felt great afterwards. That lasted all of about three months until I had to stay up late one night. We all have our vices. I'm glad mine seems to be relatively mild.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I hate smoking personally but this sort of restriction is discrimination, imo. You should not be able to have laws that stop you from hiring people for using legal products unless there is a clear case that it will hinder performance (like alcoholism). America is definitely not the land of the free now.
Making meat consumption illegal is not a likely consequence of making tobacco illegal.
However, both are equally absurd. Adults should be free to make their own decisions about their own health, choosing their own trade-offs between short-term pleasure and long-term consequences. The government should be stepping in to protect this important freedom, by preventing companies from screening/punishing employees for what they do on their own time.
I'm posting this once instead of replying to the 45 or so posts that mention this. Smokers do not raise your insurance premiums.
I'll repeat for emphasis:
*Smokers do not raise your insurance premiums.*
Smokers pay higher insurance premiums because they are in a different risk pool. You might be paying higher premiums for fat people, but the moment one of those tubsters develops diabetes or whatever, their premiums go up, so you're not paying as much as you think. Under Obamacare, granted, that changes slightly, because the law now makes it more difficult for insurance companies to raise premiums on policy holders who develop ongoing health issues. But smokers are already paying higher premiums just for smoking, before they even get in the doctor's office door.
So, you are not paying for smokers' health insurance premiums. Get off your respective high horses. And loosen up, god, you must be the people who go to a party and complain about the music being too loud.
Also, this is how you know that south Florida is not actually part of the South. It's actually a southern colony of Connecticut, and should be treated accordingly.
Also also, if you live in a country with socialized medicine, you may very well be paying for smokers via taxes, but they're also probably paying a ton of tax on cigarettes, so get over yourself, commie.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
"If I knew you smoked and you were looking to work in my company I would find
some other reason not to hire you ( in order to avoid some bullshit legal action you
might try to perpetrate ) but your smoking would be the real reason I wouldn't hire you."
And you would be doing them a favor. You are clearly an untrustworthy employer.
Just imagine all the extra money they could get for fighting the new "tobacco" enemy.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"Here in Uruguay, we've had that for a couple of years,"
Not that I can see. You have what Australia used to have, large warnings on the packages, but the companies could still use their own branding, colours and trademarks. The plain packaging laws in Australia keeps the current warnings (Well they are a bit bigger, but the companies don't really object to the warnings (Human nature means most people think: That'll suck, but it won't happen to me)), but now all packages are the same brown colour, there are no logos or colours and even the brand name is written in the same font for all companies.
It's this loss of brand identity that they tobacco companies are really objecting to. The large established brands are now on fairly equal footing with no name brands.
... to "Land of the smoke-free" ? :)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
My my, what a load of little totalitarianists we have on Slashdot.
It seems so easy for some power hungry and repressed social misfits to suggest bringing the force of the armed government thugs down on any little habit they don't like these days. Yeah, let's SWAT raid someone's house because they chewed some tobacco. Great idea.
I'm seeing a lot of idiots here that are happy to call for enforcement at the job, off the job and now let's make it against the law altogether to smoke.
Please, take a look again at the United States Declaration of independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Stated another way, it is the right of the people to abolish ANY government that becomes destructive to the people's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Happiness is always subjective and temporal. You cannot predict it, calculate it or mandate happiness. It belongs to the individual and the closest we can come to quantifying it is by allowing an unhampered economy to perform economic calculations and examine prices of ends and means relative to one another. Such an economy will deliver the most happiness to the greatest number of people.
Furthermore how can you be posting on Slashdot? Ye readers of ignorant of classic science fiction. Have you not read your Asimov? You cannot and should not go down the road where you try to protect humans from all risk. It leads to a life not worth living. Unfortunately, all of you little Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini wannabes will realize a little too late that you won't be the man or woman in charge of the oppressive government you try to construct and if you succeed, you will have lives not worth living by your own hands.
Liberty.
If you don't need to urinate in an 8 hour stretch you are dehydrated. Water is the most fundamental chemical needed by the human body and you are comparing this with cravings caused by a drug addition.
Also sitting in a seat without break for 8 hours isn't very healthy either.
Haha! Now you have to choose whether to continue your filthy, digusting, annoying and unhealthy habit or be unemployed. You fatties are next!
First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker so I did not care.
Then they came for the fatties, but I was thin and did not care.
Then they came for a the trolls, oh shit, you're fucked.
Not sure about anyone else but this is a federal lawsuit just waiting to happen. To say you can't hire someone that smokes is kinda discrimination.
In Canada we have these.
http://www.smoke-free.ca/warnings/canada-warnings.htm
Why not impose a tax on smokers... somehow affecting their paycheck?
Don't create more laws making nicotine illegal. We've had enough liberties taken from us. Personal responsibility is going out the window, imho.
Randomly test employees (or somehow find a way to separate the smokers from the non), and penalize the smokers via a "tax". Smokers still have the choice, but also have incentives to quit. The additional cost to health care, and testing would be covered by the tax.
Perhaps not realistic, but certainly more mature than simply making everything illegal, and eliminating yet another choice.
It *should*, according to conventional understanding, since it contains something like 10x the carcinogens of tobacco smoke, but in actual fact virtually all studies have shown no correlation, or even a slight negative correlation, between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. A possible explanation is that since hemp, including cannabis, is rich in anti-carcinogenic compounds they are neutralizing the effects of the carcinogens produced by combustion.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Hiring discrimination based on smoking may be legally justified for a few specific reasons, including:
* Moral reasons
* Public image
* Health costs other than absenteeism or reduced work efficiency
* Absenteeism and reduced work efficiency
FIRST, let's the the first two out of the way and show that they don't apply to most public-service jobs, then show how the 3rd doesn't justify termination:
Moral Reasons
Smoking is not considered so immoral in most of America that governments should be able to ban employers from smoking when they are not at work. I might give some leeway for small towns where nearly everyone agrees that smoking is bad. I'm thinking mostly small religious enclaves here.
Public image
It's reasonable to insist that public-facing employees like clerks and people who clean up the park not have any visible signs of current or recent smoking. This means no nicotine-stained hands or teeth, for example.
It's reasonable for employees working in health-related jobs or working in a department that specifically promotes public health to set good examples for their clients. This means it's reasonable for public hospitals and for city or county health departments to insist that their employees not smoke.
It's reasonable to insist that high-profile public-facing employees like police who aren't relegated to "desk duty" and anyone who represents the city in the media or other public forums adhere to a stronger morals clause than rank-and-file employees. This can include no tobacco or alcohol use, no visiting bars or sexually oriented businesses, etc. if public exposure of these activities would embarrass the city or require that the person step down from this role.
Health costs other than absenteeism or reduced work efficiency
This can be handled by having higher employee-contributions for health insurance. Out of fairness, the same test and same higher costs should be imposed if a covered family member uses tobacco. If your wife or under-26-year-old children still smoke, either you pay more for their health insurance or they get off of your insurance plan. If you smoke and decline workplace health coverage, then your employer's extra smokers'-insurance premium wont affect you.
FINALLY, let's look at the only justification that applies to almost all public- and even private-sector jobs:
Absenteeism and reduced work efficiency
This is the big one.
Employers who can show that if someone smokes their absenteeism rate will be unacceptably low should be allowed to not hire that person. However, a candidate who can demonstrate good attendance despite smoking at a previous position and who can demonstrate no significant health changes that might, when combined with smoking, reduce his attendance below acceptable levels, should be exempt from smoking-related employment discrimination.
What this means is that if someone with good attendance has even a mild heart attack and does not immediately quit smoking, he can no longer rely on his past good attendance and his employer can say "sorry, our medical experts think if you keep smoking you will be too unproductive in the long run, we'll help you quit but if you don't, you're gone."
Even if firing smokers legal, it's usually unwise
Now, is it wise for an employer to terminate employees who smoke at home if it doesn't have a noticeable effect on their work and it doesn't create embarrassment for the employer? I would say generally it does not. Not only does it exclude some of the very employees you want to keep, but it also causes good employees who value personal freedoms to look elsewhere for employment, reducing the size of the talent pool you hire from.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Speaking as a doc, and as a relapsed smoker who is making another quit attempt...
There is NOTHING more effective than nicotine replacement if you want to quit smoking. Gum, lozenges, patches, Nicotrol inhalers, e-cigarettes... they all help. Which one to use seems to be a matter of personal preference, since no one has shown greater efficacy than another. (My personal view is that e-cigarettes rock.)
There are other methods, like Chantix and Wellbutrin/Zyban, but the efficacy has not been shown to be any better than nicotine replacement, and the safety profile is worse. A lot of people simply can't tolerate either medication-- either they get horrible side effects such as anxiety or panic attacks, or in the case of Wellbutrin, they may develop seizures.
If TPTB had any goddamn sense they would hand out e-cigarettes or the like on streetcorners. Instead, TPTB are doing the exact opposite. First, organizations like Public Aid decide that they're not going to provide any funding for poor people who want nicotine replacement (of course you can get funding if you want to take Chantix etc.) Then the FDA decides to hassle the e-cigarette manufacturers by sending them warning letters and threatening to regulate them like drugs (really? You've decided not to regulate regular cigarettes, but you're going to regulate e-cigarettes?) Then we have the kind of horseshit described in the article, in which people are denied employment for using nicotine replacement.
Note that I wouldn't have any problem at all if the FDA addressed the problem of (mostly Chinese-made) e-cigarettes which contain carcinogenic solvents, or addressed the problem of e-cigarettes which explode (the latter seems to be related to people who hacked and over-volted their e-cigarette, but it would be nice to have a fucking investigation just to be sure). But that's not what the FDA is concerned about. They're concerned because the e-cigarettes are not made by Big Pharma and because the manufacturers haven't spent $100 million (or whatever it costs) to get FDA approval.
Cigarette makers are right to fear the regulations...
You should too. Everyone engages in some behavior that the majority doesn't approve of. Everyone. Smokers are just another outlier group -- but gays, atheists, occupy protesters, white supremacists... every time an election rolls around, policians scramble to find a group people can all agree to hate together to earn votes. That's democracy for you: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
There's reasonable legislation that protects the public interest while respecting individual liberty, and then there's shit like this. Most anti-smoking legislation has been enacted within the past 5--7 years due to a groundswell of popular support. In 5--7 years, that support will have moved on to another group to hate, but yet another precident will have been set by then. Let me give you some examples of reasonable versus extreme. Disclaimer: Most of the numbers below are from memory. This was a popular discussion to have at the time the bans went into effect, so I put considerable research time into it. But it is still just from memory. Also: I'm making no attempt here to justify subjective beliefs about whether smoking smells bad, or whether I like it or not...
Restaurants
Many jurisdictions have banned smoking in bars and restaurants. After those bans were passed, business dropped off by 10-30%. In the state I live in (Minnesota), downtown Minneapolis on a saturday night seemed like a ghost town after the ban went into effect. It hasn't fully recovered since. Contrary to popular myth, there are a lot of social smokers out there, or people who only smoke when they drink. Bars in particular suffered horribly after the bans -- because it was during a recession and many people decided to just get liquor from the store and smoke out on the back porch at a friends' place. Check the numbers if you don't believe me: Look at noise complaints in the months since the ban, keyword search 'party' or 'alcohol'. 8% spike over the same time frame the previous year (caution: numbers provided by police are typically absolute! Convert to per capita and using best available census data for precincts or it's not a valid comparison.)
It's been several years now since the bans went into effect up here. Many had argued that non-smokers would fill up the bars and restaurants, flocking to the new "clean air". They never showed up. As it turns out, "clean air" was not on the top 10 list of "Reasons To Go Drinking Tonight." Go figure. Businesses have bourne the cost of enforcing the ban, and the only public health benefit claimed was for employees. Well, we send people into coal mines and other industrial environments, telling people who take those jobs of the possible health risks: But we don't ban those environments or jobs. Why is capitalism allowed there, but not in restaurants? Food for thought.
Public Parks
Banning smoking in outdoor areas seems silly to me because standing more than a few feet away reduces the amount of smoke a person breathes to a few PPM. Second-hand smoke studies have all focused on the effects of prolonged exposure in confined areas. It can be argued a ban in crowded areas promotes public health, but not in a sparsely populated outdoor park. If there is to be a ban in public areas, it should be only in areas where people regularly assemble; There is no public health benefit from banning smoking in the great outdoors.
Near Building Entrances
Yes. Agree. People certainly should be given the option to avoid smoke; And smokers do tend to congregate near building entrances. Setting a minimum distance is a prudent measure.
In private residences
Again: Businesses suffer. It should be allowable for a building owner to prohibit smoking on the grounds, even in apartment buildings or private residences; And in fact it was never illegal to specify this condition in the tenant leasing agreements of our state. But few landlords put such agreements in place because there
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Being bad for you is NO JUSTIFICATION for making something illegal.
In some societies, the concept that we are our brothers' keeper is very strong.
In these societies, if something is bad for someone then that's enough justification to outlaw it.
In Western societies we don't go that far, but in America we do protect people from intentionally or in some cases carelessly maiming themselves by denying them the opportunity. We not only outlaw many recreational drugs whose only harm to others is that you will be too intoxicated to hold down a decent job thereby hurting the economy. We also generally deny people the right to commit suicide on the grounds that others will be hurt, even in cases where you have no loved ones who will miss you. We deny people the right to do dangerous-to-themselves things without using safety equipment, getting trained, or in some cases getting a license, all for the primary purpose of preventing people from hurting themselves.
Heck, a few years ago in at least one US state, I wasn't even allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet even if I was independently wealthy and wouldn't be a financial burden on society if I wrecked out and wound up in a nursing home for the rest of my life. I'm still not allowed to drive a car unless I buckle up even if I'm rich enough to pay for lifetime medical are out-of-pocket.
If I were a strict libertarian this would drive me nuts. However, I'm more of a pragmatist and I'm not totally against "the government" telling me what I can and cannot do when it comes to personal safety. BUT I insist on society as a whole coming to a consensus that these rules are not only necessary but helpful and that there is no less-intrusive alternative. I also insist that certain exceptions, such as for sincere religious practices, be granted. I also insist that such restrictions be re-evaluated regularly - at least once a generation - to see if they are still needed, helpful, and reflect social consensus and to see if there is no less-intrusive alternative.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I bolded that first line by mistake. I intended to mark it as a quote from the parent post. Mea culpa.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I do not smoke, and I hate smoking to the point that I feel smoking should only be allowed between consenting adults in their own home. However, employers telling me what I can and cannot do after hours is none of their business. There are many good reasons for banning smoking at work (and even in public), and that is legitimate, but on my own time I should be able to do whatever I want. If I want to get totally drunk at home, that is my choice, as long as I am sober and perform well at work, then it is none of the employer's business. Likewise, if a person wants to smoke when not at work, that is not an employer's business. Where will it end? Could employers tell employees they have to go to their church on Sunday? An employer needs to be concerned with how I perform at work. What I do on my own time is none of their business. We need to stop this foolishness.
Really? Wow.. just f'in.. Wow...
Potential employers. I am your *employee*, not your *slave*, and what I do on my own time, as long as it isn't illegal, is NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS!!!!!
And yes, that includes local, state, and federal government employers TYVFM.
Urinating isn't an addictive drug you chose to become addicted to, it's a necessary biological process innate in every animal. Drink too much water isn't the same as willfully effecting the chemical balance of your brain with a physically addictive and horribly destructive vice. Good try at an analogy, just an awful analogy.
Human beings, especially in modern times of huge superpower governments, know nothing but government -- and therefore view physical force as a valid solution to just about any problem. They are taught not only that physical force is moral and just as long as 51% approves of it, but that government -- physical power -- is the ultimate determination of rights, rather than human nautre (god if you prefer).
Naturally, the younger the person, the less time they've had to think and develop their ideals, and the more likely they are to simply parrot what government teaches them from a very young age. Slashdot is obviously dominated by young people (today more than ever).
This is not about smoking!
This is worrisome as it is any employer, but especially a government employer, dictating to their employees what they do on their own time, in the privacy of their own homes, regardless of how legal the activity is.
What's next? I can't have sex? I can't shoot? Can't eat meat?
And at what point will the useless sheeple in this country say enough is enough?
While you are correct if a person's smoking-related early health decline and death happens after his economic contributions to society have dropped below his economic costs to society, I have to ask if you accounted for early health declines that force early retirement or cause death during normal employment years?
Let's look at 3 people, Allen, Brian, and Charlie.
All 3 work a decent jobs and are paid enough that if they retire at age age 65 they will have a nest egg that last them through age 95, including a couple of years in a nursing home and a few trips to the hospital for major events like broken bones or heart attacks.
Allen is a non-smoker. He retires at age 65 and enjoys a healthy retirement until age 70 when old age really starts to slow him down. He has a mild heart attack at age 75 and lives the next year in a nursing home until he dies of a major heart attack. That last year is expensive. He leaves a large inheritance for his family since he didn't live to age 95 like he planned.
Brian is a smoker. He retires at age 65. He has a mild heart attack at age 70 and lives the next year in a nursing home until he dies of a serious heart attack. He leaves an even bigger inheritance for his family since the money he saved by dying 5 years early was more than the money he spent on cigarettes all those years, even in today's dollars.
Obviously, if you ignore things like the value of human life and human dignity and just look at dollar signs, Brian's smoking was "cost-effective" for him, his family, and society than Allen's choice to not smoke.
But let's look at what happens when smoking takes away your ability to financially contribute to society:
Charlie is also a smoker. He has a sudden but mild heart attack at age 50. Despite medical advice, he doesn't stop smoking. Being so young he's able to recover and is back at work within a few months, albeit at reduced work hours. He's progressing and expects to be back to full-time work and back on his career path within a year or two when BAM he has a near-fatal heart attack at age 51. If he'd been 20 years older it would have killed him outright. This time he listens to his doctors and quits smoking. He's in the hospital for weeks and in rehab for months, and never does get his strength back. He has to take medical retirement. By age 55 he's able to work part-time but he's never able to work enough to maintain even a lower-middle-class standard of living on his own. If it weren't for his employer's medical disability plan, he'd be be barely making it on Social Security disability. At age 65 he has a heart attack that puts him in a coma. His family, honoring his wishes, puts him in Hospice and he dies of complications a few weeks later.
Do studies that compare the cost to society of smoking vs. non-smoking take into account the "lost productivity" of people like Charlie?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ban trolling... Hmm, I'm failing to see the downside here.
Oh...I see...
Taking a break to smoke is wasting company time, but taking a break just because you want to isn't. Good to know.
I do not smoke because I want to live another 50 years in good health and see my kids grow up. Because I am a semi-intelligent adult I do research before I consider something like smoking and I come to the conclusion that smoking and the risks it entails are not as important as helping my kids through life.
Secondly, why do I care if people smoke? I do not. It is an unhealthy habit that will be weeded out by centuries of evolution. Smokers already are not preferred candidates for medical treatment like transplants because a non-smoker may benefit more from the procedure. As long as that stays constant, smokers will slowly die out due to selective breeding and early deaths relative to the non-smoking populace.
Lastly, why drag out this process? If we make smoking illegal it will only create a black market that will exist for millennia instead of bettering the human gene pool in a few centuries.
Nicotine, like caffeine and generally unlike alcohol, has no or even a positive impact on worker productivity in the short term.
An average person takes about an hour or a bit more to clear a single drink from his system.
Out of fairness to my employer I would wait at least half of that time before returning to work. If I did it regularly or my job required full attention to detail, I'd wait the full amount of time.
So, if your hypothetical person stops work every few hours and is drinking more than 1/8th of a drink, their "break time" needs to be extended long enough so that when they return to work, they aren't even slightly under the influence.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Palm trees and 8
I know:
Everything not compulsory is now illegal.
sounds good to me. what could possibly go wrong?
A few commenters have pointed out some other things that "should be banned" because they're unhealthy. We've seen studies finding things like high-fructose corn syrup and and excessive fat consumption can be unhealthy for you. We've known for a long time about mercury content in tuna, and now we've just learned about arsenic in rice. Maybe those should be banned. At the same time, phthalates in PVC-based flooring are okay, despite the fact that they're correlated with autism and infertility. And why can you still buy plastic food containers made with BPA?
The cigarette I'd have once a year at a party isn't going to do me a damn bit of harm. Yet if my employer instituted this policy, and I just happened to have smoked my yearly cigarette before a random test, I'd be fired. (Of course, I haven't smoked anything in years, since having kids, but that's for their sake, not mine.) The thing is, a majority of people who get into tobacco quickly develop an addiction. Or so we're told. I'm betting the odds are high, but not like 90%. The dilemma we have to face is whether or not we want to limit tobacco use for everyone on the basis of a significant number of people who will develop an unhealthy dependence that costs tax-payer money (inevitably). But this is how a lot of laws come into being. Some moron blasts his fingers off playing with model rockets, and all of a sudden, the rest of us face mountains of paperwork to engage in a hobby that we'd already been doing safely. (Putting aside the fact that anyone getting into model rocketry right now is likely to be labeled as a terrorist.)
My view is this: The US government is already not very good at "protecting" us from all sorts of contaminants that find their way into our food, water, and air. They're probably better than many other governments, but the fact that florination is still in many water supplies, water bottles can still be made with BPA, and you can still buy home building materials that are known to cause developmental problems in children all mean that our wanna-be nanny government is lying own on the job. Oh, and let's not forget the carbon monoxide and benzine from exhaust you love to enhale at every bus depot and airport.
So before any laws are passed to limit the use of chemicals we can choose to ingest or not, we should first address the contaminants that are being hidden from us by unscrupulous suppliers.
, whereas nicotine is a bronchoconstrictor. The nicotine paralyses the cilia of the lungs, making it difficult for the body to remove the particulate matter (and carcinogens) left behind by the smoke.
This difference, coupled with the anti-cancer properties of the cannabinoids themselves, is theorized to be the reason for the differences in the carcinogenic properties between smoked cannabis and smoked tobacco.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
whoosh
NB: GP should be Funny, not Insightful
Part of the DEA's mission is to ensure that the tobacco industry remains profitable (and other drug-making industries: alcohol, pharmaceuticals, coffee, etc.). The drug war has always been about helping those industries that have friends in high places.
Besides, how are politicians supposed to get their cigars? Every president in US history, including the current one, has used tobacco in one form or another.
Palm trees and 8
You don't sleep very long at night, I take it.
Perhaps you meant an 8 hour stretch of time while awake, in which case you may be more right, but on a cool day where you aren't sweating and possibly not moving about much you can relatively easily get those eight hours between two toilet visits.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
why in the UK the NHS for instance relies on tobacco tax, secondly smokers tend to die earlier,they pay tax and spend a far lower proportion of there life not paying tax's thus eliminating the costliest part of healthcare, it's the healthy 80's year olds, that get Dementia and require 10 years of specialized care that are the finanical problem for healthcare.
Plus how many people who go on about passive smoking, drive, car's produce far more pollutants in a timespan than a smoker.
And motorized transportation. Don't forget that.
Those who drive or ride in motorized vehicles are involved in a much higher number of car crashes than those who don't, thus driving up insurance rates. And lost productivity from injured drivers who can't report to work because they're hospitalized.
Clearly drivers are causing an undue burden and need to be eliminated.
I find this all really silly, I usually smoke a cigar once a month and smoke a pipe once or twice a week. I don't inhale but I like the taste. When I am smoking I do it in a place where the smoke is least likely to drift and be inhaled by others because I hate the smell of cigarettes, so I figure I best not be a hypocrite. I am tired of being treated like an addict, and tired of being treated like I am committing a sin worse than alcoholism or pot use. I don't plan on telling you what to do in your free time, so leave me alone.
Cocaine and heroin were subject to prohibition policies as early as 1914, under the Harrison Act. Nothing was revived by anyone.
Palm trees and 8
Problem solved.
2015: Nationwide News: Certain high-risk sports become "off limits" with employers across the nation. Included in the list are mountain climbing, downhill skiing, biking, motorcross racing, and 4-wheeling, all of which can lead to severe injuries.
2018: New Colorado employment guidelines ban hiring snowmobile owners or people that enjoy horseback riding.
2019: New HR guidelines in St. Louis require candidates for any city job to sign a form indicating that they do not and will not own skateboards, tennis rackets, or golf clubs.
2022: San Francisco releases new guidelines for hiring women. No woman with her uterus intact can be hired in any agency. Officials cited the cost of healthcare insurance for women capable of reproduction.
2025: Automobile driving is prohibited for all employees of the federal government.
Like the internet. And sex.
At least then the knee jerk banning of other peoples prefered drugs would have some moral stance. "Look we've given up our drup of choice for the same reasons we're banning yours." Of cause in this case the public good factor is proven.
Wow, some seriously butt hurt smokers on here to be modding this garbage up. Water is required to live. Smoking is not and will kill you instead. NOBODY wants to be anywhere near your stench. It's really that simple.
Delray Beach, Florida is the US capital of pill mills, drug rehabs, and halfway houses. More than 50% of the city...
You can smoke your Roxicodone pills by the handful, but not a cigarette.
Your post is funny, but your argument equates an addiction to a completely unnecessary substance with an absolute biological requirement. We couldn't exist without water, but we sure as hell could without nicotine.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
Should this be allowed? I'm not sure, but it's better than banning outright which would probably just create a black market and more crime around tobacco. Can it be made extremely unattractive? Sure.... insurance companies know that smokers will die of cancer or heart disease.... make them pay for their impending medical bills and take the load off of us. Maybe more importantly, be sure it's not illegal for businesses to deny or revoke employment based on these life-ending habits. I doubt many patrons of businesses enjoy smelling a smoker or chewer, and having them employed when providing health benefits should drive up companies' premiums for their employees. Make it possible to not employ people, or to deduct more for their insurance based on their statistically-provable likelihood to die or be unhealthy because of voluntary actions, and see if people can stop being stupid enough to repeatedly put carcinogens in their mouths. Sure, I know this usually starts when we have no brains between the illegal years of 14 and 17 and the early-legal years of 18 and 21, but people need to learn to make wise decisions sometime. Stop coddling and making excuses and teach youth to think about the long term and feel consequences today.
Leftist hate liberty. They hate choice. They hate agency. Yet, they claim to carry the banner of freedom and compassion. Nearly every policy they put forth is a slippery slope for the removal of freedoms - always enshrined in the banner of good health, or 'for the children' or 'think of the poor'. It is not enough to say that smoking is bad, it must be banned! Look, I don't smoke, but I really don't care if you do smoke - it has no impact on me. Smoking doesn't make you a bad person. I've often asked - would you rather your son/daughter cheat in school, or smoke? I'm no longer shocked by the number of people who would rather have their kids cheat, than pick up a habit that - though difficult to break - does not have any effect on their moral character.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Ha, my employer will never come for the trolls; the place would be ghost town from top to bottom.
Haha.
Did you really just compare drinking water with smoking cigarettes?
This is your brain on cigarettes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I used to think of smokers as irrational, but perhaps they just don't like surprises -- they want to know in advance how they're going to die. Smoking - it's like buying insurance against accidental death!
>Read Atlas Shrugged
The problem with fictional examples is that they are from fictional universes, but are still quite emotionally appealing.
The tenant that "All men are created equal" is fundamentally American. If you don't like it, move away.
If you do like it, then please trace through the history of the civil rights movement and tell us exactly where we deviated too far from your fantasy world when instituting equal opportunity employment.
BTW, I'm an old white guy, the EEOC never protects me personally, but I'll be damned before I sit by and watch the rights of others get trampled by people who think freedom includes the freedom to be racist, party-ist, religionist, or whatever today's excuse is for hiring only people just like you.
Very typical attitude these days. Everybody is all gung-ho about getting rid of all this pesky freedom, right up until something that they enjoy comes up on the list.
Pretty pathetic and depressing, really.
Isn't this perfect? The agencies are perfectly free to make any conditions in their work contracts, and potential employees are perfectly free not to agree to them.
So what's the problem? I thought that was the kind of freedom that the USA stand for.
I'm just waiting for the fuckers to get sued and his it cost them a few million in damages and legal fees.
That will make the difference in what they're going to pay for health insurance look like a pittance.
I hope they, and the tax payers get fucked harder than the Dover school system.
You'd almost certainly sow the seeds of a Black Market for tobacco products. Making it illegal is definitely not the answer. (full disclosure, I'm an ex-smoker since 11/10/10)
Would we postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had made a copy of a copyrighted book? What if he stole a candy bar? How about if he beat his wife? How about if he killed his children?
Where do you draw the line? Only one of those doesn't hurt anyone else, and it's not the smoking one.
The application of the Manhattan project hurt *way* more people than his smoking.
and I am a non-smoker.
So you won't mind living in a fascist state?
As that is where all this leads to.
The whole reason why insurance is worth it is because those in health pay for those in sickness. Or another way of looking at it is when you are in good health and low risk you are willing to pay the cost in case something changes and you are not.
If we start dividing everyone down and charging (or simply denying insurance) based on risk then it becomes something that nobody but the healthy will have, who don't really need it anyhow.
What I find funny is this is one of the things people hate on insurance companies for: That they want to deny people insurance, or charge more, based on prior history. However suddenly when it comes down to smoking, well they are ok with it. It's fine to deny smokers insurance but don't you dare deny me insurance for my high blood pressure! That kind of thing.
We have to accept that some people are going to cost more for health care. It can be because of their genetics, it can be because of bad luck, it can be because of lifestyle choices. However unless we want to start up with a tyrannical system of dictating what is and is not ok to do in your life we have to just accept that.
I'm ok with having to pay more insurance if it means I get to live in a free society. I don't want to be told how I must live my life, even if it ends up being how I do live my life anyhow, just to save money. Yes people are going to make bad choices. That's life.
I also don't want to start down that path because it is the path down which eugenics lie. Smoking does carry an increase in health costs, but nothing like some other conditions such as diabetes, or severe physical disabilities, and so on. These are what really push up health costs. My boss's wife is a great example. Confined to a wheelchair due to a car accident, her healthcare costs are 5 figures or more a year. She also can't work because of her condition. She is EXPENSIVE to the health care system (thankfully we have good insurance at work).
If you start arguing "We need to stop people from doing anything dangerous because it costs more," it becomes a rather small leap to saying "We shouldn't pay to treat X condition, it is just too expensive."
"You don't sleep very long at night, I take it.
Perhaps you meant an 8 hour stretch of time while awake..."
How long an 8 hour stretch are you asleep at night while awake? In your second sentence you assert that whilst asleep you can last 8 hours without needing a pee, but in the first sentence you're talking about nighttime and asleep. I take it you don't read your posts.
Ever been in bed unable to get to sleep and found you had to go to the toilet?
Also sitting in a seat without break for 8 hours isn't very healthy either.
There are mandated breaks, usually two 10-15 minute breaks and a lunch break. That breaks your day up into 2 hour segments. How about get what you need done on your own time?
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Your employer, paying toward your health insurance, wishes to reduce their costs in employing you, therefore wish to remove a risk factor increasing costs (remember: your employer isn't insured for the losses they incur when someone is ill).
Therefore, since there is no single payer process, and you have to have insurance, the employer will not employ you if you are a smoker.
The employer is, according to the right wing, allowed inherently to discriminate to reduce their costs.
(PS Note how much the same right wing cry and bitch about how they WANT to discriminate, but are not allowed. Seems to me, even if your post were anywhere near the truth, that the only difference then would be what each side wants to nanny-state over, not their desire to nanny you)
Smoking is okay because Hubble, Tolkien and Oppenheimer did it? Yeah, and Hitler ate sugar (but was vehemently opposed to tobacco, amusingly enough).
Shunning the use of tobacco now requires shunning the works of everyone who has ever used tobacco? That's insane troll logic. I intend no pun when I ask what the hell the submitter was smoking.
Where does it stop?
You have an allergy to tobacco smoke, so it's okay to ban tobacco -- okay, you won't find too many objections.
Some people have an allergy to peanuts -- some incredibly sever, far worse than any tobacco smoke allergy. Should we ban peanuts? Maybe it makes sense in schools. Maybe that should be extended to other gov't buildings or business that serve the general public.
I have an allergy to the base in some perfumes -- my nose runs constantly, my eyes tear up, it's very unpleasant. Should we ban perfume? I'm on board!
How about this: We err on the side of freedom. Let businesses decide to allow or not allow smoking, peanuts, or perfume. We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Taking a break to smoke is wasting company time, but taking a break just because you want to isn't. Good to know.
Almost.
Taking a break due to a drug addiction is bad for not well defined values of bad.
Taking a break due to the limits of human physiology is unavoidable so trying to avoid it is bad.
Disassociate our health insurance system from employers.
Anyway, a much less heavy-handed approach here would be to offer smokers the job, but not the health insurance benefits.
I mean the question is: if the person smokes, but doesn't do it during work hours, then why not hire? Of course with keeping the option of firing if (s)he does? I mean I think those guys drinking energy drinks on an hourly basis are more dangerous than smokers. They should have a rule saying anyone who smells like smoke, and/or smokes during working hours will be fired. I could agree to that. But not even hiring someone for being a smoker? For 12 months no less? That's very much over the edge.
I just hope the next guy you not hire for being a smoker won't turn out to be the next employer's gamechanger genius.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Well you know what they say about slippery slop arguments.... First peanuts.. Peanuts do not jump right off your clothes and affect those around you, like smoke does. Perfume, if it causes allergies to your coworkers should be banned as well. How about this: We are allowing the business to do it, and they are deciding to not allow it. So according to your logic getting drunk during lunch should be allowed on the job?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Can we ALL just stop worrying about the things people put in (or have in) their bodies that does not affect us?
I have little sympathy for smokers. They know what they're doing to their bodies and they do it anyway.
But I have even less sympathy for tobacco companies. Those fuckers got my Dad and ten million other people hooked and killed him. Fuck them. I'd like to see every one of them sued out of existence and everyone who works for them unemployed and all their rich executives lined up and shot in the head after they're forced to give back every nickel they ever made to the people who got cancer or heart disease because of their evil product.
Issues? Did you say I have issues? You're damn right I have issues.
But refusing to hire smokers at all? That's stupid is what it is. Hire them and help them quit if they want help, and don't let them smoke on the job.
I often sleep for 8 hours straight, but fortunately I do not experience the dehydratation nor feeling the need to urinate you talk about. Otherwise, I guess it would be much harder to sleep. I don't think I'm special, I believe that's quite normal behavior
It seems you have some problems on this side. Sorry for you, bro
Nothing new. In Canada and many other nations in the world for *years*. All tobacco advertizing is banned. High cigarette taxes too. Heck, in entire province it is illegal to spoke in public spaces too.
Smoking rates are dropping so making smoking difficult and disgusting works, but still, too many smoke.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctums-esutc_2011-eng.php
We've had the graphic warnings on Tobacco packaging since 2000 in Canada. Since then I believe nothing has changed in terms of people hiding their packages of cigarettes, If their was a change it was a small minority of users and they eventually just got tolerant of the images like everyone else.
As a smoker I would see the images almost every time I got a smoke, you become desensitized to a point that you stop thinking about the consequences to your health. No one hiding their habit, even if some people find it disgusting. And just how people are with cigars, some people enjoy good tobacco. I find making my own cigarettes taste a lot better than cigarettes from a package, With a plastic/metal cigarette holder you would hardly even see the pictures.
The only time kids can even see tobacco products here, are when people are smoking in public or in their homes, as all the stores that sell tobacco products and allow people under 18 in their store have to hide the packages so they can't be seen be minors.
Do they work? Maybe, but here the smokers pay for it. that's for sure.
It was probably designed to stop minors from trying smoking and ended up desensitizing people who are already hooked.
Whoever's behind this law needs to learn statistics. The fewer smokers that we have, the more innocent people will lose their jobs as a result of false-positive test results.
Well you know what they say about slippery slop arguments
It's not invalid because it's a "slippery slope". Don't be stupid.
Fun fact, we've already slid down that slope! Both peanuts and perfume have been the subject of bans and, in the case of perfume, petitions and vocal protests -- complete with signs, chants, and picketers in gas masks. There's a whole anti-perfume movement!
Peanut examples:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26124593/ns/today-back_to_school/t/schools-peanut-bans-spark-backlash/
http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/schools-banning-peanuts.html
Perfume examples:
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/perfume-ban-hampshire-state-explains-why-193100759.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-02/fragance-ban-allergies/55988704/1
Peanuts do not jump right off your clothes and affect those around you,
In a way they can. Imagine peanut oil from some greasy fingers finding it's way around the office -- that can actually kill someone.
Contrast the smell of tobacco smoke on clothes -- that won't harm anyone beyond a mild annoyance. Perfume comes off in higher concentrations and, yes, does cause harm.
So according to your logic getting drunk during lunch should be allowed on the job?
No. Where did you get that?
I'm starting to think that you're just an anti-smoking zealot, and not someone interested in a legitimate discussion. I have no time for zealots.
Required reading for internet skeptics
When I was young, my neighbor, a working adult, told me: "Don't ever start smoking". That person was smoking all the time himself. Few years later they detected a lung cancer. He started getting thinner and the days in hospital increased. And eventually, after suffering from pains for years, he died.
I was pretty lucky that I could learn from the mistakes of others.
The problem with smoking is this: It is not just your business if you smoke or not, unless you grow your own tobacco and smoke it in secret. If you buy it, you give money to the tobacco companies, so they can make even more people start smoking. If you smoke it, you will be a living ad for every young person who can see you. Of course there is the passive smoking and allergies also. And environment issues due to tobacco farming.
If we could stop tobacco by sacrificing just the perfumes and peanuts, that would be great.
You have the freedom to smoke, and the have the freedom not to hire you.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
There are a Ton of high functioning alcoholics out there that are a lot more dangerous to themselves and their workplace vs smokers. At least smokers beyond smelling bad won't do any actual damage to coworkers inside of the office. Companies need to be really careful about adopting these sorts of policies.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If an employer can also also ban non smokers from being hired. You can't let someone discriminate one way but not allow the discrimination the other way. Beyond that I'd give anyone the middle finger at the interview if they told me what I can and couldn't do in my personal life as long as its legal. I work to live not live to work.
I've posted this online multiple times with no answer, I'm curious if anyone here knows the feasability of using genetic modification / whatever methods (Selective breeding?) there is to reduce the nicotine content in tobacco?
I utterly loathe the stuff but I too don't like the banning attitude, what next?.. -I'd like however to slowly see over perhaps 10 to 20 years the eventual reduction of nicotine in tobacco if possible, just by a small factor each year, the government(s) could outlaw tobacco of X strength.
Over the duration of this time, people, ideally would be able to quit through breaking the habit, rather than breaking an addiction and habit.
I admit it would be difficult at first and yes - many people would either smoke more or try other means to find the stuff, but ideally in the long run it may give some a fighting chance. I hear the stuff is incredibly genuinely difficult to break the addiction.
I fart in your general direction.
FOAD
ironic captcha: egotism
What a quandary we find ourselves in when we grandfather a legacy recreational drug... (One could never introduce cigarettes today.)
Nicotine is a highly addictive drug and cigarettes are a carefully constructed drug delivery system with the nicotine content carefully controlled by the tobacco companies via selective plant breeding. (To be sure, there are a few people who seem to be immune to dependency and can easily quit, but very few.) The smokers I know who have challenged this have been told to disprove it by stopping smoking for a week. None have, all have smoked in my presence the next day. (No I didn't bet money, not having any way to verify non-smoking - you can never trust drug addicts.) You smokers who don't believe this can try the same test, but I doubt you are willing to challenge your self-delusions.
I'll support your "right" to smoke in private if you choose, but my right NOT to secondhand smoke preempts your "right" to smoke in public. In general, I don't like laws that prevent the working of natural selection - motorcycle helmet laws, drug laws, etc. The proper role of government is making sure kids know the truth about tobacco, ban tobacco ads, and make sure druggies don't do collateral damage whether by secondhand smoke or DUI.
A friend of my son smoked weed and tobacco while in NM; when he moved back to TX, in fear of being sucked into the TX holy war on weed, decided to quit. He decided that for his health he should quit cigarettes at the same time. The pot was no problem, but he couldn't quit tobacco.
You do realize that second hand smoke is not the only problem, there is also the residue, which is just as likely a problem as the peanut oil you talk about, but even worst, because it does not just stick to your hands but your entire clothes and then falls off. As for the last bit and where did I get it from, a quote from you: "We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful." Drinking outside of work is a legal activity, but we dont allow it for lunch, or for people to come in drunk.. I am not an anti-smoking zealot, I dont smoke, and hate to be around smoke because it makes me sick, however I will hang around my friends when they smoke if I want to.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Really? Because my partner's smoker brother (teen) keeps them as souvenirs on his wall, and so does his friends. Now he wants to make sure he has all the unique warnings. They're like trading cards. Beware unintended consequences. By trying to ban something or make it un-cool you man accidentally create a fad.
How can you create a legal ban for a person using a legal product?
Where is the ACLU?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sigh.
Nicotine is an amazing drug. It sharpens perception and clarity of thinking without affecting judgement. Only caffeine can make a similar claim. Calling it 'recreational' is to speak from ignorance. Nicotine calms anxiety and allows the user to think more clearly when faced with heightened stress stimuli. If you allow a population access to this kind of asset, then population controls through applied fear simply don't work as well, if at all.
Wars are started by blasting people with high fear stimuli which is well known to speak directly to the evolutionarily old brain structures, (fight, flight, etc.), by-passing critical thinking so as to rush by all kinds of monstrous indignities leading to crazy things like war.
To combat tobacco, the leaf has been chemically polluted by the tobacco companies, made socially unacceptable through media programming and finally, made illegal. They hit kids young with the negative message. It's a very difficult cognitive battle to win.
Look up the benefits of nicotine. They are many. If you smoke, use organic leaf, and don't buy the B.S. about how horribly addictive it is. I've stopped and started several times with months and sometimes years in between, only starting again when under times of great stress, and stopping again when it is no longer necessary. It's a very useful drug to have in ones armory.
It takes about seven days to quit if you want to. That's when the physical addiction effects are gone, spiking at around day three. Also, the human respiratory system is quite capable of dealing with clean tobacco smoke, though the programming and negative association with burning things is deeply ingrained.
One of the first governments to launch nation-wide anti-smoking campaigns was. . , (wait for it), Nazi Germany.
Think on this.
use alcohol, own weapons, do not eat their veggies, do not exercise for at least 15 minutes a day, use caffeinated products or do not conform to your standards in some way
(does not have enough or has too many friends on facebook, watches movies you do not approve of, uses words like 'like' incorrectly, has kids or pets etc etc) etc.
Let us do our part to make this a better, cleaner and purer world!
BTW, how does one differentiate between first- and secondhand inhaled smoke?
I would like to keep my job, if possible, even when and if I am somehow unable to keep my great-aunt Gertrude from lighting up when she is in my immediate surroundings.
I've been ordering her to stop smoking but she will not conform to any of my demands!
Oh well, at least i'll have the City Commissioners of Delrat Beach to back me up when I will not allow her on premises next thanksgiving and christmas =)
If they were really about liberty, they'd be all over this.
You mean an allergy to "smoke". I have one. The chances of having an allergy so rare that you are only affected by the smoke from burning tobacco.. well lets face it "tobacco smoke only" allergies will be psychosomatic or just plain made up so someone feels justified in abusing another human being. Creating laws to facilitate mental illness or to help people be fuckholes is wrong.
Banning all forms of smoke is not possible. Targeting one groups of people because it has become OK to do so, is wrong.
The stress of having to deal with stupid people is causing all sorts of health problems for me.
Can I lobby to ban stupid people?
If we start doing the "Because it increases health costs," you actually might find the ban being on GOOD behaviour. See a major problem that many people don't want to acknowledge with health care costs is that a ton of the cost comes in end of life care. People are living to such old ages now that their bodies start just breaking down. A longer life is often paid for by a protracted spiral towards death.
Well, a good way to keep those costs down would be for people to die younger. It turns out that a morbidly obese person who dies of a heart attack at 55 costs a hell of a lot less than a healthy person that lives to 90, but spends from 85 on needing continual expensive care.
So if you start going on this "We are going to ban lifestyle choices that cost more," you might well find that being too healthy is something they go after. Try to extend your life? Not so fast there, we need you to die before you get too old to keep costs down!
My grandma is a great example. She is quickly sliding down the path of Alzheimer's. She cannot care for herself any longer, and soon (a year or so) won't even know who she is. However, she's in reasonably good health for her age, she easily has 3-5 more years left (possibly more). However during that time she needs full time case, as well as treatment for a number of medical conditions. She is costing a ton (she's got plenty of money so it is no issue). It would be much cheaper had she died younger, even if it had meant more healthcare costs throughout her life. One year of good managed care is more than most spend in a couple decades on healthcare normally.
Wow. I hadn't seen this. Unbelievable.
This is another great example of ridiculous government regulation.
I'd be interested to see a statistic of how many smokers are unaware that their habit (or indulgence, in the case of those who do in infrequently) is harmful to their health.
Does the government really think that people don't know this?
Just another waste of money all around.
and ponder this article
Smoking nicotene adjusts your brain's receptor ratios such that it becomes necessary to remain calm and not be irritable. You want someone who can maintain a cool head for a whole shift without taking a drag, you want a non-smoker.
I hate tobacco smoking with a passion. But this is going too far, and it 's wrong. I have absolutely no problem with forbidding employees from smoking while on work hours, or on work premises. Employees who take constant pauses to go and smoke lower productivity, pollute the area around work areas, and smell bad which can annoy customers.
Forbidding smoking in all work areas, even in all interior public areas is a very good thing, and most countries have by now enacted such ordinances.
But what people smoke, snort, or eat outside of their work time, as long as it does not affect their ability to conduct their work, is none of an emplloyer's business.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
At first i was curious why, but when it comes to the insurance side of things its makes alot more sense...
However, how long until this starts impacting everything you do... obviously in this case things that kill you out-right arent a problem for insurance companies (i would assume). But consider the possible outcomes of such a thing on the following activities:
- scuba diving
- riding a motorbike
- sky diving
- driving a car
- using a 3d printer (printing in abs for example produces bad fumes, depending on what you want to believe)
They are just random examples but all of these have a potential to mess you up in some nasty ways, and in some cases your more likely to end up damaged by them then by smoking (i know a few people who sky dive and not one of them hasnt had some injury thats put them out of action for a reasonable period of time). So before you cheer what appears to be a win for the non-smoking consortium, consider the potential damage to your own after-hours hobbies. i.e. anything an insurance company can say is a "risk" is a potential "sorry, we cant employ you" and that is a rather worrying outcome.
ok how about this
as its a moral imperative that all of the non smokers infringe upon the rights of the smoker, because of the fact that it's bad, that it irritates the non smoker to no end, and because if the smoker doesn't help the smoker become more enlightened then the non smoker is in violation of some moral code. as such all smokers must be punished for their non compliance of the moral code by any and all means necessary to bring the smoker into compliance with the moral norm
then it equally must be a moral imperative for the Religious to enforce the moral and religious norms upon all Non Religious persons, because of the fact that non compliance with the moral code causes the non religious to suffer eternally in the depths of hell,because its bad, because it irritates the religious to no end, and because if the religious doesn't help the non religious become more enlightened then the religious are in violation of some moral code.as such all non religious persons must be punished for their non compliance of the moral code by any and all means necessary to bring the non religious persons into compliance with the moral norm.
this also goes for those who don't follow the religious persons own personal religious beliefs.
as such all atheists,and all those who deviate from my personal religious beliefs shall henceforth be punished with with extreme prejudice for their non compliance with my moral norms.
Good Luck in figuring out my personal religious beliefs so as you may not be punished for your willfull non compliance. Have a super day heathens I shall prepare with extreme relish for the day when we meet. you are surely all violating some moral law of mine.
that smokers don't do any of that, I would have to say that your attempt at crying "but everyone else does it daddy" is particularly poor.
That's not how freedom works.
Required reading for internet skeptics
To be honest, I think this anti-tobacco policy probably runs afoul of Federal anti-discrimination law.
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but in business law in college I was taught that you can't discriminate against people for engaging in legal practices that do not directly affect the job.
With few exceptions, tobacco use does not have a direct detrimental effect on workers' performance. In fact studies have generally shown smokers to be more productive than their non-smoking counterparts. (Though nobody is saying that smoking is the actual cause of that.)
So according to what my law Prof. told me, this is definitely an illegal practice. I can't wait for somebody to sue the pants off of some self-righteous company.
So you are in favor of forcing people to hire people they don't want to hire? Where is there freedom?
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
And your point being is? People having substances they enjoy is bad? Are you a coffee drinker. Big problem there. Avid gamer? Big problem there. You clearly don't see the real issues here other than your own bias. I suggest you wake, and educate yourself, and not indulge in WoW, which is an addiction, btw.
I'm sure that evangelical christians would agree with you. There are plenty of people like, say, Chick Fil A who would love to fire people for being "sinners"
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Do I really give a fuck? No.
Do I give a rat's ass what you think? No. If you've been here that long, you must be aware of the yro category, yes? An entire state wants to make it illegal for people like me to work there, because of one of my habits which affects no-one but me. Not only is that stupid but it's none of their damned business. If they get away with this, what's next? Extreme sports? Dangerous drivers? Skateboarders? Haven't been to church recently? Unprotected sex? Stay at home Moms? Unnecessary cosmetics or extreme hairstyles or body piercing?
The shitty things "the state" decides to worry about on any given day is always worth watching. YMMV. HAND.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
How so? There are only a few "protected" things you cant discriminate against, age, sex, skin color, disabilities, however there are plenty of things you are legally allow to discriminate against.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You do realize that second hand smoke is not the only problem, there is also the residue, which is just as likely a problem as the peanut oil you talk about, but even worst, because it does not just stick to your hands but your entire clothes and then falls off.
Where's the evidence? I'm looking here for health consequences like "go to emergency room" rather than feeling "sick" because you smelled something funny.
but allowing people to be fuckholes and smoking around other people is ok.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
is that Tobacco is still completely legal. Moving them outside and away from entrances/vents is one thing, but refusing to hire employees for doing something that is completely legal?
They are not even banning it on the job, they are demanding urine tests to see if they are doing it at home!
This is insane.
Honestly, I think smokers should be restricted to smokatoriums, but no employer should be allowed to exclude people for doing something that is completely legal, especially if they are doing it on their own time.
How about causing the same issues as smokers have? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/third-hand-smoke/AN01985
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Cigarette Nazis Smokers should defend themselves by hunting down and killing these people so that being anti tobacco is more deadly than smoking.
I pray to god this happens.
Smash their fucking skulls with a framing hammer.
My father died of lung cancer, almost certainly because he smoked cigarettes for 35+ years.
Condolences. What'd he think about it? He chose to do it. Are you saying he was wrong to do so? You presume to choose that right over your father's wishes? Chutzpah. So, no "honour thy father and mother" then?
Smoking is a stupid self-destructive habit that is actively enjoyed by the lower classes (and the French who are very good at denial ).
Uh huh. So, I'm a knuckle dragger, suicidal, obviously poorly (if at all) educated, and possibly French. $DEITY, you're a condescending bigot! Thanks for your honesty.
... making it a huge hassle to smoke ...
Oh thanks. Don't we all need more taxes, bureaucracy, yada, yada. I'm sure I do. :-P
... preventing non-smokers from being subjected to second-hand smoke ...
You presume we subject you to second hand smoke. Many do, I'll admit. Not all do. Lots of non-smokers are slobs and litterbugs too. KILL US ALL!!! Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
... can only be a good thing.
Be careful what you wish for.
If I knew you smoked and you were looking to work in my company I would find some other reason not to hire you ( in order to avoid some bullshit legal action you might try to perpetrate ) but your smoking would be the real reason I wouldn't hire you.
I'd much prefer if you just asked outright, "Do you smoke?" I'd say yes, and waste no more of our time.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You can't refuse to hire someone because they eat McDonalds or are female, or disabled.
After a few months you can't do a test and upon discovering that your employee is male, fire them.
How can refusing to hire, or firing someone because they smoke be legal?
Smoking is not illegal except in workplaces and public places (restaurants and bars), isn't that enough?
What about simply refusing to cover smokers for smoking related illness, I'm sorry if you get lung cancer from smoking, why should everyone else have to pay to have you treated?
the problem is that it can't be labeled as an allergy, so it would be a "sensitivity" and that just means anything someone doesn't like.
I see a scary fairy tale, not actual evidence.
Who are you to tell people what they should do with their own bodies? They're not your slaves, you know.
Harmful or not, people can decide for themselves.
So, let's lobby to have it included in the decades old 'war on drugs' we've been waging these many decades. We can then incarcerate our citizens for using nicotine, as we do for all the rest of the drugs on the 'you can't do these because their bad for you list'. Actually the benefits of this are numerous ... we can utilize the increased prison population to labor for private companies and our politicians can claim they are 'job creators'. Of course we'll need more prisons, as existing prisons are currently full to bursting with those evil cannabis smokers, more jobs created. Then there is the firearms industry that will need to hire more people to manufacture the guns that the feds need to send to Mexico for a sting operation on the tobacco smuggling cartels, more jobs created!
I mean the war on drugs is working, isn't it?
Ah, fuck this ... I tire of foolish fucking prohibitionists!
Prohibition does NOT work ... period
As an aside, can I say fuck here or is it prohibited?
Where does it stop?
You have an allergy to tobacco smoke, so it's okay to ban tobacco -- okay, you won't find too many objections.
Some people have an allergy to peanuts -- some incredibly sever, far worse than any tobacco smoke allergy. Should we ban peanuts? Maybe it makes sense in schools. Maybe that should be extended to other gov't buildings or business that serve the general public.
I have an allergy to the base in some perfumes -- my nose runs constantly, my eyes tear up, it's very unpleasant. Should we ban perfume? I'm on board!
How about this: We err on the side of freedom. Let businesses decide to allow or not allow smoking, peanuts, or perfume. We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful.
Did you just say "allergy to tobacco"? WTF? If by allergy you means will most likely develop fucking cancer they yeah, every human being has an allergy to cancer. Pretty unlike allergy to peanuts because very few people do.
If you have to conjure the false notion of allergy to tobacco to argue to err on the side of freedom, either you don't understand the point you are trying to make, or you don't have a point at all.
Firstly, I am not from the US, so this seems all the more crazy to me.
Secondly, what would happen to the world if people started getting fired for their job for other such petty reasons? You're too fat, bye. Both of your parents died slowly of cancer, bye. Are these the type of Employee-Employer reltionships we want to foster?
Thirdly, To all who express their indignation about smokers and complain about how they make their lives miserable, you should start with other subgroups who are much more to blame. How can we start thinking of firing people if they get catched smoking a cigarette (like children at primary school) when there are widely-konwn white-collar criminals who evidently ripped off tens of thousands of people living unscathed?
What a mess.
This argument only works if you smoke and never ever have to piss.
Somehow I doubt this is true.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Seriously, this is just plain dumb. I really don't see the point in preventing people from doing something that isn't an immediate threat to themselves. What next, are we going to refuse employment to people who eat too much steak or like to drive old cars that lack modern safety features?
For the record, I hate smoke and hate being around smokers. But what people do in the privacy of their own homes should be THEIR business, not the government's, unless they're hurting others or causing immediate harm to themselves.
Was at a bar in Texas hanging out with some friends. One of them brought a Frenchman with her. He offered me a smoke from a pack of local French smokes that had the disclaimer of "WARNING: known to cause erectile dysfunction!".
I declined the offer. Scaring a man about a non-functioning penis really captures his attention BTW.
"allergy to tobacco"? WTF?
Yeah, I did. Try google.
If by allergy you means will most likely develop fucking cancer
This isn't even pretend true for primary smoking (the wildest figures put it at about 25%) we're talking about second-hand smoke at best and third-hand smoke in the most likely case.
I know that learning is way harder than simple rhetoric and easy "answers" but the payoff is fantastic: You get to live in the real world and not some fantasy land where danger lurks behind every corner.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Where does it stop?
You have an allergy to tobacco smoke, so it's okay to ban tobacco -- okay, you won't find too many objections.
Some people have an allergy to peanuts -- some incredibly sever, far worse than any tobacco smoke allergy. Should we ban peanuts? Maybe it makes sense in schools.
All daycare and K-6 in my area has banned peanuts in schools; no, I was not involved in it, but it beats a daycare worker hitting someone with a low body mass with an adult epipen. It also avoids hitting someone in the middle of a reaction with an epipen, hitting a vein, and causing an instant cerebral aneurism. Many airlines, including Delta, have voluntarily withdrawn peanut products from the in-flight snacks they offer when the flight isn't long enough that they are federally mandated to actually serve meals (or more likely, pick up a sack lunch on the way into the plane),
I have an allergy to the base in some perfumes -- my nose runs constantly, my eyes tear up, it's very unpleasant. Should we ban perfume? I'm on board!
Is it an anaphylactic reaction, or is it one that can be managed with oral H1 and/or H2 blockers? Most planes carry both benedryl (H1) and ranatidine (H2) blockers. But personally, I'd say this one is on you: your reaction comes from an aromatic with environmental exposure, it's generally manageable with over the counter medication, and you are voluntarily placing yourself in the situation where you are getting exposed. From that perspective, it might also be resonable to have DMV workers, court clerks, and other public employees refrain from bringing the allergen into situations where your presence is far less voluntary. Just like aromatized cigarette ash brought in by a smoker.
How about this: We err on the side of freedom. Let businesses decide to allow or not allow smoking, peanuts, or perfume. We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful.
What about other substances, which I agree should be legalized, and other substances which are currently legal, such as alcohol, which would impair your performance, potentially in life threatening ways for someone? A coked-up lab tech or a drunk taxi driver are things you are only going to catch after the fact, when someone dies.
How about we take your examples to their reductio ad absurdum conclusion instead? How about we only file drunk driving charges when there are damages to person or property, and so long as they don't run over somone or into something, society minds its own business and lets them drive drunk?
Here are the recommendations from the CDC and the New Mexico Department of Health; notice the the NMH article specifically calls out tobacco smoke residue on surfaces, seats, and in carpet being sufficient to trigger an asthma attack.
http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/triggers.html
http://nmhealth.org/eheb/documents/Cartipsnosmoking%5B1%5D.pdf
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17376094/abstract/Angioedema_due_to_type_I_allergy_to_snuff_tobacco_
http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/mechanism-tobacco-smoke-induced-allergy/2631.html
... Employees testing positive can be terminated..... Woah, isn't that a bit harsh?. I mean there is parts of the world were we wouldn't even do that if you were convicted of murder.
'd say that there should not be outright bans, but on the other hand I have no problem with someone who mans the counter at the DMV, an agency the public is forced to interact with, not being allowed to expose the people who are forced to interact with them to particulates which could kill them, and due to medical conditions they may have, in a non-theoretical 30-years-down-the-road sense.
Ok I need to clear the record here. What you're describing is NOT "second hand smoke". It will not cause you cancer now or in 30 years. It will not kill them. It will not harm them or injure them.
Yes, some people have allergies. So when you start advocating a ban on perfume, cologne, hairspray, mouthwash, gum, fabric softeners, dryer sheets, etc. I'll be willing to discuss it. Don't forget people who are allergic to nuts, so you'll have to stop eating those lest you expose someone with a sensitivity. There are all sorts of chemical cleaners, air fresheners, etc. which some people are allergic to, and don't forget flowers and other plants.
Or maybe if it's really that big of a fucking deal, you could put in a wider counter at the DMV with a glass barrier so the public isn't exposed to anything the person at the counter might be wearing. But that would be a logical, rational solution which doesn't involve Moral Outrage and suppression of individual liberty.
What about other substances, which I agree should be legalized, and other substances which are currently legal, such as alcohol, which would impair your performance, potentially in life threatening ways for someone?
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a response!
I don't even know how to begin explaining where you've gone wrong here.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Florida does not have a specific law prohibiting these hiring practices but it would be fun to see someone fight the practice and the ADA implications of the outcome.
please read page three of the following labor law newsletter if you want more info.
http://www.bairdholm.com/media/newsletter/294_Labor%20Newsletter.pdf
What saddens me is that I don't even have to read the 900 comments on here to know that NONE OF YOU understand this.
ctrl-f profit came up with illegal drug pushers.
The real profit, IF YOU LOOK are the companies providing the testing, helplines, consulting behind this - there is an enormous industry coming up to include and extend existing drug testing profits to tobacco.
There. I wonder how many of you will connect the dots. Not many.
This is beneath bike shed, where the dog used to poop.
So you are in favor of forcing people to hire people they don't want to hire? Where is there freedom?
This law says that the boss cannot HIRE someone. At present, there's nothing that says the guy has to be hired because he smokes, which is what you're claiming.
Some people have an allergy to peanuts -- some incredibly sever, far worse than any tobacco smoke allergy. Should we ban peanuts?
That is not a bad idea. Banning usage of the same machinery for peanut products and non-peanut products without rigorous cleaning in-between would save some lives and make life a lot easier for a lot of people without having an impact on the rest of the population.
This will however dig into the current profit-margin for the producers of such products but since most such products are subsidized trough the sweeteners and starches used it doesn't seem unfair that society should demand something in return.
Drinking outside of work is a legal activity, but we dont allow it for lunch, or for people to come in drunk.
actually you can drink as much as you want while not on the clock (including during lunch time) as long as you are not still drunk when you are on the clock.
you would not (and could not) get fired for "drinking during lunchtime' you would be fired for "being under the influence while at work"
i occasionally drink on my lunch-breaks if i'm going out for a meal. i just don't go downing shots/sculling drinks and return to work drunk.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
it's not about forcing anyone to hire anyone. its about forcing people not to discriminate based on irrelevant attributes(i.e. race/gender/height/beliefs) when making hiring decisions.
freedom from discrimination is more important* that freedom to hire who you want, so in cases where they overlap - freedom from discrimination should win out.
i don't believe this law is even about that. from what i gather it would prevent you from hiring a smoker even if you wanted to.
*in my opinion, some others believe the opposite and as such some countries/states/counties may have this reversed.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
That doesn't answer the question, he could still take the employer to court as it breaks various laws about what you do in your own free time ON TOP of the discrimination laws which WOULD STICK IN COURT.
And they have the freedom to get your ass busted for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, which cannot be overridden by state laws.
Workers become better assets when they can be controlled 24 hours a day so it is elementary corporations are in favor, presumably in a large way . Workers have an interest in retaining personal freedoms such as privacy and the pursuit of happiness... they should protect those rights wherever possible. An oft overlooked detrimental effect of the recession is that job scarcity plays right into the employers' collective hands.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Regarding smokers being more productive than non-smokers:
Non-smokers can stay in the office while on non-smoking breaks.
If an office has flexible hours and smokers choose to come in early so that their combined work time and smoke break time aligns their quittin' time with that of their non-smoking peers they can all do the same amount of work by the same deadlines.
The smokers still take longer, in total, from start to finish.
Is your statement about productivity a suggestion that smokers are actually better/smarter/faster employees?
That seems more a symptom of a Type A personality than of a love for nicotine.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Hi, hate smoking. Even the smoke on a smoker's clothes make my eyes water. However, most smokers I know are very considerate and you won't even know they were smoking.
As long as they don't bother non-smokers, leave them alone. All this will do is put people out of jobs and criminalize innocent people. Ridiculous.
On smoking. The post is recent. It is another move of communist Islam, the worst Afroasiatic ideology.
I have an allergy to the base in some perfumes -- my nose runs constantly, my eyes tear up, it's very unpleasant. Should we ban perfume? I'm on board!
How about this: We err on the side of freedom. Let businesses decide to allow or not allow smoking, peanuts, or perfume. We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful.
Be glad you don't work where I do. Cleaning lady sometimes wears enough perfume that she could cover a shit wagon. Can smell her down the hall. They actually told her to knock it off. Wife wondered what she was trying to cover.... Ugh.
I am so, so glad that I live in a country where it is legal to ride in the back of a pickup truck.
And this is another time I thank an inventor in China. The electronic cigarette (or personal vaporizer), less risk than smoking, and no second hand smoke.
So does this mean if I live there I can't enjoy nicotine? Or just cigarettes?
If they can do that, then they should ban coffee. I hate the smell.
Sincerely
Anon Coward
Cats carry toxoplasmosis and are a primary source of allergens and asthma triggers that can potentially cause fatal asthmatic episodes. Why should normal people be subjected to the risk of associating with cat owners and secondhand cat dander? - MJM
Florida is a "right to work" state! That fucking oxymoron mean that they can fire your ass for just about anything.
Sure. But if the activity is legal, you should have absolutely no business asking me if I partake in said activity or not!
This would go along the same lines as asking me about my religious views, my intention to have children in the future or not, my political affiliation and so forth.
If I'm doing something that's illegal, police will come and take me away. At that time I'll probably loose my job. If I'm simply doing something that YOU, as my employer, do not like, outside of working hours, and it has no impact on my job performance, then kindly fuck off, please.
Disclaimer: I'm not and have never been a smoker.
A subject such a This Smoking Thing should not be made by a committee. To restrict the rights of individuals requires the consent of the voting public. Hitler had committees chock full of people making rules as the committee saw fit. To make rules that a person cannot do what they want in their own home? Why don't those people move to a nice Socialist country like Russia. They love that kind of garbage. Prohibition was a failed, costly experiment, but hey at least we got the G-Men out of it. Don't you idiots ever learn.
And leave the military alone you who have NEVER served. Smoking in an environment where death is very real is of no importance. It is something you think about after you have made sure you know you have an adequate supply of toilet paper.
Smoking is not healthy but I will quit only if ALL the voters in this Nation of Ours say so. I mean, I thought I lived in the land of The Free. Health Nazis are just the tip of the iceberg of losing your rights, period. Once you give up a freedom, the chances of getting it back are practically non-existant. Most of you Sheep out there never even truely THINK.
Personally, I welcome anti-smoking campaigns, as I'm pretty sure anyone with a tobacco allergy or asthma welcomes them, even if the smoke is merely a residue on your clothing or hair which you bring back inside with you after smoking outside.
If your allergy is so profound that just that sort of residue gives you serious problems, then perhaps going out of your house and meeting people is just not for you.
(general 'your' of course)
I know about the surgeon general's warning, but it's not a right to ban smokers from work just like it's not California's right to say that there can't be treatment centers for people who have become so addicted to sex that they think they are "gay".
America regulates tobacco ever more sternly while simply exporting it to poor nations to keep the money flowing. But we have a problem with excess population and I am certain that every time an America tobacco regulation occurs we save lives. The more lives we save the greater the excess population.
So if we really give a hoot we need to make a total ban on all tobacco products and allow zero exports and get rid of the religious nuts ability to demand excessive reproduction.
Smoking is a legal activity and measures like this are ridiculous as long as that remains so. The excuse of "insurance costs" and other like money related issues are specious at best and a dangerous slippery slope at worst. Every individual incurs costs that end up being shared through one form of societal charge or another. People who don't have children end up paying for schools; people who don't take transit pay for that; people who don't drive subsidize drivers and the list goes on & on. The government looks for justifications to intrude into the private lives of individuals and this is a perfect example of them finding one palatable to far too many of you.
"Cigarette smoke contains a number of toxic chemicals and irritants. People with allergies may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than others and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies" - nih
Bark less. Wag more.
Banning risky behavior that negatively impacts insurance or other corporate profits/drives up health insurance premiums is the unspoken foundation theme of The Matrix. Ya'll prepared to - soon enough - give up skateboarding, bicycling, skydiving, manually driving, failing to exercise, eating non-prescribed foods, etc, etc, etc.???
Read the comments again...there are a whole lot more people out there who want to restrict what you can do than tell you that you are free...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
It will end with all restaurants as Taco Bell and everything unhealthy outlawed. Personally, I loathe smoking. I was absolutely thrilled when Florida finally banned smoking in most public places. As someone I can't bother to find an attribution for said "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a pool." Second hand smoke is a directly irritating nuisance. Directly irritating people in public doesn't go over well.
This, however, crosses the line. Smokers have every right to char broil the inside of there lungs in the comfort of their own home, car, or private establishments. Saving money on insurance is a crock of shit, because next thing you know, they will go after everything from unhealthy food eaters to smartphone users (OMG, think of the texting while driving!).
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Although I am against a government ban like this (and in general), I must say thatif there's one reason to ban smoking, it's because it makes women taste bad. Making out with a cigarette smoker is quite unpleasant, in my opinion, especially if you don't smoke tobacco yourself.
And it smells a lot like fascism.
How does it feel for all you asshole Liberals to finally be indistinguishable from all those asshole Fundamentalists ?
If you hire a builder, handyman or other to work on your house... he rocks up to the door on the first day looking ruff and talking ruff would you still let him work on your house? What about if you hear from another person that they think he's a shotty worker or might steal something? If you don't hire him based on this knowledge your also discriminating on previous experience or even out of work activities.
There is no way not to discriminate, the whole hiring process is based on discrimination of skill, personality etc. If your company is paying for your medical insurance do you not think it reasonable to discriminate based on your health?
I personally think this is a step in the right direction, and no one is actually stopping you from smoking or using tobacco as much as not getting a Degree in X will allow me to get job in field X. It's all down to your choice, you still have your freedom :) it's like in Australia, if i choose to commit a crime there is a limited amount of jobs I can take on... I had a choice you now live with the consequences
did i wake up in ******* Russia to day
Seems like you care very much what I think. You even wrote a rant. Cute.
And your nasty habit affects others in many ways:
1. Second hand smoke causes lung problems and cancer.
2. My health insurance costs go up when you get heart disease and demand your triple bypass.
3. My life insurance rates go up as you drop dead.
4. My hospital bills go up as uninsured smokers take emergency services that the rest of us have to pay for.
5. You smell fucking awful from a mile away. It's like somebody taking a shit in the middle of my plate when you walk into a restaurant. You can't smell it because your nose is dead to your rankness, but everybody else can, and we can smell it across the room. It ruins our time. Thank goodness I live in California where you addicts are fewer and farther between.
Seems like you care very much what I think.
I cared enough to say I disagree, that's all.
You even wrote a rant. Cute.
$HUG.
And your nasty habit affects others in many ways:
1. Second hand smoke causes lung problems and cancer.
BS.
2. My health insurance costs go up when you get heart disease and demand your triple bypass.
No. I've no intention to "hang onto life." Think Native American. When my time comes, I'll be happy to crawl off into the bushes to die alone.
3. My life insurance rates go up as you drop dead.
Talk to your toady politicos about that. I didn't ask for that.
4. My hospital bills go up as uninsured smokers take emergency services that the rest of us have to pay for.
Ibid.
5. You smell fucking awful from a mile away. It's like somebody taking a shit in the middle of my plate when you walk into a restaurant. You can't smell it because your nose is dead to your rankness, but everybody else can, and we can smell it across the room. It ruins our time. Thank goodness I live in California where you addicts are fewer and farther between.
Have ... a day.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Protesters should start showing up for interviews and a few minutes in start lighting up cigarettes and filling the room with second hand smoke. The interviewers will have to fire themselves for allowing tar and nicotine into their systems.
Yeah I'm pretty militantly anti-smoker. Not because they are killing themselves but because they stand out side my apartment window and smoke or smoke on the street outside bars etc. As a result their smoke always drifts away from their immediate location and create a 50' sphere of allergies for me.
But even I think if they can find a way to do it (maybe inside an enclosed glass box or something) without annoying and harming everyone around them they should be free to do as they please.
You shouldn't be able to discriminate against my off-the job behavior. Then again I don't know a single smoker who doesn't take copious smoke breaks throughout the day.
Sure Oppenheimer, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and many great minds smoked; but it's time to move on. The future is all about adaptability and the writing has been so clearly on the wall that smoking is an unnecessary tax on health.
I for one am allergic to nicotine. I have noticed that store employees may be standing twenty feet from the store entrance, but based on the wind direction, I often have to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter or exit a store. Once I inhale enough second hand smoke to smell it, that is enough to irritate my sinuses and I am in pain for hours. My neighbors on either side of my house go outside to smoke, and when I take the dog outside at night, I almost always get nailed from one direction or the other. I applaud that my neighbor goes outside to smoke and doesn't do so inside where the kids have to be exposed, but I am paying the price for that each night.
I think it is great that smoking is not allowed in many places of business, now if we could just get smokers to wear bunny suits so the smoke stays with them and doesn't affect us. Europe is a problem though. Lufthansa has flights where the left side is smoking and the right side is non-smoking. I kid you not.
For me anyway, walking into a cloud of smoke by accident is very much like a peanut allergic person walking into a cloud of peanut dust.
Some people smoke. Yes, it's unhealthy. People do unhealthy things, it's part of free will. Get used to it. It's not an ethical or moral issue.
Employers should not have any role in what someone does outside of work, and we need a law-or better yet a constitutional amendment- to that effect. It's unfortunate government, both parties leans the opposite way. As for the argument of "Smoking is bad for society-when you get cancer, other people have to pay for it", also bullshit. Unless you want to regulate every aspect of someones life, in order to minimize health care expense(ACLU's pizza animation-google it- sums the implications of this nicely), you have to accept that as a whole, in a civilized society, we pay for each others choices. If someone judges that smoking increases the quality of their life enough to outweigh the health risks, let them be.
If you're so damn concerned about second hand smoke, why don't you do something useful and demand better mass transit so you can quit breathing car exhaust. Or, if you smell smoke and you don't like it, leave.
Courts in Australia have upheld people being fired after having a beer on their lunch breaks.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
It also causes you to completely miss irony.
Your argument assumes that non-smokers are still working during their "non-smoking breaks". I see no basis in fact for your assumption.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Then you mustn't know many smokers. All the ones I know in the workplace get three smoke breaks per day, the same number of roster-ed breaks that non-smokers get.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Are you suggesting smokers don't take bathroom/coffee breaks in addition to smoking breaks?
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but in business law in college I was taught that you can't discriminate against people for engaging in legal practices that do not directly affect the job.
When was this? They've been doing that for years now, and they've generally been upheld in court. You can discriminate against people for anything not explicitly protected these days.
What makes more insane Tobacco or Alcohol?
Ban Tobacco, Promote Alcohol! What a freedom of choice!!!! Bravo!!!!! Keep it up.
I am no one's slave and I'm not your nigger and this is some serious Nazi shit.
You don't fucking own me!
When I work I sell my time and knowledge for an agreed upon price. Part of our agreement is I will do whatever you tell me to do during that time. If not smoking in your building is one of the rules so be it. Its your building and I'm on your time. Once work is over and I am off your property what I do with my life is none of your business. I'm not your slave. I just work for you for a known time period. When a government or a company can tell you what you can and can't do 24/7 this is slavery. Just because they give you little pieces of paper to exchange for your shanty and food supply doesn't make you free. Being able to make a choice in what you do is freedom. Like choosing to smoke or not.
The only way I would even consider living like that is OK. Lets break my pay down to "by the hour" the first 8 at regular time, the next 8 at time and a half and the rest of the 24 hours at double time. Even if someone made me that offer freedom is priceless and should never be sold. You can't buy all of me.
Why not ban alcohol and test elected officals for it. How high is the health care cost on alcohol related health problems? How many people killed others in car accidents by smoking? How many people have gone home and beat their wife and kids after smoking tobacco? and with this new law against alcohol let's test elected officals first! (Oh yea they tried that in the 20's and it didn't work)
Know the difference between freedom and the "illusion" of freedom. Running around chanting "We're number one" doesn't make you free. Freedom is not being forced to abide to someone's beliefs that you do not agree to.
Actually this is the best way to keep me smoking. I'll continue to smoke just to show you I will not be held under your fucking thumb.
it is interesting how you constantly hear the right wing talking about how big government controls you and tells you how you can or can't live your life while unfettered capitalism is freedom.....
So the question is, If they test for positive Nicotine presence, does that equal "smoker?"
I say no.
As a user of an electronic nicotine inhaler device (also known as a e-cigarette), I would fail this test, yet I no longer use tobacco products.
I ceased tobacco use for personal health reasons, as well as being considerate to those around me. Though not an officially FDA approved device, I had no difficulty in changing over to a vapor inhaler, which produces nothing but nicotine-laced water vapor. These devices pose no threat to those around me, via secondhand inhalation or clinging to person or fabric. Being a very tobacco-sensitive person, my mother thought I quit outright. Yet I would either not be hired, or lose my job because I would fail this test.
I submit that the test (if it should be allowed at all), should test for more than just testing nicotine-positive. By itself, nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, as it is the other substances in tobacco products that are responsible for 99% of health issues rising from tobacco use. Would you want to be discriminated against because you had a cup of coffee this morning?
You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you...
Courts in Australia have upheld people being fired after having a beer on their lunch breaks.
Yes, but they were bus drivers.
I've long been of the opinion that the blanket ban on pot smoking is not only dumb, but hypocritical given how many people smoke tobacco, which is much worse for you. This is dumb too, but at least it's consistent. Kinda reminds me of:
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone." -Bjarne Stroustrup
The one argument against racism or bigotry that succeeds every time, is that;
We all came from the same primordial gene pool, therefore we are all related. So the base and foundation of that hatred illogically only targets itself.
When you take all the elements from the chart, few have use by themselves that would take us very far beyond the sciences 500 years ago. It is only when elements combine to form chemicals and compounds that progress really starts to develop. When we take those chemicals and form new substances that make new devices and methods more efficient, science progresses at a multidimensional acceleration rate with one discovery leading to many more, leading eventually to all the modern conveniences we enjoy today that were not available even 20 years ago. Leaving us to wonder, what they will create next? The compound composition is the same for communities take away any element and you severely damage what makes a community robust, while impeding it's overall growth and sophistication.
With the mapping of the human genome and all the potential that discovery made possible, we should expect huge acceleration of progress in medical sciences, with diseases like cancer, stroke and heart disease [affectionately known as; "smoking related"] destined to be history and it really is just a matter of time and at what level resources are dedicated, to shorten that time, that we will eventually succeed in moving beyond the harms seen in smoking. The defeatists and opportunists among us with no confidence in that ingenuity, Larger Industry lobby groups like "the Tobacco Control Movement" [TC] are stealing those resources and are investing them in promoting fear and outdated "beliefs"[ which require no thought which is comfortable, as opposed to knowledge which requires some level of thought]. Lobbies invented and financed, so that they can continue to reap the financial rewards of inspired fear. The same people who have divided us in search of their own short term comfort, will always fight a loosing battle, because even if you succeed in dividing a community, that division better be rock solid if it is to last, because there is always a greater force that resists those divisions. Humanity exists as the compelling force to always bring those communities back to one unified and cohesive mixture, an irrepressible longing and compassion for each other, will always be stronger than the force that divides them, with growing pressures at a multidimensional and accelerating rate. When they put up the Berlin wall that division was absolute and the pressure began that day to "tear down that wall" and eventually we did. TC may succeed by their deceptions fine print and inventions for a time, but that time is growing shorter every day and they already know it. Investigate the acts of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and you might have a better understanding of the true risks of tobacco smoke. A promoted "belief" that absolutely challenges your former beliefs in respect to; baked bread, roasting chestnuts and toasting marshmallows over an open fire. All of which have the same chemical composition as tobacco smoke. Fool me once?
The problem that occurs here? Because the Public have been trained to believe;
- That all carcinogens lead to certain death by cancer.
-That the word significant can be transferred from a clinical setting to real world predictions, indicating confirmed levels of danger, causes and harms.
-That immediate harms and immediate risks are no longer to be considered more dangerous than lifetime risks.
-That long term risks are just as dangerous as immediate and short term dangers
-That anyone who smokes presents the greatest "preventable" health risk known, to babies especially and without qualification; to the general public at large.
You live by what you sow and what you have helped to define as science, is hardly science or even helpful a this point to the greater good of the public in any level or degree. What you have created is a long term belief system, making it comfortable to hate and beyond that; feel an internalized obligation to defend those beliefs. Exactly like the prejudices formed against the genetic makeup of others in the past, will have an effect that will dilute the credibility of so called science, perhaps for the next 70-80 years, just like the last time the Public Health eugenicist movement took to scaring people into moralist and belief system submission, while turning them against each other.
Any Company that wants to direct your actions 24-7, needs to be in front of a judge being told why your and all other fellow employees they hired, regardless of smoking status before or after, have a problem with that their paychecks, which are quite a bit light on the compensation agreed too, at an hourly rate plus overtime.
If the smokers band together and infect enough non-smokers with expensive-to-treat diseases, the smokers will become more economical to employ and insure, and non-smokers will not be hired.
No, this is the department of innovative solutions, practical solutions is down the hall, next to abuse.
We are seeing the emergence of a politically corrected ideal [or cult] which values some people more valuable than others, according to, not even their current medical condition, but inconceivably by their medical "risk factors". Eventually that mindset being promoted in the classrooms today comes full circle, to a valuation of their "genetic risk factors" which are inseparable from their other "health risks". Be very careful what you wish for, because you might just get it and who knows when you too, will be included in the pool of Public Health lepers.
So with the blood tests in hand where is the limit that stops them from firing people, based in what else they find in the way of health risks, to save themselves some more money? If they are allowed to pick and choose, many people will not only be out of luck finding healthcare insurance because that information will no doubt be shared for additional discounts, the victims won't even be employable, regardless if they ever get sick. How much is that going to cost us all, once the tactics of division get going full out as a new efficiency of expenses, "best practices approach". Obama-care will become a cause for riots in the streets.
Who runs such an asylum, disguised as a medical institution, needs to be the target for unemployment and treatment in a confined space. Smokers are committing no crime.
Cigarette makers are right to fear the regulations, says David Hammond, an expert in tobacco rules at the University of Waterloo in Canada: “Once tobacco control measures are established in one country, they spread.”
Yes,
Soon all the kids will be collecting the Public Health [porn] pictures, as an international trend that started in Canada.
Way to go Canada!!!
LMAO
Cool!!!
Just like the yellow star they used to make Jews wear in Germany.
Kind of gets the perspectives, exactly as they should be, by figurative means.
A picture says a thousand words, in other words...
Are you suggesting that non-smokers always take their bathroom/coffee breaks at the same time as their roster-ed breaks?
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Hmmm.... Is addiction a medical condition? :)
The DSM lists it....
In fact studies have generally shown smokers to be more productive than their non-smoking counterparts.
[Citation needed]
...because it's forcing others to conform to something they don't want to.
But I'm also aware that it will be viewed with a sense of justice by those who feel that they've been forced to breathe others smoke for years by those who would mockingly dismiss their concerns while saying it's a matter of personal choice.
I used to work for a company that had two break-rooms, a smoking break-room and a non-smoking break-room. It was really kind of bad because the movers and shakers were almost always in the smoking break-room. I would go in occasionally, but would eventually be driven out by the smoke because the room wasn't ventilated, (or at least not well ventilated). This went on for years until one day I walk into the hall connected to the break-rooms, and was overwhelmed by the stench of stale smoke, and discovered that the smoking break-room had a big passive vent put into it's door because "People couldn't breathe in there", which was basically why non-smokers usually didn't go in there. There was no concern at all about the non-smokers who occupied the spaces near to the smoking break-room or to those who used the non-smoking break room (that had no door at all).
That is typical of the way non-smokers have been treated historically. This new idea of banning smoking never began catching on until about 10 years ago in the mid-west.
THINK! It's patriotic
With few exceptions, tobacco use does not have a direct detrimental effect on workers' performance. In fact studies have generally shown smokers to be more productive than their non-smoking counterparts. (Though nobody is saying that smoking is the actual cause of that.)
From a quick Google of that, I found that most of the articles go the other way. Most of the studies seem to find (unsurprisingly) that smokers are slower at their tasks, take more breaks, and take more sick days than non-smokers. I found exaclty one article that mentioned a study that reached the opposite conclusion (that smokes were more productive). Furthermore, one of the studies found that when individual employees quit smoking their own productivity levels increased.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
"There are only a few "protected" things you cant discriminate against, age, sex, skin color, disabilities, however there are plenty of things you are legally allow to discriminate against."
By Federal law. But there are many more laws than just the Federal anti-discrimination laws. If anything, they are a rather minor influence.
"Non-smokers can stay in the office while on non-smoking breaks."
And so could smokers, until some self-righteous assholes decided they had to go outside.
"If an office has flexible hours and smokers choose to come in early so that their combined work time and smoke break time aligns their quittin' time with that of their non-smoking peers they can all do the same amount of work by the same deadlines."
I did not perform the studies. Nevertheless, studies have regularly shown that smokers, WITH their "smoke breaks", outperform their non-smoking counterparts.
I didn't make this shit up. Hit Google. Live with it.
"Florida is a "right to work" state! That fucking oxymoron mean that they can fire your ass for just about anything."
It also means they can HIRE you without a union interfering.
I once worked in a place where I *HAD TO* be a member of a union (steelworkers, in fact) to work there. The union did NOTHING but take my money. Nothing. They were a bunch of worthless pieces of gangster shit and they didn't deserve my dues.
Also -- I really should throw this in because it's relevant -- a few years later I had a conversation with the owner of the company. He told me that they treated the workers like dogs BECAUSE of the union. That if the union were not there, they would have been much friendlier to their employees.
And guess what? The employees eventually voted the union out. And now they are much happier. Everybody gets along better. I know, because I have friends who still work there.
When my mother had a TIA as a result of her two pack a day habit and lost her ability to read.
Smoke if you want; the cost to you is pretty phenomenal. Nothing I do for pleasure is worth my ability to read.
Someone mod this up.
We already discriminate against people who consume cannabis products, what's so different about discriminating against people who use products from any other plant?
When the job pays me for 24 hours everyday, then they can tell me what to do during those times. This is nothing but admitting you're a slave under a pretense of freedom. Only slaves get controlled 24/7/365.
I know of many studies showing that smokers have decreased productivity, not one study that shows the opposite. In fact, given the nature of smoking and it's effects on the body, anyone who tries to show that smoking in any way increases productivity over an identical person who doesn't smoke is pulling their ;facts' out of their nose. Or somewhere worse.
Ah yes. Something that always annoyed me intensely in the bad old days when we use to pander to smokers' nasty hobby being acted out in public.
They'd sit purposely holding their cancer stick to the side or behind them, so that it was blowing smoke away from themselves and their companions. After all, who wants smoke wafted in their face, hair and clothes? Not them! Meanwhile, anyone unfortunate enough to be behind or to the side of them would be getting exactly that.
Let them smoke in a closed, unventilated box someplace. Maximize the experience if it's such a joy.
In fact studies have generally shown smokers to be more productive than their non-smoking counterparts
What, even after the cancers, heart disease, thumbrosis, pulmonary disease, and ulcers ? Cos those sorts of things tend to slow you down a little. Or we only counting smokers up to the point they are forced out of employment due to ill health?
Land of the free... Lol joking
To be honest, I think this anti-tobacco policy probably runs afoul of Federal anti-discrimination law. .....
Yes and other laws as well.
If I recall the original article indicated that it was a cost
saving measure. i.e. the Insurance company was able
to make a lower bid based on the non-smoking status.
Next is where it gets ugly. There is an active invasion into the lives of
the employee, testing and more perhaps.
Now the insurance agent comments that employees over the age
of 50 count 4x more in a pool of employees than a 24 year old.
A manager, executive, HR gets wind of this and reorganizes groups
so the 50+ staff is in a project then that project gets cut and
a new project staffed with 24 year old kids is expanded and
takes over the recently discovered functions of the group that was
eliminated.
With a wink and a nod perhaps a whisper there is a cost saver bonus
awarded and the job force has more unemployed. Productive workers
out of productive jobs and forced into some no income status.
Of all the things that Obama Care has wrong the way it attempts to
level the playing field is a good thing for voters over 40. They are
the ones that will have retirement pushed to 70 and I bet the insurance
guy will be able to answer the question... are they 4x, 5x, 10x more
expensive to insure. They will be unemployed or uninsured at work
if "management" can see a way to gain a $$ or two.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
I stopped smoking over 12 years ago, and miss it once and a while, but have not picked one up since that time. If someone wants to smoke, then allow them to do so. It is not impairing them mentally, and in some instances, it is actually helpful to them. It can be a good way to socialize with people or to take a break.
The Health Nazis want to constantly tell you what you can and can not do. They will whine and sniffle, and say self righteously that you increase our health premiums; you are killing me with your second hand smoke. To this I will say deal with it! You increase how much money society has to pay for your nanny like ways. We have to take care of everything and everyone to the point where I am taxed to death. You have increased the amount of stress I have to deal with in having to eek out a living while paying for every half witted claim you make before the public that it should pay for. You have murdered thousands and perhaps millions with the loss if jobs because you dislike a certain industry, add a ton of extra stress to a person's life, and then take away what adds happiness for them. What you offer is not freedom, but a slow poison. A type of slavery to your whims and what then becomes codified into the laws of the State. More often than not, the people that espouse these type of laws and nanny like ways are called liberals.
Now, I will watch all the liberals, who despise hearing these things start flaming away, foaming at the mouth, tell me I should be locked up, be put into a concentration camp, should be deprived of life, etcetera, etcetera, and ad nauseum etcetera.
A smoker blows smoke into the air your breathe, and they stink, and their horrid breath carries the little bits of their excessive phlegm and smoke particles to you.
Peanut eaters don't blow peanuts all over me.
if everyone has the right to not hire you, you don't have the right to work. if everyone has the right to not rent/sell to you, you don't have the right to live anywhere.
If I was still a smoker and was in a situation where I could be fired for being a tobacco user, I think I would declare my tobacco use to be in honor of Eagle (aka Thunderbird.) And thus, dismissal would be cause for a religious discrimination complaint.
This space unintentionally left blank.
all the time... What a joke!
May the lies we live by make us strong, healthy, happy and wise - Kurt Vonnegut.
The problem is when health insurance rates depend on 100% non-smoking group. If you have a single smoker in the group the rates go up for the group, not just that employee. This is a result of the elimination of risk factors from being used in computing rates. Once you take the risk calculation out you are left with the insurance company being left with pretty much an open-ended fund that needs to be paid into. So they are going to do every nasty thing in the book to try to "manage" the situation.
This is how insurance works. Insurance is a gamble where the company bets they are going to collect more in premiums than the people are going to run up in costs. There are folks that sit around all day and calculate the odds of various people getting cancer and the like so it works out really well - they can tell you with a couple of percentage points what your risk of getting cancer is at a certain age and other risk factors. Like smoking.
However, in the last couple of years the government has pretty much mandated the risk calculation out of the picture. This means that insurance isn't insurance anymore but is instead some kind of savings plan where you pay into it and then take money out later. Problem is, today there is very little control the insurance company has over what is coming in, so they are desperately trying to manage what is going out, often by finding some trick so they can deny coverage. It was a logical outcome of removing the control over premiums based on risk and anyone with a brain could have forseen it coming.
So now that the insurance company can't rate people hire for most real risks they get to do whatever they can on what is left. One of those is smoking. So if a business, any business, wants to keep their health insurance rates down - which they pretty much have to do - they have to weed out all of the smokers. Most of the other real risks, like the chances of women becoming pregnant, have been legislated away from rate calculations. How about stuff like sickle-cell? Nope, can't rate based on that today either - that would be racial discrimination.
So you end up with the system like it is, at least for a few more years. Obamacare is going to make it single-payer, probably by the end of 2015 or so when we see how many people are thrown onto government subsidies because of employers dropping health care insurance. They have to - they can be fined out of existance if they offer health care insurance and employees choose to not go with it - the fine is like 2 or 3 times the cost of providing insurance.. There is a fine for not offering health insurance, but it is about 10% of the cost of the insurance, so everyone will simply drop it.
They're not nearly as cool as Garbage Pail Kids.
America is looking more and more like a dictatorship....Capitalist Comunism.
It does MOST DEFINITELY run afoul of anti-discrimination law. But it's quite easy to make a convincing argument that the practice of smoking is detrimental to their job performance, even if the the supposition is completely invalid, it just has to sway the opinion of a judge to allow it, and then be defensible enough to survive appeal. The problem becomes ultimately that it's impossible to convince people by and large that a practice is discriminatory if it doesn't affect them or anyone they can relate to in a way that is apparent to them. So discrimination against smokers will never be equated by most people with a similar practice against people who eat slim jims or who drink nothing but soda or those who simple refuse to eat green vegetables, when they are in fact equivalent practices both logically and under the law.
This isn't about banning smokers from sitting at their desk, enjoying a visit to flavour country with you involuntarily riding shotgun. It's about wholesale refusing to hire people for something they would be doing in personal time outside of work and during breaks. I'm giving up smoking myself, so I've become a little sensitive to the smell of cigarettes on people. Even so, it's pretty light among people who are smoking outdoors and wearing fresh clothes daily. The smell doesn't in itself constitute a health risk. Excessive odour should be dealt with the same way as it would if your co-worker decided that one shower per week was perfectly adequate for non air-conditioned office in Phoenix.
I'm guessing peanut eaters don't need to blow peanuts all over you. The impression I have is of a pedantic irritant who'd be on the phone to the cops on sighting a guy on a bench in a park across the road, enjoying a bag of Planters. Okay, so he's eating Monster Munch - doesn't matter. Those corn snacks probably contain "peanut particles" and other things discoverable only through the sciences of homeopathy and divination by entrails.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
What about fat people?
Also, there are people who are allergic to bee stings (many don't even know it until they get stung). Should we ban bees? Flowering plants attract bees - maybe those should be banned too. There are people who are lactose intolerant - ban milk? There are people who are allergic to glucose - ban wheat?
Till eventually you have tons of zombies outside your office and you needed some smokers for your get away.
I think people meddling with what the fuck other people do should start fucking off (generally pointing a finger in random direction).
let's oppress the bastard smokers. They don't belong in our society...
Really? A murderous warmongering society
What's next, persecuting people for having tattoos? Should we do the same to skydivers? How about Felix. He should also be persecuted somehow.
hmm... now I feel like having some WATER!!!!!!!!!!
Is that ok?? Cause there's some chemicals in there that are rather sketchy...
Oh yes, authority says... have a coke.
This is why I only hire single women with intact hymens. I just know that single women that don't have an intact hymen are gonna increase my insurance rate with their bastard babies and stds. Hell, there is a good chance they are smokers and drug users. That just increases my insurance premiums. God forbid they have a baby, whats that gonna cost me? Thus I have no problem demanding the women I hire to undergo a test to check if they have an intact hymen. I only wish their was a way to check for sodomy.
And skiing is an incredibly dangerous sport. People die all the time. Worse they get injured and cost money. All those Olympic athletes make it look cool to ski. Kids are trying it out and their parents even take them. In fact athletic sports in general are leading causes of expensive surgeries with all the broken bones, concussions and other injuries for people of all ages.
Driving is even more dangerous. Alcohol leads to many deaths every day. Over eating is a general drain on the economy.
Should I continue or is it clear that any activity can be harmful to your health and leads to unnecessary costs both in healthcare and in productivity.
When someone is injured or dies while playing a sport it's a tragedy but when they get lung cancer after 40 years of smoking its a plague on society.
We all choose how to live our lives. Some people engage in risky behavior of one sort, others go a different route.
Why should I have to subsidize those who choose to play basketball at 40 and end up with a crippling injury? Why should that be any different from a smoker who gets cancer at 40. They are both preventable.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
No, the courts have ruled they can be fired for smoking on at least one occasion
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=otoole/pdf/rodrigues%20v%20scotts%20order.pdf
And considering this has been going on since at least 2005 when Weyco told employees to quit smoking or lose their jobs if the courts were going to prohibit it, I think we would have heard about it by now.
Note, some states do have statutes like you describe on the books, but it's not federal law and I'm sure the statutes vary considerably from state to state and may have exemptions.