Smokers

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by labwitch
come upon a dead body lying in the texas heat in high summer (been there a coupla days), and you either smoke or puke. your choice. we have areas away from the area of contamination where officers, techs. detectives and doctors can indulge, just don't try it in the morgue or lab, your entire face will melt off. chemicals you know, volatile ones.

Somehow, I get the idea that OSHA regulations require masks of some kind for folks involved in this line of work.

If masks are required, why aren't they used? If masks aren't required, why not?

 

[Shye]

no. I wouldnt want them to smoke when they are working for me but It is basically discriminating a certain type of persons.

 

[Fantasea]

no. I wouldnt want them to smoke when they are working for me but It is basically discriminating a certain type of persons.

That would not be discriminating against a person but discriminating against a behavior that is detrimental to others.

Think about some other behaviors against which you would 'discriminate'.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

That would not be discriminating against a person but discriminating against a behavior that is detrimental to others.

Think about some other behaviors against which you would 'discriminate'.

Working in a rubber factory is detrimental to all who work there. So is a fab shop where a lot welding is going on. Apparently we don't really care about that though. Ever read the warning label on a spool of welding wire or a box of welding rods. Well, I have...& then they have the gull to tell their employees they can't smoke. Give me a freakin' break.

By the way...I am a former smoker...didn't quit for health but rather because of cost...so who ever suggested in another thread that we should tax luxuries...well...all the taxes on cigarettes haven't helped as of yet.

 

[Fantasea]

Working in a rubber factory is detrimental to all who work there. So is a fab shop where a lot welding is going on. Apparently we don't really care about that though. Ever read the warning label on a spool of welding wire or a box of welding rods. Well, I have...& then they have the gull to tell their employees they can't smoke. Give me a freakin' break.

By the way...I am a former smoker...didn't quit for health but rather because of cost...so who ever suggested in another thread that we should tax luxuries...well...all the taxes on cigarettes haven't helped as of yet.

1. Folks are not required to work in hazardous industries.
2. OSHA is making strides.
3. You probably bought yourself an additional fifteen years of life.

 

[RightinNYC]

By the way...I am a former smoker...didn't quit for health but rather because of cost...so who ever suggested in another thread that we should tax luxuries...well...all the taxes on cigarettes haven't helped as of yet.

Wait a minute...I'm confused.

You quit smoking because it cost too much.

Then you say that the taxes on cigarettes haven't helped yet.

How? They made you quit smoking, didn't they?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Wait a minute...I'm confused.

You quit smoking because it cost too much.

Then you say that the taxes on cigarettes haven't helped yet.

How? They made you quit smoking, didn't they?

Hillary told us the taxes on cigarettes would help pay for National Health Care. How, if everyone quits? That's my point...if we unnecessarily tax something it will cause less of a demand for it. Therefore the taxes in which we depend on to operate our government & it's many social programs will be in even worse shape. As for me personally...well, since I still do some welding I don't think quitting smoking will lengthen my life.

Related story here: My buddy's dad got emphysema. His doc told him that if he didn't quit smoking he'd be dead within two years. Well, he went on disability & 15 years later he finally died. So it was either work in general that was killing him or it was the fact that he was breathing welding smoke everyday for the past 20+ years.

 

[RightinNYC]

Hillary told us the taxes on cigarettes would help pay for National Health Care. How, if everyone quits? That's my point...if we unnecessarily tax something it will cause less of a demand for it.

GOOD!

Therefore the taxes in which we depend on to operate our government & it's many social programs will be in even worse shape.

And the number of people dying from smoking related illness will drop dramatically, saving us billions in health care costs that will easily outweigh the money lost in tax revenue.

As for me personally...well, since I still do some welding I don't think quitting smoking will lengthen my life.

That's factually not true. It doesn't matter what else you do, smoking hurts as well. It's like saying "Well, I'm 500 pounds, so eating this cheeseburger won't hurt."

Related story here: My buddy's dad got emphysema. His doc told him that if he didn't quit smoking he'd be dead within two years. Well, he went on disability & 15 years later he finally died. So it was either work in general that was killing him or it was the fact that he was breathing welding smoke everyday for the past 20+ years.

Anecdotes are the most dangerous evidence.

 

[akyron]

It's called enjoying yourself. Having fun. But what would you know about that.

Smoking is quite selfish and irresponsible but I guess that is fun too.
Selfish because it infringes on non smokers,irresponsible because it affects others and your future generations as well.



Over 50,000 people a year die from secondhand smoke in the US alone.
Cigarettes will eventually kill a third of the people who use them.
Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year.
Tobacco companies make a product that kills 1,200 Americans a day.
In the 1980s, tobacco companies started working on making fire-safe cigarettes. Ones that would be less likely to ignite furniture or clothing and cause fires. As of 2002, only one of the hundreds of U.S. cigarette brands uses fire safe technology, and cigarettes are still the number one cause of fire-related deaths.
Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined.
2,000 teens start smoking everyday
http://www.thetruth.com

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

GOOD!



And the number of people dying from smoking related illness will drop dramatically, saving us billions in health care costs that will easily outweigh the money lost in tax revenue.



That's factually not true. It doesn't matter what else you do, smoking hurts as well. It's like saying "Well, I'm 500 pounds, so eating this cheeseburger won't hurt."



Anecdotes are the most dangerous evidence.

If smoking is an absolute cause of death then explain George Burns & Bob Hope...100 years isn't too shabby for a couple of overweight smokers.

By the way...smokers do not increase your health care...at least not in all cases. I worked for a company that charged me more for my insurance because I was a smoker. The reason: smokers go to the doctor more often...well so do fat people & so do women...so I guess if you're a fat woman who smokes then you're screwed. Plus when I was self-employed that's one of the first questions asked by an insurance company...they charge more for smokers. So to conclude that smokers cost you money in health care is bull.

There are far too many variable to have an absolute conclusion that smoking causes cancer...a contributing factor, maybe...as time goes on I believe we will find there's much more to genetics than we know today.

 

[RightinNYC]

If smoking is an absolute cause of death then explain George Burns & Bob Hope...100 years isn't too shabby for a couple of overweight smokers.

Remember what I said about anecdotal evidence being the most dangerous?

By the way...smokers do not increase your health care...at least not in all cases..... So to conclude that smokers cost you money in health care is bull.

Those two statements would partially contradict each other, even if the other information in between was true. It's true that some health care companies charge smokers more, but many do not. Others do not charge enough to cover the increased costs, and spread the remaining increases among the rest of their clients. Very, very, very few, if any, adequately compensate for the costs.

There are far too many variable to have an absolute conclusion that smoking causes cancer...a contributing factor, maybe...as time goes on I believe we will find there's much more to genetics than we know today.

Do you really believe what you just said? Wow. I guess parts of America really ARE behind the times. That statement would have been more in place at around the time of....well, the Fonz.

Nowadays, most people have accepted the multitudes of proofs that smoking conclusively causes cancer.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Remember what I said about anecdotal evidence being the most dangerous?



Those two statements would partially contradict each other, even if the other information in between was true. It's true that some health care companies charge smokers more, but many do not. Others do not charge enough to cover the increased costs, and spread the remaining increases among the rest of their clients. Very, very, very few, if any, adequately compensate for the costs.



Do you really believe what you just said? Wow. I guess parts of America really ARE behind the times. That statement would have been more in place at around the time of....well, the Fonz.

Nowadays, most people have accepted the multitudes of proofs that smoking conclusively causes cancer.

If smoking was a root cause of cancer & it absolutely did cause cancer then all who have smoked would be dead or dying of cancer...that is not the case (& don't give me that eventually they would get cancer...heck, eventually we're all going to die). As I said, there are many variables that are overlooked...like exposure to asbestos. Some get cancer & some don't...why is that? Why do you think doctors (or at least their questionnaires when visiting a new doctor) ask if there is a history of cancer in your family as well as heart disease & a few others...?...My wife has even told that she's more likely to get cancer because there is a history of it in her family. Gee...wouldn't that indicate genetics/heredity in some fashion? My personal belief is there is a lot more to that than what many are willing to admit at this point. With all that said...I am not suggesting that smoking isn't harmful. I just simply believe it's more harmful to some than to others. Who? We don't know...it's a gamble. But, I would look closely at your family history concerning cancer.

Eat Healthy, Stay Fit, Die Anyway.

 

[akyron]

If smoking was a root cause of cancer & it absolutely did cause cancer then all who have smoked would be dead or dying of cancer...

Yeah and if you get shot you might or might not die as well.


One of the problems is while you are smoking others are forced to breathe the smoke in as well.

 

[walrus]

This is a non-issue for me, because as I have said in other threads; I believe an employer should have a right to terminate an employee for virtually any reason. I am a pretty strong employer's rights type guy. That said, I wonder if a lot of the people who feel so strongly about the employer's rights in this issue would feel the same way if the issue was something other than cigarettes. What about obese people? I could certainly argue that the obese cause as much if not more loss of productivity, higher insurance premiums, and other work related problems as smokers. How about the elderly? Again, I would argue that in sick days, general slowness and obstinacy older workers cause a great deal of lost productivity (in some cases and for the sake of argument, please don't respond telling me how hard some senior citizen you know works). Should an employer be able to terminate for these reasons? I personally say yes, but I would be interested to know if some of you who are so zealous on behalf of the employer's rights are maybe just a little coloured by your feelings about the issue in question (smoking). Outside of politics and religion, I know of few things that cause such knee-jerk hatred in so many people.

Another question, how do you defenders of the rights of business owners feel about the various state and local laws prohibiting business owners from allowing smoking (a legal activity) within the confines of their business (a private property)?

One more thing, if I have the right to fire an employee because they smoke, doesn't that give me the right to fire an employee because they don't smoke?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Yeah and if you get shot you might or might not die as well.


One of the problems is while you are smoking others are forced to breathe the smoke in as well.

Yeah & you could die in a car wreck or plane wreck...collateral damage can & usually does occur during either one of these situations.

...a few issues here...
1) does smoking in & of itself cause cancer...?...I contend the answer is no based on inconsistent data used for that argument. However , it's been dismissed as anecdotal evidence. That's a cop-out. Despite what you think I do not look at this from one side. I have been a smoker & a non-smoker...I have read a lot about it too. Some for & some against. Though it may be true that smokers are at higher risk for cancer it certainly does not prove that smoking itself causes the cancer.
2) Another issue is whether or not taxing something works...?...Are we trying to get those who engage in such an activity to quit...?...Or, are we going to become so dependent on those tax dollars that when they stop coming in at the rate we predicted based on current use we'll have to find something else to tax to pay for our dependency on government?
3) Do smokers cause an increase in insurance for non-smokers...this argument I have to back off from. In some cases smokers are charged more but in others they are not. Ultimately the increase is spread to all consumers. & this brings me to what I just saw on the news. Landslides in CA. People who insist on living in areas where we know a high rate of natural disasters occur make my home owners insurance go up. After the whole hurricane thing this past year down in Florida my home owners insurance almost doubled. I have not had a claim in 10 years. When we called our insurance agent she told us the increase was due to the large number of payouts caused by the hurricanes in Florida. So I have to pay more because someone else made an idiotic choice to live in hurricane alley.

You see, all the arguments made against smoking could also be used against something else. Where does it stop?

 

[Fantasea]

If smoking was a root cause of cancer & it absolutely did cause cancer then all who have smoked would be dead or dying of cancer...that is not the case (& don't give me that eventually they would get cancer...heck, eventually we're all going to die). As I said, there are many variables that are overlooked...like exposure to asbestos. Some get cancer & some don't...why is that? Why do you think doctors (or at least their questionnaires when visiting a new doctor) ask if there is a history of cancer in your family as well as heart disease & a few others...?...My wife has even told that she's more likely to get cancer because there is a history of it in her family. Gee...wouldn't that indicate genetics/heredity in some fashion? My personal belief is there is a lot more to that than what many are willing to admit at this point. With all that said...I am not suggesting that smoking isn't harmful. I just simply believe it's more harmful to some than to others. Who? We don't know...it's a gamble. But, I would look closely at your family history concerning cancer.

Eat Healthy, Stay Fit, Die Anyway.

All you have said ignores the statistical findings, based on medical research, which conclude that the true cost of smoking is, on the average, fifteen years of one's life.

 

[RightinNYC]

If smoking was a root cause of cancer & it absolutely did cause cancer then all who have smoked would be dead or dying of cancer...that is not the case (& don't give me that eventually they would get cancer...heck, eventually we're all going to die). As I said, there are many variables that are overlooked...like exposure to asbestos. Some get cancer & some don't...why is that? Why do you think doctors (or at least their questionnaires when visiting a new doctor) ask if there is a history of cancer in your family as well as heart disease & a few others...?...My wife has even told that she's more likely to get cancer because there is a history of it in her family. Gee...wouldn't that indicate genetics/heredity in some fashion? My personal belief is there is a lot more to that than what many are willing to admit at this point. With all that said...I am not suggesting that smoking isn't harmful. I just simply believe it's more harmful to some than to others. Who? We don't know...it's a gamble. But, I would look closely at your family history concerning cancer.

Eat Healthy, Stay Fit, Die Anyway.

Obviously family history has something to do with it, as some people are more disposed toward cancer than others. However, it's a pretty clear cut fact that smoking drastically exacerbates those differences in disposition.

 

[RightinNYC]

This is a non-issue for me, because as I have said in other threads; I believe an employer should have a right to terminate an employee for virtually any reason. I am a pretty strong employer's rights type guy. That said, I wonder if a lot of the people who feel so strongly about the employer's rights in this issue would feel the same way if the issue was something other than cigarettes. What about obese people? I could certainly argue that the obese cause as much if not more loss of productivity, higher insurance premiums, and other work related problems as smokers. How about the elderly? Again, I would argue that in sick days, general slowness and obstinacy older workers cause a great deal of lost productivity (in some cases and for the sake of argument, please don't respond telling me how hard some senior citizen you know works). Should an employer be able to terminate for these reasons? I personally say yes, but I would be interested to know if some of you who are so zealous on behalf of the employer's rights are maybe just a little coloured by your feelings about the issue in question (smoking). Outside of politics and religion, I know of few things that cause such knee-jerk hatred in so many people.

Another question, how do you defenders of the rights of business owners feel about the various state and local laws prohibiting business owners from allowing smoking (a legal activity) within the confines of their business (a private property)?

One more thing, if I have the right to fire an employee because they smoke, doesn't that give me the right to fire an employee because they don't smoke?

All fantastic questions. Very good post.

I would say that employers have the right to hire or fire pretty much anyone they want as well, as long as it can be proven that the characteristic they were fired for was affecting their job performance.

Ex. At a clothing store, appearance of associates is far more important than in an accounting department of an office.

I think business owners should be able to ban smoking from their businesses if they choose to do so.

And businesses should be ABLE to fire people for not smoking. I don't know if that would happen, but it should be on the table.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

No, I would only fire an employee for smoking if after me telling that employee to ceise smoking he or she refused.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Interesting tid-bit of info here...

When I was in the military (1986 - 1989) we used to get the call "smoke 'em if you got 'em." The amazing part was that on many occasions I saw NCOs tell lower enlisted to get back to work if they weren't smoking. Thus, I knew a lot of guys who started out holding a lit cigarette & eventually they began to smoke. Not sure if this was isolated or not. I just know that I saw it happen at Ft. Bragg, NC in the 82nd Airborne Division.

 

[Roundhouse!]

It's called enjoying yourself. Having fun. But what would you know about that.

Oh come on now have a little maturity. I've been smoking for six years and when I started as an immature teenager it was definately a blind descision. Every time I light up a cigarette I acknowledge how disgusting it is but I still do it because even though I now know how terrible it is, it is still enjoyable.

Personally I think that for somebody to get fired for smoking cigarettes is completely wrong. Once the government makes them illegal then that is one thing, but for now, if it's legal and they are of age then it is their choice.

It's not as if nicotine is an intoxicant.

 

[Androvski]

Oh come on now have a little maturity. I've been smoking for six years and when I started as an immature teenager it was definately a blind descision. Every time I light up a cigarette I acknowledge how disgusting it is but I still do it because even though I now know how terrible it is, it is still enjoyable.

Personally I think that for somebody to get fired for smoking cigarettes is completely wrong. Once the government makes them illegal then that is one thing, but for now, if it's legal and they are of age then it is their choice.

It's not as if nicotine is an intoxicant.

If you want to smoke yourself to an early grave,then stupid as that may be,it is indeed your choice.The point is what choice does the non smoker have in a smokey environment?
The only option they have is to avoid it,which is very difficult if that environment happens to be your place of work and your livelihood depends on your being there.
I would not fire an employee for their first indescretion,however if they persisted despite being warned,I would "show them the road".

 

[walrus]

If you want to smoke yourself to an early grave,then stupid as that may be,it is indeed your choice.

Ain't freedom wonderful?

The point is what choice does the non smoker have in a smokey environment?

Usually relocation is a good choice. It depends on where you are talking about. If I own a private business and I allow smoking, then a non-smoker either has the choice to deal with it or work somewhere else. If I am in my home or other private property, you have the choice to stand down-wind or leave. If you are talking about a restaurant or other private establishment open to the public, you have the choice of patronizing one of the majority of restaurants today that do not allow smoking. See - life is full of choices that do not require using the government to restrict a legal activity on private property.

The only option they have is to avoid it,which is very difficult if that environment happens to be your place of work and your livelihood depends on your being there.

Your livelihood depends on having a job, not necessarily that job. As with any situation, if the workplace conditions do not suit you, and there is nothing illegal going on, I would suggest you seek employment elsewhere. Again, ain't freedom wonderful?

I would not fire an employee for their first indescretion,however if they persisted despite being warned,I would "show them the road".

As I have said, if you own the business and as a business owner you choose to prohibit smoking - bully for you! That's more of that freedom thing. As a business owner you certainly have the right to fire an employee who breaks the rules you set in place. Again though, if you have the right to fire me for smoking, that must also give me the right to fire you for not smoking if that is my choice as a business owner.

 

[Fantasea]

All fantastic questions. Very good post.

I would say that employers have the right to hire or fire pretty much anyone they want as well, as long as it can be proven that the characteristic they were fired for was affecting their job performance.

Ex. At a clothing store, appearance of associates is far more important than in an accounting department of an office.

I think business owners should be able to ban smoking from their businesses if they choose to do so.

And businesses should be ABLE to fire people for not smoking. I don't know if that would happen, but it should be on the table.

Unions, in their organizing activities usually cite the "at will" theory of employment and seek to include language in its contracts that specify, instead, the "just cause" theory of employment. Under the 'just cause' theory, an employer usually finds it almost impossible to discharge an employee.

Actually, "at will" goes like this:

2. Quotations from Court Cases

An often-quoted statement of at-will employment appears in an old case from Tennessee:
All may dismiss their employees at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause[,] or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong.
Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co., 81 Tenn. 507, 519-520, 1884 WL 469 at *6 (Sep. term 1884).
This rule of law in Payne has been quoted by a number of modern authorities as the correct statement of the law:
Smith v. Atlas Off-Shore Boat Service, Inc., 653 F.2d 1057, 1060-61 (5thCir. 1981) (citing Payne as correct statement of the nonmaritime common law);
Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., 479 A.2d 781, 784 (Conn. 1984);
John D. Calamari and Joseph M. Perillo, The Law of Contracts, p. 61, third edition, West Publishing (1987) (quoting Payne as the "orthodox rule", but also calling it a "harsh rule");
Hillesland v. Federal Land Bank Assn., 407 N.W.2d 206, 211 (N.D. 1987)("The classic statement of the at-will rule ....");
Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000, 1005-06 (Or. 1989);
Darnall v. A+ Homecare, Inc., 1999 WL 346225 at *2 (Tenn.App. 1999)("This principle is still viable in Tennessee except where modified by statute.")

 

[Fantasea]

Oh come on now have a little maturity. I've been smoking for six years and when I started as an immature teenager it was definately a blind descision. Every time I light up a cigarette I acknowledge how disgusting it is but I still do it because even though I now know how terrible it is, it is still enjoyable.

You were hooked, as most persons, are as an adolescent trying to affect the appearances of an adult. The 'enjoyment' comment is usually meant to assuage the feelings of one who realizes that the addictive hook is in too deep and too well set to be removed without considerable pain.

Personally I think that for somebody to get fired for smoking cigarettes is completely wrong. Once the government makes them illegal then that is one thing, but for now, if it's legal and they are of age then it is their choice.

Why should an employer have to put up with someone stinking up his place of business and having to duck out every time he needs to 'calm his nerves', which is another way of saying 'every time the nicotine wears off and another fix is needed to prevent the shakes'?

It's not as if nicotine is an intoxicant.

You are correct. Nicotine is not an intoxicant. It's a carcinogen. Perhaps it would be better if it was an intoxicant.