no smoking

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 25, 2005, 4:28 pm

Complete and utter bullshit, once again disguised as "good" while it takes away people's freedoms. But people don't want to hear that... just like the Germans didn't want to see what was slapping them in the face during the 20s...

How far of a jump is it... truly, how far... to get from "Smokers" can't be hired to "Fat people" can't be hired to "Genetically inferor" can't be hired... one could argue that people do one of those things because of their genetic makeup... only follows logically.

I'm really concerned for the future of my country...

Marb

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 4:33 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Kargyle wrote: Smoking kills. Well good for you, then I'll be dead soon and you won't have to worry about me anymore.
Actually, we do have to worry about you. Your medical expenses while alive are more than double that of the non-smoker. And since insurance is a pool, well, you get the idea.

I would say that is a problem with the insurance system. Not to mention the crazy amount of taxes smokers pay per pack, which is supposed to go toward the supposed greater expense that smokers are to the medical/insurance industry. I'm assuming when you say insurance is a pool you are talking about group insurance through a company, because on individual policies smokers always pay more. As far as group insurance goes, the argument that smokers cost more still doesn't hold water. Medical expenses for diabetics cost even more than smokers on average, but companies don't tell employees they can't eat candy and other sweets, which has been linked to causing diabetes. They don't refuse to hire diabetics. You don't get fired if you become diabetic. Diabetics drive up group insurance rates every bit as much as smokers, if not more. So I'm sorry if my smoking raises your insurnace costs, but Bob over there stuffing his fat ass with candy all day is going to cost you just as much, so go bother him for awhile.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 4:34 pm

Homercles wrote:His Medical insurance may be higher, but he dies earlier. Thus saving the taxpayers his Social Security and extended health coverage.

Smokers are profit makers. They pay rediculous taxes so they can kill themselves earlier.

Win-win for non smokers

The costs don't work that way. For instance:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_dat ... lights.htm

Each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation an estimated $7.18 in medical care costs and lost productivity.

Even in new york, the taxes on cigarettes aren't that high per pack.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 25, 2005, 4:39 pm

Marbus wrote:"Fat people" can't be hired

That already happens. I'd be surprised if someone won a lawsuit against a business who refused to accomodate thier weight in a work enviroment. The morbidly obese are also denied life and health insurance on some group plans, or charged much higher rates. More and more airlines are charging them for two seats as well.

Smoking has gone from a common to a non-PC behaviour. I remember folks smoking and drinking coffee in the basement after church services when I was growing up. Those same people are shocked if you smoke on the grounds now. Teachers smoking at the grade school I went to for that matter.

<comment about things that were previously incorrect but now driven in peoples faces removed>

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 25, 2005, 4:40 pm

Smokers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public places like restaurants and expose nonsmokers to the by-products of their habit.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 4:45 pm

Kargyle wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Kargyle wrote: Smoking kills. Well good for you, then I'll be dead soon and you won't have to worry about me anymore.
Actually, we do have to worry about you. Your medical expenses while alive are more than double that of the non-smoker. And since insurance is a pool, well, you get the idea.
I would say that is a problem with the insurance system. Not to mention the crazy amount of taxes smokers pay per pack, which is supposed to go toward the supposed greater expense that smokers are to the medical/insurance industry. I'm assuming when you say insurance is a pool you are talking about group insurance through a company, because on individual policies smokers always pay more. As far as group insurance goes, the argument that smokers cost more still doesn't hold water. Medical expenses for diabetics cost even more than smokers on average, but companies don't tell employees they can't eat candy and other sweets, which has been linked to causing diabetes. They don't refuse to hire diabetics. You don't get fired if you become diabetic. Diabetics drive up group insurance rates every bit as much as smokers, if not more. So I'm sorry if my smoking raises your insurnace costs, but Bob over there stuffing his fat ass with candy all day is going to cost you just as much, so go bother him for awhile.

It's not just your group through your company, it's the overall insurance pool. Your company agrees to pay a significant chunk of the health costs for your insurance and you make up the difference. The reason your company decides you co-pay $45 instead of $30 for single no dependant coverage is because that's what your HR department came up with based on the total cost they would have to assume through their chosen provider. That total cost is higher as a result of you smoking.

A lot of larger companies do have measures in place to keep their workforce healthy. While it's not total cessation, it does help. In addition, you can be sure that morbid obesity will be a rate qualifier for corporate healthcare rates in the near future.

Post by **pyrella** » January 25, 2005, 4:46 pm

Aslanna wrote:Smokers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public places like restaurants and expose nonsmokers to the by-products of their habit.

Drivers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to drive in public places like cities and expose nondrivers to the by-products of their habit.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » January 25, 2005, 4:46 pm

How do you measure the cost of lost productivity? Is it thru smoke breaks? Medical leave? Pissy demeanor from withdrawal?

I agree that smokers are less productive (as I stated earlier) but I dont know a formula to calculate that low production as it relates to a pack of cigarettes. That $7.18 could just be a number pulled from the air for all I know.

And that site doesnt show anything related to how much Social Security the country saves because smokers have a shorter life expectancy.

Its an incomplete site relating to the econimcs of smokers.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 4:47 pm

Heres a fucking argument for you, freedom to have personal choice, frankly I would prefer it if they made both smoking only and non smoking bars for all you whining bitches to go pat yourselves on the back in and drink "evian".

Oh no the neoconservative right hates me lynks, what a bad thing

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 25, 2005, 4:50 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Oh no the neoconservative right hates me lynks, what a bad thing

The tofu eating, non smoking, hairy armpitted (female), birkenstock wearing far left wouldn't like you either

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 4:51 pm

LOL!111

Edit: Why did you change "gay loving" to (female)?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 25, 2005, 4:52 pm

Smokers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public places like restaurants and expose nonsmokers to the by-products of their habit.

People don't need to justify why they should be allowed to do everything they do. The Government needs to justify why people shouldn't be allowed to do it.

There are a variety of activities that people partake in, in public, that are every bit as dangerous and irritating as smoking. These activities are generally legal. Arbitrarily picking out smoking for harassment is nonsensical and restrictive to a large class of people. I've always thought that non-smoking sections do the job well enough.

Just for the record, I don't smoke and I always sit in non-smoking sections at restaurants.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 25, 2005, 4:54 pm

This should be owner decided, business by business... non-smokers can hang with their own kind, and smokers won't get 'discriminated' against everywhere.

But cigarettes are bad, and serve only to hold me over until pot is legal.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 25, 2005, 4:57 pm

I recently quit, but always sat on the far side of the non-smoking section because the smokers made the place smell like shit when I'm trying to eat. Didn't smoke in the house for that matter, smells bad and turns the walls yellow.

Florida enacted an indoor smoking ban a year ago, pretty stupid for bars, I don't agree with it for resturaunts. Should be up to the owners IMO.

Edit: Why did you change "gay loving" to (female)?

Didn't want to derail the current argument

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 5:00 pm

Homercles wrote:Having some say in the hiring of employees, I can definitely tell you smoking is taken into consideration. In my experience, a smokers work production is signaficantly less than a non smoker. The smoke breaks alone detract from production. And if a smoker doesnt get a regular break, then they become antsy and agitated. This leads to poor work quality, lowered production, and an overall lousy attitude.

And quite honestly, we dont want to have our employees out on a job site smoking. It makes for a crappy representation of our company.

If I have a choice (between equal applicants) of hiring a smoker or a non-smoker....its non-smoker 100% of the time.

Good post. Smokers, lung for lung, are worse employees than non smokers specifically because of their habit. I watch them walk around looking for someone to join them on a smoke break. They get sick more because they stand out in the cold to smoke

Their breath and the smoke aroma emanating from their clothes really impresses the clients or customers.

Switch to caffeine. You get most of the fidgety affects of smoking and still need a fix a few times a day but you can drink it at your desk without harming the environment for others choosing a healthier path. I bet you could even match the color of your yellow teeth from smoking if you pick the right brand of coffee for staining.

I suppose the biggest thing is that everything else being equal, I'd hire a non smoker over a smoker but for someone hooked on caffeine, it wouldn't factor into my decision as it doesn't impact their work. I would always hire the better qualified person if everything else wasn't equal though. There's no chance in hell I'd hire someone that played EQ : )

BTW, smoking doesn't impact my perception of a person beyond the health issues at places like work where I couldn't avoid it if it was legal to smoke there. I'd never criticize someone at a bar for smoking while I'm guzzling down some form of alcohol at an establishment designed to enhance your mood and feelings, not for productivity. I'd guess over half of the people at FF smoked. I would have been talking to Aranuil the entire time if smoking mattered that much to me.

Fash wrote:But cigarettes are bad, and serve only to hold me over until pot is legal.

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana but only in the form of Pot Brownies!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 25, 2005, 5:09 pm

Being hooked on caffeine provides all the antsy, agitated effects that cause smokers to be less productive, it just doesn't require them to go outside to fuel their addiction.

Switch to cocaine: more intense and less addictive!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 5:17 pm

Sueven wrote:Being hooked on caffeine provides all the antsy, agitated effects that cause smokers to be less productive, it just doesn't require them to go outside to fuel their addiction.

Switch to cocaine: more intense and less addictive!

Step into my office Sueven...because you're fucking fired!

PS. more bathroom breaks with caffeine users!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 5:36 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Because the liquor that you are drinking if you don't smoke is really a lot better right ?

If by you drinking alcohol I got drunk then yeah, I'd have a problem with it. Are you people really this dense that this is the best argument you can come up with? Good God this board has gone to hell.

Ed:

Pyrella wrote:Drivers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to drive in public places like cities and expose nondrivers to the by-products of their habit.

That's potentially the lamest comparison in this thread as of yet. Driving isn't a habit. Driving serves a purpose of improvement. Smoking serves no purpose other than to feed an addiction.

Teenybloke wrote:Heres a fucking argument for you, freedom to have personal choice, frankly I would prefer it if they made both smoking only and non smoking bars for all you whining bitches to go pat yourselves on the back in and drink "evian".

I'm all for people having the freedom to smoke all they want; as long as it's not forcing other people to smoke as well.

In regards to the original subject and Marb's post - I agree with you Marb. Discriminating against someone for what they legally do on their own time is bullshit. I also agree that smokers are in general, less productive for the same reasons that have already been listed on this thread.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 5:39 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Heres a fucking argument for you, freedom to have personal choice

You mean the personal choice I made to have a smoke free life you are so eager to take away from me for your nicotine fix? Gothca.

Edit: and before someone accuses me of being a nazi or something, the company should have no right to fire someone on what he does in his own home.

As a note, I saw how much time the people I work with waisted with smoking, 7 smoke breaks at 10 minutes each = 70 minutes of break time. Once they get back, they sit around for another minute trying to warm up. I also noticed that 5-10 minutes before they get up are waisted with zero production because all they think about is smoking. I can tell because every other sentence is "I need a smoke".

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 6:13 pm

I think you are horribly exagerating. If any of the smokers that worked with me had those types of smoking habits I'd have a talk with them, and if it continued afterward I'd have them walked.

The two top people that work for me have basically identical productivity. One of them smokes, one of them doesn't. It has not been my experience that smokers are less productive because non-smokers generally take more frequent breaks, although generally of shorter duration. The non-smokers in my lab are known to take fresh air breaks, they go for walks, they sit in the break room and talk while eating a snack. The smokers go smoke, that's pretty much all they do.

While I'm at it.. I'm not advocating that smokers be allowed to smoke where ever they want, I'm just sick of people trying to get rid of smoking sections altogether. I know more non-smokers than I do smokers, half of them smoke when they go out drinking at bars and clubs. If you don't want to be around smoke at a bar, then find a non-smoking bar. If you can't find one, then open one, obviously you should make lots of money since so many people are demanding smoke free bars. (note: This is sarcasm. I actually expect you would be bankrupt in short order.)

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 25, 2005, 6:16 pm

No moron, the point I am making is that in places like bars - if you arent going there to drink - then this obnoxious drivel is pointless, go drink your pepsi or evian in dairy queen. And if you are drinking then whining about smoking is worthless.

Some restaraunts around here are completely non smoking. some are both and divided well, some are divided poorly. The point is, if it bothers you do not expect people to accomodate you, go somewhere else.

Post by **pyrella** » January 25, 2005, 6:37 pm

Siji wrote:
Pyrella wrote:Drivers have yet to give a good reason why they should be allowed to drive in public places like cities and expose nondrivers to the by-products of their habit.
That's potentially the lamest comparison in this thread as of yet. Driving isn't a habit. Driving serves a purpose of improvement. Smoking serves no purpose other than to feed an addiction.

Excuse me? What does driving improve? Driving emits at least, if not more pollutants than any cigarette out there. You also can not escape it without moving to the middle of nowhere...and even then you probably won't be safe. For all the millions of accidents each year, do you not think that contributes to the increased cost of health insurance?

Seems like pretty damn fine comparison to me. In fact, for every negative of smoking, you can find corollary in automobiles.

You do have alternatives - mass transit, bikes, etc.

If you're trying to preserve your health, or those around you, why not go all the way, and quit singling out one individual group because you don't happen to agree with the why's and wherefores. There are much worse things out there than cigarettes which people blindly accept because there aren't multi million dollar campaigns talking shit about it.

As far as the less productive worker scenario - I could see it in most situations - however here at work, I would say the smokers are probably some of the most efficient workers we have. We go outside, we continue to discuss the problems/issues that we are having at the moment, instead of taking a 'break' and interupting our work flow. Throw in wireless notebooks and an outdoor table, and work doesn't even cease.

Now sure, this may be biased towards my profession, but when I was back in sales, same thing happened - go out for a smoke break, and review technique, identify weak areas, etc. Non smokers form cliques that exclude both smokers and non smokers alike - smokers accept anyone who comes outside with them. =P

And as most of the other smokers here have said - I sit in a non smoking section of a restaraunt when I eat, and when smoking in a public (allowed) area, I always try and be downwind. Only exception to this is when drinking, as Winnow can attest to as I tried to get him hooked via proximity to me in Quarks.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 25, 2005, 7:12 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Heres a fucking argument for you, freedom to have personal choice, frankly I would prefer it if they made both smoking only and non smoking bars for all you whining bitches to go pat yourselves on the back in and drink "evian".

Oh no the neoconservative right hates me lynks, what a bad thing

And nonsmokers freedom to not have to inhale secondhand smoke. Sounds like a no-win situation oh nos!

And the driving argument is beyond lame. Driving, for a large majority of the people, is a requirement so they can provide for their families. Until the US provides better alternatives that's all a lot of people have.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 7:14 pm

Kargyle wrote:I think you are horribly exagerating. If any of the smokers that worked with me had those types of smoking habits I'd have a talk with them, and if it continued afterward I'd have them walked.

Sorry, I`m not exagerating and its kinda hard to tell my boss not to leave every half hour for a smoke.

I also noticed the same thing at my workplace during my college years.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 7:22 pm

pyrella wrote:
And as most of the other smokers here have said - I sit in a non smoking section of a restaraunt when I eat, and when smoking in a public (allowed) area, I always try and be downwind. Only exception to this is when drinking, as Winnow can attest to as I tried to get him hooked via proximity to me in Quarks.

I bitched but pyrella said the smoke was just the dry ice coming off the Warp Cores. I fell for it! : ) Py and Sylvus had me pinned in a smoke crossfire! I avoided most of it by continuously drinking without coming up for air : )

Seriously though, it's not something I stress over while at a bar....especially in the city of sin.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 25, 2005, 7:46 pm

Homercles wrote:Having some say in the hiring of employees, I can definitely tell you smoking is taken into consideration. In my experience, a smokers work production is signaficantly less than a non smoker. The smoke breaks alone detract from production. And if a smoker doesnt get a regular break, then they become antsy and agitated. This leads to poor work quality, lowered production, and an overall lousy attitude.

And quite honestly, we dont want to have our employees out on a job site smoking. It makes for a crappy representation of our company.

If I have a choice (between equal applicants) of hiring a smoker or a non-smoker....its non-smoker 100% of the time.

Having some say; ie, you're not a manager or in HR, but the boss will have his team talk to prospective hires. I can definitely tell you, you're a narcissistic asshole unless you happen to work around high explosives or something else that means you need to walk for 20 mins to take a smoke break.

If you don't have "breaks" then you don't have "smoke breaks", it's that simple. I've been in industries that went from smoking at your desk, to a complete ban, and there was never a chance in hell there would be a smoke break.

And finally, I don't smoke the morning of an interview or during it, or carry smokes in my top pocket, so good luck with your screening there.

Really.. you could apply all of the same rationales to explain your "I don't hire fat chicks" policy too. There's a TON of productivity loss from the health problems of fat people, and they don't look good standing around your work site either. Perhaps you also worry about what paper the resume is written on more than it's content?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 25, 2005, 7:52 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Homercles wrote:His Medical insurance may be higher, but he dies earlier. Thus saving the taxpayers his Social Security and extended health coverage.

Smokers are profit makers. They pay rediculous taxes so they can kill themselves earlier.

Win-win for non smokers

The costs don't work that way. For instance:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_dat ... lights.htm

Each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs the nation an estimated $7.18 in medical care costs and lost productivity.

Even in new york, the taxes on cigarettes aren't that high per pack.

The costs do work that way, everytime there's a holistic study that includes the "dead people don't draw social security" factor, smokers pay more out in taxes than they consume in healthcare and retirement combined.

The US studies never include early death as an economic benefit because it's too "ghoulish"

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 8:27 pm

Zaelath wrote:
And finally, I don't smoke the morning of an interview or during it, or carry smokes in my top pocket, so good luck with your screening there.

My money's on Homer! I bet he can still spot the smokers.

I'd get a pack of cigs and place them on the table between us while interviewing and watch for signs of perspiration and twitching. I'd cough a lot during the interview to lull you into false security of thinking I was a smoker until you finally broke down and asked for a cig!

miir · Post by **miir** » January 25, 2005, 8:31 pm

Comparing driving to smoking is idiotic.

The PPM of pollutants outdoors caused from cars is far less than a single individual somking in an enclosed area such as a bar or restaurant.

I can walk for hours in downtown Toronto and come home not smelling of exhaust fumes. Can you say the same when you go to a restaurant or bar with smokers? Hell, I'm a smoker and I was ecstatic when they banned smoking in restaurants and bars here in Toronto. I was sick of going out, and coming home smelling like shit from smoke filled restaurants.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 10:40 pm

Py, please, drop the Polyanna attitude w/ regards to driving, an actual necessity to the majority of occupational goers does not make an argument.

Miir summed it up best.

I smoked from around '94 to July of '03. I never smoked in a restaurant, and pretty much fell under the same personal decisions that Aab did, ie. I never smoked inside my condo or in front of people that would be directly effected by my shitty decision. I broke down far too often in my car and have the ruined upholstery in said vehicle to prove it. But I never subjected anyone else to that habit's issues.

Seriously, you go to a hellhole, you expect hellhole conditions. You go and take the fam out for a dinner, one section is too close to the other and your kids and yourself are eating smoke. Really, at a long term bar stay, I can understand because everyone is drinking and being, generally, stupid, but do you have to ruin everyone else's dinner by smoking because you are so fucking weak you can't wait 10 more minutes to step outside? Is it so fucking hard to understand why others don't want to be exposed to your nonsense?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 25, 2005, 10:46 pm

Agree w/ the last two posts... I hate the rediculous concept of a smoking section in restraunts. It's like having a pissing section in a pool.

What gets me is banning smoking outdoors, like on the beaches here. The rationale stated is littering... there's already litter laws, enforce them. It's not like enforcing anti-smoking laws is any easier. (Frankly, if you call a cop on your mobile from a beach because someone is smoking, I bet they laugh their asses off when they hang up)

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 26, 2005, 1:05 am

these new smoking laws are total bullshit. Its appalling how people vote on all these authoritarian stances...the decision for a restaurant to allow smoking or not should rest solely on the owner(s)

About smoking in the workplace, that discrimination should also be illegal...and this is coming from someone who hates cigarettes, every member of my family (with the exception of myself) and most of my friends smoke and i simply do not understand why people would want to give into such a pointless addiction, but that does not give me an excuse to support legislation that impedes on there rights

Post by **pyrella** » January 26, 2005, 1:37 am

Ok, I'll admit perhaps I held on to the analogy a bit too tightly. Main point being, there are hundreds of things that are bad, that don't receive anywhere near the attention that cigarettes do. Making judgement calls on someone because of a particular vice is also wrong. Regardless of whether a person smokes or not, it is still ultimately their responsibility to fufill their obligations - how they manage their own free time is up to them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 26, 2005, 1:46 am

Xzion wrote: About smoking in the workplace, that discrimination should also be illegal...

Come on say it you fucking moron..."smoking on airliners should be legal!" Say it! I know you're stupid enough to type it and actually mean it. You can do it!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 26, 2005, 2:18 am

Funkmasterr wrote:No moron, the point I am making is that in places like bars - if you arent going there to drink - then this obnoxious drivel is pointless, go drink your pepsi or evian in dairy queen. And if you are drinking then whining about smoking is worthless.

Here's a clue for you since you're obviously either not of age to even go to bars yet, or haven't got the social aptitude to survive in one.. bars aren't only for drinking.

People actually go to interract with other people. Strange, I know. Imagine, the nerve of going to a bar to dance, play darts, play pool, relax, listen to music, hang out with friends, watch a band.. damn commie alcoholics.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 26, 2005, 8:45 am

Winnow wrote:
Xzion wrote: About smoking in the workplace, that discrimination should also be illegal...
Come on say it you fucking moron..."smoking on airliners should be legal!" Say it! I know you're stupid enough to type it and actually mean it. You can do it!

IF the owners of the airline allow it then yes, but i highly doubt that there that dumb

...i wouldnt use that airline but if someone really wants to, then more power to them

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 26, 2005, 9:17 am

Smoking on airliners should be legal. [blur]For me.[/blur]

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 26, 2005, 10:24 am

So if your favorite bad habit kills thousands of people each year, maybe I should have the right to randomly risk your life too. I think I will get a nice 6 shot revolver and play Russian Roulette with the gun pointed at others. I guess since I should have the freedom to do what I want, then none of you assclowns should have a problem with it.

What you idiots don't understand is that you are not just hurting yourself. You are KILLING other people....slowly enough that you won't be there to watch it when it happens. What is the real difference in that and adding a very tiny dose of arsenic to someones food every day for years until they die from arsenic poisoning? The only difference is that you would go to jail for murder if you added the poison, yet you fuckers kill more and legally.

I had to sit there and watch my mother suffer and was there at the bedside watching her fucking die...gasping for every breath....due to assfucks like you who threw that fucking poison in the air like goddamn chimneys. You want to get me fired up IRL enough to fuck you up...that is the way to do it. Tell me how much freedom you have to kill who you want. I guarantee I will snap in a goddamn heartbeat. You have no idea.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » January 26, 2005, 11:00 am

i miss smoking, now when i smell it I feel violent.
such a wonderful habit. Sure you stink and can't breathe and are overall severely less healthy than a nonsmoker. But that cigarette feeeeeeels so goooooood.
sigh

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » January 26, 2005, 11:53 am

And finally, I don't smoke the morning of an interview or during it, or carry smokes in my top pocket, so good luck with your screening there.

Why dont you smoke or carry a pack on the morning of an interview? Could it be it reflects badly upon you? Trying to deceive a would be employer? You know it would be best to hide your disgusting habit. or Dont you think smelling like an ashtray would help you secure a new position? And wouldnt your yellowed teeth and stained fingers help you land a higher salary?

Why hide it? Arent you proud to be a smoker?

About smoking in the workplace, that discrimination should also be illegal...

Why is you think bar/restaurant owners should be free to choose wether to be smoking or non smoking, but you dont want to allow other employers to have the same choices?

I fully agree the government should keep their noses out of the smoking in the workplace debate. Let individual business owners make their own decisions.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 26, 2005, 12:10 pm

Homer you are missing the point about places to eat, those that smoke or don't smoke are customers, NOT employees. I've never been anywhere to eat that someone wasn't out back smoking.

And if someone smokes outside of work it's NONE of their employeers business. It's not illegal so they need to get off their judgemental high horse. These same guys are probably doing many more things that are bad for their health or cause problems for the company in general. Hell, one good provable sexual harassment suit and any savings this moron might get are gone.

You can't legislate morality no matter how much the Repubicans try and you know what? I'm fat AND I smoke and I make a lot of money, made more money for my company the past few years and probably work harder than 99% of my peers as well (Seebs excluded of course). In my previous job I designed and ran a group that built a nationwide Internet network, acted as a consultant for some of the Internet backbone providers and had the hardest working most intelligent group in the whole company... 16 out of 18 them smoked. These guys worked 60-70 hours a week consistantly to build something they were proud of... IMHO smoking and them getting time to smoke together is one of the things that kept them sane. Not to mention all the cost savings and new ideas that came from "smoke" breaks.

Do stereotypes exist? You bet they do, are they always correct? No, as someone who with hiring and firing potental you should try too look beyond that, if you don't you just might miss some of your best potential employees.

Marb

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 26, 2005, 12:13 pm

nobody wrote:i've heard an employer can legaly ask you if you are a smoker and not condsider you for employment. if health is the reason though then why don't they fire overweight people for eating cheeseburgers?

because fat people don't taint my fucking oxygen you dirty bastard.

edit: for the record, I don't care about the health effects of second hand smoke or whatever bullshit, I care that it fucking smells horrible and gives me severely debilitating headaches.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 26, 2005, 12:46 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So if your favorite bad habit kills thousands of people each year, maybe I should have the right to randomly risk your life too. I think I will get a nice 6 shot revolver and play Russian Roulette with the gun pointed at others. I guess since I should have the freedom to do what I want, then none of you assclowns should have a problem with it.

What you idiots don't understand is that you are not just hurting yourself. You are KILLING other people....slowly enough that you won't be there to watch it when it happens. What is the real difference in that and adding a very tiny dose of arsenic to someones food every day for years until they die from arsenic poisoning? The only difference is that you would go to jail for murder if you added the poison, yet you fuckers kill more and legally.

I had to sit there and watch my mother suffer and was there at the bedside watching her fucking die...gasping for every breath....due to assfucks like you who threw that fucking poison in the air like goddamn chimneys. You want to get me fired up IRL enough to fuck you up...that is the way to do it. Tell me how much freedom you have to kill who you want. I guarantee I will snap in a goddamn heartbeat. You have no idea.

Hey, I'm sorry your mom died, but science have never shown more than a passive link between cigarettes and cancer, etc. so spare me the you're killing people guil trip. Some people smoke the vast majority of their lives and die peacefully in there sleep. Some people never touch a cigarette and die of lung cancer in their 30's.

It is funny to see so many people advocating the goverment telling people how they can run their business. And we aren't talking about fair business practices, or ethics; we are talking about who a company can cater to. All across the country, where ever they have smoking bans in bars and restraunts bars are reporting lower sales. That's less money that business owner is bringing in, less he can turn around and put back into the economy. Running a successful bar isn't easy (or any business for that matter) and these bans just make it harder. If you don't like bars with smoke in them, then don' fuckin go. We are a capitalist society, the power of your money outstrips the power of your voice. If you are right and smoming in bars is really such a big deal, then economics will force bar owners to change to a non-smoking format. There's no need for the government to mandate it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 26, 2005, 1:01 pm

So people never touch a cigarette and die of lung cancer in their 30's

As did a friend of mine just over a year back. You talk about wanting to "snap" - whenever I told someone how she died (lung cancer) their first comment was "oh she was a smoker?".

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 26, 2005, 1:10 pm

Stragi wrote:
nobody wrote:i've heard an employer can legaly ask you if you are a smoker and not condsider you for employment. if health is the reason though then why don't they fire overweight people for eating cheeseburgers?
because fat people don't taint my fucking oxygen you dirty bastard.

edit: for the record, I don't care about the health effects of second hand smoke or whatever bullshit, I care that it fucking smells horrible and gives me severely debilitating headaches.

the reason stated in the article was b/c of the healthcare costs and the health effects of the smokers, not stragi. filthy wench.

when i was stationed at ft huachuca they made it illegal to smoke in any vehicle on post with the windows rolled down.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 26, 2005, 1:29 pm

Chidoro wrote:You go and take the fam out for a dinner, one section is too close to the other and your kids and yourself are eating smoke.

Then eat dinner at a restaurant that doesn't have a smoking section. There are no laws in Michigan against allowing smoking in restaurants, and there are still smoke-free establishments. Imagine that!

The argument that a lot of people are making, that is being mostly ignored, is that it's silly to mandate non-smoking in all public places when it should be the choice of the owner. If banning smoking is affecting the bottom line of someone's business, they should be allowed to have smoking in their establishment. You have every right to not go anywhere that allows smoking, why can't I have the right to go someplace that does?

If Restaurant A allows smoking and it bothers you that badly, go to Restaurant B. It doesn't seem that difficult.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 26, 2005, 1:33 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
So people never touch a cigarette and die of lung cancer in their 30's
As did a friend of mine just over a year back. You talk about wanting to "snap" - whenever I told someone how she died (lung cancer) their first comment was "oh she was a smoker?".

Same thing here except I had 2 uncles die of lung cancer who never had a smoke in their life, just surrounded by people who smoke everywhere.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 26, 2005, 1:46 pm

This thread needs a drawing from Sparty and then it needs to be locked as it will be complete.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » January 26, 2005, 1:55 pm

And how about people that have asthma and other lung problems that cannot go to certaine vents, certain places, because the right that people have to smoke (pursuit of hapiness) causes indirect harm to the other people trying to breathe.

Smoking harms other people.

If it wasn't for the fact that it is one of the most heavily taxed and lobbied industries in the country, it would have been banned ages ago.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 26, 2005, 2:48 pm

Kargyle wrote:Hey, I'm sorry your mom died, but science have never shown more than a passive link between cigarettes and cancer, etc. so spare me the you're killing people guil trip. Some people smoke the vast majority of their lives and die peacefully in there sleep. Some people never touch a cigarette and die of lung cancer in their 30's.

Smokers are living in denial, and grasping at straws, when they claim secondhand smoke isn't harmful unless there is a scientific study attached to it.