no smoking

[Aabidano]

If it weren't for smoking, I wouldn't work in IT\Telecomm. A random conversation while smoking got me roped into the industry. "You know UNIX? Have I got a deal for you."

Still don't know if that's a plus or a minus...

[Lohrno]

Ok.

I think that workers definitely should not be discriminated against. Sorry but I can't see a good justification for this.

However people who don't want to be exposed to this shouldn't have to. Outdoors doesn't really count because you can be exposed to just about any random thing including people. Perhaps just make it so that establishments that permit smoking have to post a tiny sign.

The most fucked up smoking related thing I saw was a smoking mother putting her baby into the car and blew it in it's face. Babies can have developmental problems because of things like this.

So: Let people smoke outdoors. Permit it indoors with a notice. Hell, if there is lead anything present its a California law that it needs to be posted somewhere.

[Nick]

Kilmoll wrote:

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.

Ok.....sorry your mother died, i know someone who died 2 hours ago, it is sad.

But,

You sound like a pathetic dipshit writing the above.

Duel to teh Dealth?!! Get a fucking grip.

[Sueven]

My ideal:

Indoor establishments should be assumed to be non-smoking by default. The ownership of the establishments can choose to allow smoking on their premises, and must post notice of this fact.

Smokers should be bound by etiquette to smoke outside unless they are on private property or in a smoking establishment.

Companies have the right to control the smoking habits of the employees while on company time. This means that companies can institute policies that employees not be allowed to smoke at work, and even policies that employees must not smell of smoke at work, regardless of where they actually smoked. Companies should not have the right to discriminate based on things that people do off the clock.

[Tenuvil]

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.

IRL PK INC!!1

Seriously, there is no fucking way you or anyone else can prove a conclusive link between second hand smoke and lung cancer, despite what the anti-smoking nazis at the-truth.com would have you believe. News flash: people can just.get.lung.cancer. Without even smoking!

Hold up an orange circle and a piece of yarn for us Kilmoll.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Companies should also be allowed to not pay for insurance coverage on smokers. Baseball players can be bound to contracts that can be voided instantly if they engage in certain risky activities outside of the season...why can't employers void the contract of a worker for doing the same?

[Fash]

because employer's dont depend on their employees physical capabilities to be in top notch, running the bases at top speed or to throw 120mph fastballs...

they want some keys punched, orders completed... smoking is not hurting productivity, low wages is.

[Marbus]

Well said Fash!

Personally as a smoker I don't smoke in the house, in my wife's car or around my children. When I go somewhere to eat, unless I'm with a group of smokers, I sit in the non-smoking section for the enjoyment of my peers. I don't know about any studies but I can tell you from my keen observatory skills that smoke often blows to areas in a restaurant where people don't want it... thus if the owner dosen't want people to smoke there and it won't hurt his business? make it none smoking, I'm good with that, if the food is excellent, I'll still drop by from time to time.

The point of this article though was an employeer firing employees because of something legal they didn't outside of work. That is wrong and he should be punished. I can PROMISE you that if a good portion of executive mgt. smoked the topic would have never come up.

I sent the link to a friend of my wife's who just moved here from Serbia. Both her parents are surgons and both smoke. She said, as many others I have spoken to from Europe said, "Everybody smokes" it's not the big deal it is here in America... she also dosen't know anyone who has died of lung cancer, yet their cigaretts are much stronger than ours... hmmm...hmmm...

However I'm not going to kid myself and say that I think smoking is healthy or anything. Eventually I plan to quit, probably even this year. However this antismoking Nazis just give me gas... there are TOOOOOOOO many people with not enough to do in this country. More people should learn to keep their nose out of other people's business if it isn't hurting them (which smoking outside, away from work) isn't.

Marb

[Lohrno]

[Rekaar.]

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.

Problem with that inherently great idea (allowing the business discretion) is thatif one guy does it he loses business to those that don't cooperate. Same thing happens when every carpenter in town "bands together" and agree to not spend any money on advertising for the year...then one guy throws ads in at the last minute and cleans up.

Smoking is bad. For you and for everyone around you. I don't think anyone can debate that, shit even the manufacturers agree. It shouldn't be done in a place that affects anyone else for that reason. That's what laws are supposed to be for - protect the populace from itself.

[Kylere]

From the recent news on this issue, those 4 that were fired are in fact about to hit the lottery.

No matter how fascist a company wants to be they cannot make a condition of employment that defines a legal activity as illegal. Anyone they hire from this day forward is hosed, but these people are going to be paid.

On a side note, I am now smoke free over 18 months and I think that anyone who does not quit smoking is a fool, because the difference in quality of life is HUGE and cannot be understated. But while this is true, it is certainly not within the rights of an employer to do this to employees.

[cid]

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.

Bet you waste more time on the internet then I do at smoking while at work.

Next excuse plz..

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

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.

Best use logic to counteract a stupid question nominee.

[Zaelath]

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?

Proud.. of being a smoker? Are you proud that you masturbate and bring that up in job interviews? It's a habit, what's to be "proud" of?

I hide it, because I know the world is full of self-righteous, small people like yourself that feel their crusade against a drug that causes far less harm than alcohol is annointed by God, because it's "anti-social".

I don't however think being a smoker "reflects badly" on me. I do however think being an obnoxious, arrogant, bigot reflects badly on you.

[nobody]

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?

Proud.. of being a smoker? Are you proud that you masturbate and bring that up in job interviews? It's a habit, what's to be "proud" of?

I hide it, because I know the world is full of self-righteous, small people like yourself that feel their crusade against a drug that causes far less harm than alcohol is annointed by God, because it's "anti-social".

I don't however think being a smoker "reflects badly" on me. I do however think being an obnoxious, arrogant, bigot reflects badly on you.

if my employer (the army) knew i masturbated, i'd be in trouble. it's aginst the ucmj, heh.

the alcohol thing is a good point. b/c it harms as many people, i would presume, who don't make the choice to drink as does tobacco. tobacco users should pay more into the health system but not be outlawed.

[Lohrno]

tobacco users should pay more into the health system but not be outlawed.

I'd sign on for that.

[Kelshara]

I think that workers definitely should not be discriminated against. Sorry but I can't see a good justification for this.

heh people who smoke cost their companies a LOT of money on wasted work time.. I know the guys who smoke where I work take way way more breaks than those who don't.

[Akaran_D]

Ok, slightly off topic - it's ILLEGAL in the military to whack off?
The hell?

[Nick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... smoking_dc

Update

Now they are going to start on the fat people!

What the fuck planet is your country on allowing personal fucking freedoms to be marginalized this much? I mean for fucks sake get it together!

Watch in shock and awe as the world rebrands fat people and smokers 'terrorists'.

[nobody]

Ok, slightly off topic - it's ILLEGAL in the military to whack off?
The hell?

yes, according to ucmj ANYTHING but the missionary position with a married partner is considered sodomy. you can get a chapter 8 if they think you have a problem for masturbating.

[Nick]

That's why Kylere is so angry

[Zaelath]

I think that workers definitely should not be discriminated against. Sorry but I can't see a good justification for this.

heh people who smoke cost their companies a LOT of money on wasted work time.. I know the guys who smoke where I work take way way more breaks than those who don't.

That's your companies choice, the same as giving "open" net access at the desktop v's filtered. There's no law that says you must give people as many breaks as they want.

[Kelshara]

Hard to keep track of them every minute of the day.

On a side note, another thing I really hate about smokers is how they throw cigarettes everywhere. I don't give a shit if you smoke outside (well I do to some extent, I have a weak allergy for it).. but I hate having to wade through trashed cigs everywhere!

[Winnow]

I think that workers definitely should not be discriminated against. Sorry but I can't see a good justification for this.

heh people who smoke cost their companies a LOT of money on wasted work time.. I know the guys who smoke where I work take way way more breaks than those who don't.

That's your companies choice, the same as giving "open" net access at the desktop v's filtered. There's no law that says you must give people as many breaks as they want.

You're full of excuses on this smoking thing...oh wait...you're a liberal and a smoker...whoah...you very well may be the third antichrist.

I'd expect conservative smokers to suck it up and acknowledge smoking is a bad habit and not try to make excuses for it. If I was a smoker, I'd have no problem at all stating that it was a nasty habit that and that I should clear way the fuck away from other people if I chose to smoke.

I could care less if you smoke. The excuses and analogies coming from smokers on this thread is a hoot though. You act like there's no medical evidence that smoking and second hand smoke causes all sorts of havok with people's health. I suppose you guys think the holocaust never happened either.

Smoke in your fucking car with the windows rolled up...that way you get to smoke and also enjoy the second hand smoke...sweet! Double your pleasure.

I guess my bad habit is drinking from time to time. When I drink too much, I promise not to vomit directly into your mouth so you aren't exposed to that second hand alcohol effect.

[Nick]

Wet eye syndrome hits teh Winnow

[Zaelath]

I think that workers definitely should not be discriminated against. Sorry but I can't see a good justification for this.

heh people who smoke cost their companies a LOT of money on wasted work time.. I know the guys who smoke where I work take way way more breaks than those who don't.

That's your companies choice, the same as giving "open" net access at the desktop v's filtered. There's no law that says you must give people as many breaks as they want.

You're full of excuses on this smoking thing...oh wait...you're a liberal and a smoker...whoah...you very well may be the third antichrist.

I'd expect conservative smokers to suck it up and acknowledge smoking is a bad habit and not try to make excuses for it. If I was a smoker, I'd have no problem at all stating that it was a nasty habit that and that I should clear way the fuck away from other people if I chose to smoke.

I could care less if you smoke. The excuses and analogies coming from smokers on this thread is a hoot though. You act like there's no medical evidence that smoking and second hand smoke causes all sorts of havok with people's health. I suppose you guys think the holocaust never happened either.

Smoke in your fucking car with the windows rolled up...that way you get to smoke and also enjoy the second hand smoke...sweet! Double your pleasure.

I guess my bad habit is drinking from time to time. When I drink too much, I promise not to vomit directly into your mouth so you aren't exposed to that second hand alcohol effect.

I'm almost not surprised at this off-point rant from you, Winnow. But please, for the love of God, show me where I advocated smoking in restraunts, smoking in offices, smoking pretty much anywhere I might directly affect anyone else (other than perhaps a bar, but I haven't been to a bar in years)

My ire was purely directed to someone that suggests a smoker should be *denied employment* purely because they're a smoker.

If you drink to the point you vomit, then you have a substance abuse problem, and that problem does affect others. If you do it in public; directly. If you do it at home while rubbing one off to your Jenna and Barbara Bush nude fakes; then your eventual alcohol related health problems affect others indirectly. If you've ever had more than a couple of drinks and driven around the block then you should just forget ever hassling a smoker ever again for "risking your health with their habit"

Alcohol is a far more devestating drug, responsible for around the same amount of deaths every year and a wide range of other problems, but no one gives a damn because they can't smell you drinking from 6 feet away.

Your lack of ability to assess relative risk not withstanding, there is nothing more amusing than a drinker looking at a smoker and saying, "Shocking, you'd never see me abuse my body like that" while huffing down fries and a burger.

[Winnow]

Your lack of ability to assess relative risk not withstanding, there is nothing more amusing than a drinker looking at a smoker and saying, "Shocking, you'd never see me abuse my body like that" while huffing down fries and a burger.

The last time I blew oats from drinking too much was probably a decade ago. My superhuman power was the ability to party through college and still do well.

I don't drink to excess or even close to it these days. I had to dig deep to find anything remotely as bad as smoking for comparison. Casual drinking (not while working of course) has zero second hand health impact on those around you. If it does, then it's an addiction, much like smokers are stuck on nicotine (an alkaloid poison that occurs in tobacco; used as an insecticide) Do you blow smoke in the face of babies or is it just adults around you that are magically immune from your second hand smoke?

BTW, I can find a zillion articles that say a glass of wine or beer a day can actually be good for you. I can't find one that says a cigarette a day is good for you. The closest thing would be medical use of marijuana for someone that's in chronic pain from illness and already well on their way out the door. And even that's not healthy. It's just a way to ease the greater pain.

Feel free to hijack this into an alcohol discussion as I'm sure you're dying to get off the topic of tobacco asap.

As for smoking at work, it's clearly established that smoking is a major health risk. That includes second hand smoke. If you want to do it, you take the time to walk your ass to wherever the designated smoking area is that won't harm non smokers. Do it in the same break time it takes someone else to take a piss and get their coffee. You've got the habit. You waste the extra time dealing with it. If you're concerned about the lost time, start eating nicotine gum and wearing nicotine patches on your forehead.

[Zaelath]

Are you drunk at the moment, or just incapable of comprehension?

Again, please point out where I said anything about smoking being healthy, subjecting anyone to second hand smoke, suggesting smoking at work was a right (quite the opposite), or any of the bullshit you're going on about.

[Xzion]

tobacco users should pay more into the health system but not be outlawed.

I'd sign on for that.

thats not a very conservative stance on your part nobody, what ever happened to small government?

[Sylvus]

Problem with that inherently great idea (allowing the business discretion) is thatif one guy does it he loses business to those that don't cooperate. Same thing happens when every carpenter in town "bands together" and agree to not spend any money on advertising for the year...then one guy throws ads in at the last minute and cleans up.

Smoking is bad. For you and for everyone around you. I don't think anyone can debate that, shit even the manufacturers agree. It shouldn't be done in a place that affects anyone else for that reason. That's what laws are supposed to be for - protect the populace from itself.

That's not a problem though. There are quite a few non-smoking establishments (at least in the state of Michigan) who have done so by choice. While I'm sure some of it is altruism, it probably isn't at that great an expense to profit.

I'm not claiming that smoking isn't bad for you, it is. I'll also say that second-hand smoke probably isn't good for you. I guess the real question is the degree to which it is bad for you. You can choose to go into or not go into a place that allows smoking. If not being around the minimal second-hand smoke that wafts into the non-smoking section for 45 minutes while you eat is that important to you, don't eat there. There you go, you've now avoided secondhand smoke. But when you walked into the non-smoking restaurant and ordered that rich, creamy pasta or that delicious steak, you may have just done as much or more harm to yourself than being around the secondhand smoke would have. Guess we should shut that restaurant down as well, or force them to serve only raw vegetables?

Or should we just inform people that smoking has killed a lot of people, as has booze, as have fatty foods, driving in a car, having sex, standing under coconut trees, joining the army, working in a coal mine, virtually anything else that you can possibly do... and allow people to make their own decisions as to what level of risk they want to put themselves in?

I prefer that option.

[nobody]

tobacco users should pay more into the health system but not be outlawed.

I'd sign on for that.

thats not a very conservative stance on your part nobody, what ever happened to small government?

nobody's perfect. it has unfortunately become a necessary evil. paying more into the system could be higher insurance costs and medical expenses not just taxes. i dunno there's a lot of different ways. what do the taxes on tobacco go to? i'd say most of it should go to health care.

[Aslanna]

If not being around the minimal second-hand smoke that wafts into the non-smoking section for 45 minutes while you eat is that important to you, don't eat there. There you go, you've now avoided secondhand smoke.

On the other hand, is it so hard for smokers to go 45 minutes without a cigarette while in a restaurant?

But when you walked into the non-smoking restaurant and ordered that rich, creamy pasta or that delicious steak, you may have just done as much or more harm to yourself than being around the secondhand smoke would have. Guess we should shut that restaurant down as well, or force them to serve only raw vegetables?

Again, you're missing the whole point. When it comes to what we eat we make the determination ourselves. When it comes to secondhand smoke that decision is taken away from us. Of course then smokers come back with "Nobody is forcing you to go out to a restaurant" or something equally stupid.

[nobody]

"Nobody is forcing you to go out to a restaurant"

i should change my name

[Nick]

I agree with Marbus on this. He is the only one here that doesn't have sand in his vagina.

[Wulfran]

One aspect that has been ignored here (and is usually overlooked in most examinations of second hand smoke, particularly with regard to restarants and bars) is the impact on the staff of the establishments, who have to deal with the smoke for a 4-8hr shift. A couple of years ago, the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia (responsible in BC for the enforcement of OSHA type laws) was actually in the process of making smoking illegal in all work places in BC because it presented increased danger of chronic respiratory ailments to the employees. There was a challenge to this being raised, supposedly on the grounds that any such ruling would be discriminatory against the rights of smokers. I never heard what the outlook of it was but it did make me think a little differently in terms of the effects on those staff (as well as to laugh that in BC two arms of the same government would go head-to-head on the issue in this manner in a turf-war).

As far as the company in question and the original dismissals, in most Canadian jurisdictions, I don't see how they could get away with this unless the company could show that the "off duty" smoking directly affected the company in some manner.

As far as you smoking apologists out there: fuck off and die, quickly. The studies linking smoking and respiratory illness have existed for decades. The studies showing links between smoking and increased instances of cancer have existed for decades. The second hand smoke studies are newer but they exist too: if you don't believe me, talk to your doctor and quit believing the bullshit the tobacco lobbies generate to try and hang onto their profit margins. Your "right" to kill yourself with tobacco ends the second it affects anyone else.

[Lohrno]

Your "right" to kill yourself with tobacco ends the second it affects anyone else.

Fair enough but I don't think people are arguing for being able to smoke everywhere anywhere in this thread. In fact I think that they just want to not be discriminated againt in the work place and they want some places they can go to do it. Seems reasonable enough to me.

[Homercles]

I have no crusade against smokers. As I said earlier in this thread, smokers are an economic benefit to this country. They pay higher taxes and die early. Im all for people freeing up their social security so it can go elsewhere.

As regards to my business, I hold smokers in a different light. In the 10 years I have been running this place, it is my experience that smokers are less productive than non smokers. That is accurate to the employee. I dont run a teckie drone cubicle induced office. I run a small business where production needs to be at its highest level on a daily basis. Same day turn around. NOW NOW NOW is when I need things done. The smokers Ive hired have lacked the ability to do this. They require too many breaks to keep themselves even tempered. And theyre work quality is harmed when they dont get that regularly scheduled break to feed their nicotine habit.

My business is my livelihood. And I do what is necessary to make sure it runs smoothly and profitably. And I try to make sure it continues to grow and expand. Smokers have detracted from these goals. Smokers do not create the most efficient workforce I can assemble. Therefore, if I have a choice between equal applicants, I will choose the non-smoker.

If you CHOOSE to smoke. I CHOOSE not to hire you.
If you CHOOSE to plaster tattoos all over your face and arms. I CHOOSE not to hire you.
If you CHOOSE to have 15 pieces of metal sticking out of your face. I CHOOSE not to hire you.


And Noel...youre not only wasting time smoking, youre also wasting time on the internet. You have 2 vices, and double the down time. -nuff said


and I dont know what kind of self restraint you have, but I dont need to take a break during work hours so I can go jack off. Spankers can leave that habit at home. Smokers can not leave their habit at home.

[Lohrno]

If you CHOOSE to smoke. I CHOOSE not to hire you.
If you CHOOSE to plaster tattoos all over your face and arms. I CHOOSE not to hire you.
If you CHOOSE to have 15 pieces of metal sticking out of your face. I CHOOSE not to hire you.

Not all smokers smoke a pack a day. If you don't allow them breaks, and they are less productive/agitated because of that then yeah. But just because they smoke is a bad reason. Some smoke 1 or two a day....

[Fash]

Homer must be the typical cheap arrogant boss...

My business is my livelihood. And I do what is necessary to make sure it runs smoothly and profitably. And I try to make sure it continues to grow and expand. Smokers have detracted from these goals. Smokers do not create the most efficient workforce I can assemble. Therefore, if I have a choice between equal applicants, I will choose the non-smoker.

'My raids are my guilds livelihood and I do what is necessary to make sure it runs smoothly and profitably. Rangers have detracted from these goals. Rangers do not create the most efficient raid force I can assemble. Therefore, if I have a choice between equal applicants, I will choose the rogue.'

The only reason you demand that much production rate from your employees is because you're too cheap and greedy to hire an extra hand or two to ease the slack... You probably don't give a shit about your employees.. Work is not about being someones bitch for 8 hours solid.

I work in a progressive office, where I can take a smoke break whenever I feel like it... and I finish everything that needs to be done before I leave.

[Winnow]

One aspect that has been ignored here (and is usually overlooked in most examinations of second hand smoke, particularly with regard to restarants and bars) is the impact on the staff of the establishments, who have to deal with the smoke for a 4-8hr shift.

That's the best point yet on this thread Wulfran. I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

"Oh, it's just a puff or two while I'm eating." Grats for fucking the lives of the workers as well who have to deal with it all day long. Perhaps they should get jobs elsewhere...how many people do you need to displace before you figure out it's you the SMOKER that's the problem and that you need to accommodate others, not the other way around.

[pyrella]

One aspect that has been ignored here (and is usually overlooked in most examinations of second hand smoke, particularly with regard to restarants and bars) is the impact on the staff of the establishments, who have to deal with the smoke for a 4-8hr shift.

That's the best point yet on this thread Wulfran. I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

"Oh, it's just a puff or two while I'm eating." Grats for fucking the lives of the workers as well who have to deal with it all day long. Perhaps they should get jobs elsewhere...how many people do you need to displace before you figure out it's you the SMOKER that's the problem and that you need to accommodate others, not the other way around.

Work is also a privilige, and not a right. Work someplace else (just as the original topic is having the smokers do). If a business has no employees, they can't be open for business, thus economics solves the problem yet again.

Not that I don't necessarily feel bad for these people, but if you want to point out one end of the spectrum, don't forget to point out the other.

Personally, indoor smoking establishments are a kind of novelty to me, like Vegas. California doesn't allow much in the way of indoor smoking period...private 'clubs' (read: bars that allow smoking, and cigar clubs), and that's about it. There is no such thing as a smoking section *in* a restaraunt out here, unless of course they offer outdoor seating.



Man you guys sure do get down on one of the earliest principal crops of this great nation!

The biggest problem with all this is everyone is such a prick about it. I don't think there has been a single time when someone asked me or any of my smoking friends to please stop smoking, that we haven't apologized, and put the cigarette out. At the FF's, I either hung with specifically the smokers, or when around someone who I was unaware if they were a smoker or not, or a known non smoker (Winnow), I always asked before lighting up.

After about the second or third month of smoking, there is no more 'rebel' feeling about it, and we are aware of what happens, and how it impacts those around us. For all these bonus taxes we pay to state, federal, and local (some cities also have a tax), we should be getting free patches/gum/prescriptions, etc...no? Maybe all you non smokers can get free gasmasks!

[Lynks]

People shouldn't have to look for a new job for health reasons.

[pyrella]

People shouldn't have to look for a new job for health reasons.

Again.... have the place ban smoking - economics will show you the way.

As was already pointed out, there are a shit ton of businesses who do that....and they continue to thrive. You have a choice. It's not like a year ago no one smoked, and all of a sudden it started up. These people *chose* to work at an establishment that allowed smoking.

So no, they shouldn't have to look for a new one because of smokers, they shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

[Lynks]

Maybe its different were you are from, but over here, 2 years ago, every restaurant, bar, ect allowed smoking. You can probably find some little ma and pa store that didnt allow it though but how many people can they hire.

Owners of these places were given a chance to switch and adopt non-smoking policies, but they didnt.

Now we passed a bylaw that forbids people to smoke indoors in public areas and up to 30 feet from any door. Thats the only way people will change, over here that is.

[Kylere]

A local columnist makes a GREAT point about this http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/bre ... 256480.xml

Smoking policy is very scary
FLINT JOURNAL COLUMN
FLINT
THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION
Friday, January 28, 2005
By Brenda Brissette-Mata
JOURNAL COLUMNIST

It's a little hard to rally support for smokers.

These are people who willingly risk not only their health but the health of nonsmokers with whom they share the Earth's air.

They stick fire to the tip of those cancer sticks, suck in all that poison and then exhale the smoke for everybody else to breathe. The tide of social acceptance has turned with a vengeance, and smokers have felt the push.

Restaurants, bars, office buildings and bingo halls are smoke-free. So when a company near Lansing instituted a policy that makes it a firing offense for employees to smoke - not just at work, but at home - nobody seemed to make too much of it.

Howard Weyes, founder of Weyco Inc., an Okemos-based health benefits administrator, instituted a no-smoking policy for employees that not only forbids smoking in the workplace, but also during nonbusiness hours.

Weyes hoped the rule would protect his company from escalating health-care costs. It was announced in 2003 and went into effect on Jan. 1.

January isn't even over, and Weyco has fired four employees for refusing to take a test to prove they haven't been smoking.

Weyes makes no apology for the policy or the firings. When the policy was announced in 2003, an estimated 10 percent of the company's 200 employees were smokers. At the beginning of this year, as many as 14 employees had quit smoking - definitely a positive outcome.

I have no idea if the four who were fired are still smoking or not, but they refused to take the test requested by Weyco to prove they weren't smoking during their off hours.

Let's play a game - how about we substitute overeating for smoking?

Obesity is a huge health problem. In a study by the Rand Corp., health economist Roland Sturm and psychiatrist Kenneth Wells examined the comparative effects of obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and poverty on chronic health conditions and expenditures.

According to their study, obesity is the most serious.

Get that? It affects more people than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty.

Should employers test cholesterol levels and fire employees who don't stay below 250? 200?

If you go out for a Big Mac at lunch, do you risk losing your job?

And what about pregnancy? A 1992 study by insurance provider CIGNA found that expenses related to childbirth were the largest single component of total health-care costs for employers, accounting for 10-49 percent.

For those with particularly short memories, there was a time - not that long ago - when women were forced to quit their jobs during pregnancy.

This is scary territory, and despite the best intentions, this policy could have dangerous repercussions.

[Winnow]

This was to be my next outfit at FF.

[pyrella]

And the overeating has arrived!



http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/18/news/mi ... tm?cnn=yes

[nobody]

i hate you pyrella!

it's nothing new. you have to keep a weight standard in the military. depending on how tall you are and how old you are affects how much you can weigh and what body fat percentage you can have. this is all well and fine since you should be in shape to fight in a war. the thing that gets me is you can run a four minute mile and be overweight and still recieve disciplinary action and eventually a discharge from service. i have friends who have scored 290 out of 300 on PT tests, well over the 210 requirement, and were less than 10 pounds over the weight standard. it's the wrong standard.

[Zaelath]

Can I take your order?

Tis a curly one.. I can see how a fat chick in a slut outfit could be shown to be directly bad for business. Not quite the dilema I think it should be though, since in this instance you've signed on to be objectified for your body, which is the real issue: should businesses be allowed to enforce a dress code like Hooters? Probably not.

[Kindo]

Follow-up article from Newsweek that I read this morning:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7019590/site/newsweek/

A Job or a Cigarette?
As health insurance costs continue to climb, companies are urging employees to curb unhealthy behavior like smoking—and sometimes refusing to hire smokers at all. Will Big Mac lovers be next?

WEB EXLCUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett Ozols
Newsweek
Updated: 10:14 a.m. ET Feb. 24, 2005


Feb. 24 - Weyco may be one of the only large companies in the country that can boast not only a smoke-free workplace, but a smoke-free workforce. Achieving that status, however, didn’t come without a lot of effort—and controversy.

Howard Weyers, the founder and CEO of the Michigan-based health-benefits-management company, attracted a lot of media attention—and the ire of workers’ advocates—when he let go four employees recently after they refused to stop smoking. Civil-rights activists accused the company of discrimination, arguing that Weyers was punishing workers for engaging in a legal activity on their own time.

Weyers claimed that he gave his employees plenty of notice and opportunities and incentives to quit. “I gave them a little over 15 months to decide which is most important: my job or tobacco?” says Weyers.

That’s a question that more Americans may be asking themselves these days. Most companies already ban tobacco use in the workplace and more than a half dozen states and hundreds of cities have enacted laws to the same effect. Now, citing rising health-insurance costs and concerns about employees’ well-being, a growing number of companies are refusing to hire people who smoke, even if they do so on their own time and nowhere near their jobs. An estimated 6,000 employers no longer hire smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.


From a sheriff’s department in San Mateo County, Calif., to an Ace Hardware store in St. Petersburg, Fla., to a community college in Kalamazoo, Mich., employers in several industries and states are telling smokers they need not apply. Even large corporations like Union Pacific have tightened restrictions. Last fall, the railroad company announced a no-smoking policy anywhere on its properties, including rail yards and train stations. In eight states where there are no statutes forbidding it, job applicants who indicate they are smokers are automatically rejected, says Union Pacific spokesman John Bromley. “The thinking was, you have to go to so much effort to help people stop smoking and to deal with the extra health costs that smokers have that it made more sense to just not hire smokers in the first place,” says Bromley.

Weyers stopped hiring smokers at Weyco in early 2003 for the same reason, but there were still smokers on the payroll. So he paid for them to enroll in cessation programs and gave them a bonus once they’d kicked the habit. Then Weyers banned smoking on company property, so an employee had to punch out and actually walk off the property to light up.

Finally, last year Weyco began monthly tobacco testing and charged a new $50-a-month fee to workers who tested positive or declined to be tested. The charge was intended in part to defray the costs of helping employees quit, but also to provide holdouts with another incentive to follow suit. Those who were identified as nonsmokers in the test were exempt from paying the fee. Smokers could waive the fee as well, if they agreed to enter a cessation program, which the company covered. Twenty of the 27 workers who tested positive for nicotine (out of about 200 total employees) ended up kicking the habit, says Weyers, along with at least three of their spouses. Another three smokers left the company for unrelated personal reasons. The four who remained at the end of the year were told that they would lose their jobs if they tested positive for nicotine in January. Rather than take the test, they left.


“We’re not trying to get rid of people,” says Weyers. “We’re just trying to get them healthier.”

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. “If smoking can be used as a potential criterion for hiring or terminating employees, not only do you create a class of people no longer employable but, more importantly, you start down a very slippery slope,” says Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute. “There’s very little we do in our private lives that doesn’t affect our health or productivity. What’s next? Are employers going to start choosing what you eat off the job?”

And the four former Weyco workers have since enlisted the help of state senator Virg Bernero, who has indicated he will introduce legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against people who smoke. At least 30 other states already have similar statutes in place that range from Arizona’s law, which forbids state agencies from discriminating against employees specifically on the basis of off-duty tobacco use, to North Dakota, where both private- and public-sector employers are banned from discriminating against workers on the basis of any lawful activity, including smoking, during nonworking hours.


But there’s no question that companies are feeling the pinch from rising health-care expenses. According to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, employer health-insurance premiums rose an average of more than 11 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth. There were at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than in 2001, according to the survey, in part because of soaring costs. Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance have been rising at about five times the rate of inflation and workers’ earnings.

In a poll conducted last fall by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), more than 25 percent of the 375 companies surveyed said that increases in the costs of consumer services or products were somewhat (24 percent) or very (5 percent) likely in the next year to help cover the cost of employee health-care coverage. Twenty percent of those surveyed said it was somewhat likely—and 8 percent said it was very likely—that rising health-care costs would result in decreases in hiring of new staff. And many respondents said their company had made adjustments in copays, deductibles and the level of services offered through the health-insurance plan to offset rising costs.

Smoking is a common target of employer health programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has calculated the economic costs of smoking at $3,383 per smoker per year—$1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. And cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It’s blamed for a host of problems ranging from respiratory illnesses to cancer, coronary heart disease and even wrinkles. Each year, tobacco use accounts for approximately 417,000 premature deaths, including 50,000 among nonsmokers regularly exposed to second-hand smoke.

Some employers, including Weyco, are also targeting another common cause of illness: obesity. In a study released this week, researchers at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio found that health-care expenditures related to excess weight totaled $56 billion in 2000. And a study last fall by researchers at Emory University attributed more than one quarter of the growth in health-care spending over the past 15 years to obesity.

That focus has led to some concerns that overweight workers could also find their jobs at risk. If there’s no state statute in place, says Kevin Zwetsch, a labor employment lawyer at Fowler White Boggs Banker in Florida, “There’s nothing unlawful about an employer saying if you want to work for me, you can’t eat Big Macs.”

Still, he doesn’t see that happening anytime soon. “There are immense cost pressures on employers with the way medical costs are rising so rapidly,” he says. “But there’s more of a direct link between cigarette smoking and health costs.”

Instead, say employment experts, companies are taking a different approach to promoting healthy lifestyles. At Weyco, for example, there’s a wellness coordinator on staff who meets with employees individually, walking trails on the property and cash incentives for employees who meet weight-loss, fitness and other personalized health goals. “We want to be a model for our clients,” says Weyers.

Other companies are taking similar measures, from implementing wellness programs to offering discounts on gym memberships and low-fat food options in the company cafeteria. “You have a lot of employers who are really looking at what changes can be made in the workplace rather than in hiring practices,” says Jennifer Schramm, manager of the workplace trends and forecasting program at SHRM.

Some companies have redesigned their offices to encourage more exercise, setting elevators up to skip floors and installing stairs instead. Others offer on-site yoga and exercise classes or discounts at nearby gyms. And many have started offering low-carb and low-cal options in vending machines and cafeterias. Several companies that SHRM interviewed said they have programs in place to help employees with specific health issues like diabetes or asthma. “Employers are seeing they have to do some things to address the rising health costs,” says Schramm. “And many are now making the transition into offering preventive programs that really work.” Now that’s a solution that ought to please both employees and employers.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Another report I started to read about the effects of the smoking ban in New York after a year:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/smoke/s ... report.pdf
I haven't read all of that yet, but I thought it was interesting enough to share.

On day 11 of my quit here and so damn proud of myself. Not going to preach but I would just like to thank, from the bottom of my heart, whoever it was that posted the link to quitnet (http://www.quitnet.com).