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.
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.
..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.
The land of the freeeeeee.........
the home of the non-smokers.
You can't handle the truth.
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
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.
well.. that they will do it doesn't necessarily mean that they can. so wait for the first case of someone getting fired because they smoked a cigarette on their holiday.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'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?
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).
What about the existing employees who already smoke? I can't imagine that the state can now impose such rules on somebody who has been working for them for 30 years and fire them a year before retirement. And before you say that maybe they want to save money on pensions, smokers have a shorter life expectancy. In fact, it has been suggested http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv20n3/reg20n3e.pdf that overall, when considering tobacco taxes, shorter collection of pensions and the fact that smokers and nonsmokers both die mostly of heart disease (the smokers are simply younger when they do), that smokers may be cheaper overall for the economy. I mean, I really hate smoking but this goes too far...
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*
... 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.
Yes, fuck middle ground! It must be either very easy or illegal!
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
Soon I hope!
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
How does chewing tobacco endanger the health of others?
(When answering, please keep in mind that I'm someone who doesn't even drink caffeine, much less use alcohol or tobacco, and who is very much for banning smoking in businesses and public areas.)
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.
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.
Bullshit! As a smoker myself, grab a backbone! Quitting takes willpower, that's all! Do you want to quit? Then quit, and stick to your decision! I've tried it, and it was easy. If you want to, really want to, you can too, but it'll take some fortitude on your part. No backing down! Run away! Don't go back!
Or just continue whining to us about your weak mindedness.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 ----
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
welcome to obama's america where laws like the fair employment act and constitution no longer apply.
i know the courts will shoot this down if i was in Florida i would aruldy be getting a lawsuit ready. its a clear and blatant act of discrimination.
i sware when will people say enough and force these people out of power.
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.
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
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.
I think I made more money from non-smokers.
I think this may be one of those "correlation is not causation" thingies. I've had lots of non-smoker bosses/supervisors, but I've also found that just about everyone of them, when I said I wanted to go for a smoke, they wanted to go with me for the break, for fresh air, to think, to talk, to go for a walk, to plan ...
I've never had a boss/supervisor express resentment about my smoking. Most of them welcome the break as much as me. I welcome their company. We both return refreshed in our own way determined upon a new manner in which to slay the dragon we share. Woohoo!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
How about causing the same issues as smokers have? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/third-hand-smoke/AN01985
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
This is beneath bike shed, where the dog used to poop.
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
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
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.
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.
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)
"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.
Luther, unfortunately the courts probably WON'T shoot this down unless FL is one of the 25 or so states that have enacted lifestyle protection laws. Antismokers stopped the remaining states from enacting them by claiming they were just a cover for "smoker protection laws" or "tobacco industry protection laws." :/
MJM
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 ?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.