• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fired for smoking? Constitutional?

Is it Constitutional to fire people for smoking

  • It's Constitutional to ban people from smoking

    Votes: 12 44.4%

  • It's Un-Constitutional

    Votes: 9 33.3%

  • It's Constitutional but Un-American

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • It's Un-Constitutionl but that should be changed.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Total voters
    27
First of all, right up front, I smoke. Recently re-started smoking to be precise - but I do not smoke at work.

But it sounds to me like Kelzie is being unfairly attacked here. All she is saying is that, in America, a private company can require their employees to comply with any standards that are not based on discrimination by race, ethnicity, gender or religion. That is the law of the land. What exactly is wrong with or radical about that position?

If Scott's Miracle Gro has decided to make this a policy that is their business - literally. They are giving people a year to quit smoking or find other employment - I think that sounds extremely fair. Some people will quit and be healthier for it - not to mention grateful for the motivation. Others will certainly be able to find employment within a year that will be tolerant of their smoking. I don't see what the big deal is here. People quitting smoking is a good thing. And there is nothing fascist about it. We're not talking about taking away people's rights of free speech - we're talking about smoking. When the fascists do come, I highly doubt their first move is going to be to get everybody to stop smoking and eat healthier. Everybody just chill. Now I'm gonna go have a smoke. :2wave:
 
Deegan said:
Why would a law firm have to retain outside help?:confused:

And the questions you have avoided are plenty, but I will ask this one again.

Should a company force you to eat healthy at home, be like you;) , and is that appropriate, if at all legal?
Click to expand...

Retain their employment.


I, personally would have no problem with a company it they did that. If I did have a problem (just couldn't give up my greasy cheese burgers or something ;) ) then I would quit.
 
Kelzie said:
Retain their employment.


I, personally would have no problem with a company it they did that. If I did have a problem (just couldn't give up my greasy cheese burgers or something ;) ) then I would quit.
Click to expand...


That said, why have laws at all, a nigger(just for affect)could just quit, find another job, if the racist does not like him? The law is quite clear, and it does not exclude issues in which one could not change, i.e color, gender, sexual preference. There is a case to be made here, I am just surprised that you as a self proclaimed "liberal" are on the wrong side of it.
 
Deegan said:
That said, why have laws at all, a nigger(just for affect)could just quit, find another job, if the racist does not like him? The law is quite clear, and it does not exclude issues in which one could not change, i.e color, gender, sexual preference. There is a case to be made here, I am just surprised that you as a self proclaimed "liberal" are on the wrong side of it.
Click to expand...

Because you can change your eating habits. You cannot change your skin color. You can quit smoking, you can not get arrested. The law does not protect your employment for personal choices you make. Only for those you cannot help.
 
Kelzie said:
Because you can change your eating habits. You cannot change your skin color. You can quit smoking, you can not get arrested. The law does not protect your employment for personal choices you make. Only for those you cannot help.
Click to expand...


Again, not answering the question, SHOULD YOU BE FORCED TO CHANGE YOUR EATING HABITS, and is this legal, fair, constitutional in your mind????????
 
Deegan said:
Again, not answering the question, SHOULD YOU BE FORCED TO CHANGE YOUR EATING HABITS, and is this legal, fair, constitutional in your mind????????
Click to expand...
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They are asking them to make a choice.
 
Deegan said:
Again, not answering the question, SHOULD YOU BE FORCED TO CHANGE YOUR EATING HABITS, and is this legal, fair, constitutional in your mind????????
Click to expand...

I have already answered that twice. But, I'll answer it again. Yes it's legal and constiutional. Fair? Maybe, maybe not. But life's not fair. It wasn't fair that I didn't have insurance when I broke my foot. And yet I sucked it up, and moved on. Maybe it's not fair that a company fires people for smoking. But it's their company and their choice.

Anyway, been fun, but I gotta go eat. :2wave: I'm sure we'll continue this later.
 
I can't seem to play the video, but here's my experience:

I used to work for Pete Lien & Sons inc.
In addition to being physically sound, with a doctor signing off on my hearing, sight, lung capacity, drug test, range-of-motion, etc., one *condition of employment* (= perfectly constitutional) that I had to agree too was that I was not a smoker, and that I would not start smoking, even just one cigarette, for the duration of my employment.

Falsifying my answer or violating this policy at anytime during my employment would have resulted in immediate termination.

In addition to raising the company's portion of my insurance premiums, smoking was banned due to the following job related hazards/working conditions:
1. Resporators. Smoking reduced or eliminated one's ability to use a resporator, which was a daily must on some jobs (mine included).
2. Fine dust. The apnosphere within the prosessing plants contained fine dust. A smoker's pre-existing diminished lunge capacity would only be exacerbated by this fine dust. Also, this fine dust would greatly increase the risk of infections in the lung for smokers.
3. Hand pumped Gasoline and Diesel. Each Operator was required to fill their own flue tanks for their Front Loader/Forklift/Truck, etc. Nedless to say, fire + gas fumes = bad day.

I remember some fringe reasons as well, like people wanting to take extra brakes, cigarette butts falling into Haydite block mixtures, etc.

ps. Most quarries that produce Haydite will let you buy some in small, privet quantities.....like a 5 gal. bucket full......and Haydite is great for guardens.
 
Last edited:
mixedmedia said:
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They are asking them to make a choice.
Click to expand...

Or be fired, so I assume you are o.k with this practice, knowing full well where it may lead this nation. Hey, I hate niggers, I'll just say he smoked, or he drank, or he ate greasy chicken! This is where this is heading, and you people don't seem to care at all!!!!:roll:
 
Deegan said:
Or be fired, so I assume you are o.k with this practice, knowing full well where it may lead this nation. Hey, I hate niggers, I'll just say he smoked, or he drank, or he ate greasy chicken! This is where this is heading, and you people don't seem to care at all!!!!:roll:
Click to expand...

You cannot compare smoking and the color of your skin. You cannot choose the color of your skin, while smoking is entirely a matter of choice. Except in very isolated incidents, people are not being forced to smoke and do so of their own will.
 
ngdawg said:
It's not constitutional as I see it as it pervades a person's private life.
All other arguments aside, does anyone else notice the irony of a huge chemical corporation banning smoking? Hell, they'll probably die of some other carcinogen anyway!!!
Click to expand...

But at work, its not your private life.


Kelzie


I have already answered that twice. But, I'll answer it again. Yes it's legal and constiutional. Fair? Maybe, maybe not. But life's not fair. It wasn't fair that I didn't have insurance when I broke my foot. And yet I sucked it up, and moved on. Maybe it's not fair that a company fires people for smoking. But it's their company and their choice.
Click to expand...

I will have to agree with Kelzie on this one. P.S. An employer can fire you for anything or nothing, they dont like you personally and decides to throw you out. Is that fair???
 
Deegan said:
Or be fired, so I assume you are o.k with this practice, knowing full well where it may lead this nation. Hey, I hate niggers, I'll just say he smoked, or he drank, or he ate greasy chicken! This is where this is heading, and you people don't seem to care at all!!!!:roll:
Click to expand...
Did you read my previous post? I think I stated quite clearly how I felt about it. And your hyperbole meter is getting a little high. Might want to check on that.
 
Engimo said:
You cannot compare smoking and the color of your skin. You cannot choose the color of your skin, while smoking is entirely a matter of choice. Except in very isolated incidents, people are not being forced to smoke and do so of their own will.
Click to expand...

No you can not, be the slippery slope will give some the manner in which to execute their racism, WAKE THE HELL UP!:roll:
 
mixedmedia said:
Did you read my previous post? I think I stated quite clearly how I felt about it. And your hyperbole meter is getting a little high. Might want to check on that.
Click to expand...

That's what the southern crackers suggested, your hyperbole meter is just a liitle high. I mean, we are not dealing with actual people, we are dealing with dirty, filthy, stinky smokers, they are not human, and we have every right to discard them as such!:confused:
 
Last edited:
Deegan said:
That's what the southern crackers suggested, your hyperbole meter is just a liitle high. I mean, we are not dealing with actual people, we are dealing with dirty, filthy, stinky smokers, they are not human, and we have every right to discard them as such!:confused:
Click to expand...
Scott's Miracle Gro is not saying that. Did you read Busta's post? Can you concieve that maybe this decision was not arbitrary nor an attempt to discriminate based on hatred and maybe good company policy for Scott's? Get real, Deegan. You're having to go out way too far to defend your position. A sure sign of someone debating for the sake of debating.
 
mixedmedia said:
Scott's Miracle Gro is not saying that. Did you read Busta's post? Can you concieve that maybe this decision was not arbitrary nor an attempt to discriminate based on hatred and maybe good company policy for Scott's? Get real, Deegan. You're having to go out way too far to defend your position. A sure sign of someone debating for the sake of debating.
Click to expand...


You must be kidding "Scotts miracle grow" the very satan of the organic, and pure vegetables that I choose to eat, are now saying that smoking is bad?:confused:

Please miss, get back to me with real law, not emotional rhetoric, that will certainly fall flat on it's legal face!:roll:
 
Last edited:
Deegan said:
Breaks are a union issue, and if you're union, you should be able to smoke on your break. As for the CDC, their job is to protect people, I respect that, but like I said, you can not legislate health, or expect it from your employees, it's impossible.
Click to expand...

All of the companies in Florida that I know of offer at least two breaks per day, plus lunch, and none of them are union.

If you look back you'll see I was using the CDC for data only.

You know what? A friend of mine owns a sizeable company that transfers rental cars from one area to another. He has over two hundred employees. I am going to call him tonight and ask him to fire at least one smoker for me, preferably two or three, if he can spare them. I wish he would start with his secretary, Mayra, who constantly walks outside to smoke. I'll call him after the Redskins game. I can't wait!
 
tryreading said:
All of the companies in Florida that I know of offer at least two breaks per day, plus lunch, and none of them are union.

If you look back you'll see I was using the CDC for data only.

You know what? A friend of mine owns a sizeable company that transfers rental cars from one area to another. He has over two hundred employees. I am going to call him tonight and ask him to fire at least one smoker for me, preferably two or three, if he can spare them. I wish he would start with his secretary, Mayra, who constantly walks outside to smoke. I'll call him after the Redskins game. I can't wait!
Click to expand...

Well....is Mayra the only one allowed a break, or is she the evil slut responsible for breaks all together? If not, you have no argument, and those employees can spank the monkey on their break for all I care, but do make the call, I am sure that will make you happy.:roll:
 
mixedmedia said:
First of all, right up front, I smoke. Recently re-started smoking to be precise... Now I'm gonna go have a smoke. :2wave:
Click to expand...

You're fired!
 
Deegan said:
Well....is Mayra the only one allowed a break, or is she the evil slut responsible for breaks all together? If not, you have no argument, and those employees can spank the monkey on their break for all I care, but do make the call, I am sure that will make you happy.:roll:
Click to expand...

She is allowed breaks, and lunch of course, but they are not frequent enough to provide time for all the smokes she needs in a day.

It will make me happy, thank you.
 
tryreading said:
She is allowed breaks, and lunch of course, but they are not frequent enough to provide time for all the smokes she needs in a day.

It will make me happy, thank you.
Click to expand...

You monitor her smoking habit, how on earth do you do your own job?:confused: :shock:
 
Deegan said:
You must be kidding "Scotts miracle grow" the very satan of the organic, and pure vegetables that I choose to eat, are now saying that smoking is bad?:confused:

Please miss, get back to me with real law, not emotional rhetoric, that will certainly fall flat on it's legal face!:roll:
Click to expand...
You're the one dealing in emotional rhetoric with no sound basis for your argument. You want everyone to think this is fascism for chrissakes. And you can stop calling me miss, thank you.
 
Deegan said:
That's what the southern crackers suggested, your hyperbole meter is just a liitle high. I mean, we are not dealing with actual people, we are dealing with dirty, filthy, stinky smokers, they are not human, and we have every right to discard them as such!:confused:
Click to expand...

Then you might as well discard the bums, alcoholics and domesticly abusive people out there. How would that leave society standing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom