Smokers "Rights"

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by sparda4355

 

Yes, I will stand behind that stamement 100%, but let's have a very clear definition here. " a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are"

Inotherwords you (used in general not specifically you) place yourself above that of others and dictate conditions according to your own morality. The arguement of whether it is the gun or the man behind the trigger that kills.

You (specifically you) entered a tirade without looking at the whole context of the post. Imagine for one minute that your backing information was statisically unprovable. That the statements of fact came from sources of bias. That the standard of deviation was so narrow that the information became indicated to fit an agenda. Then start looking at how the smoking studies are conducted and evaluated.

Look close enough and you might even see how statistics are being played in a numbers game to dupe the masses to be anti-smoking. Several organisations have the numbers too low to prove anything. Cancer, the stongest link to smoking in smokers has a fairly low potential compared to how it is presented. Tests on equivalency to whole cigarettes in passive second-hand smoke is even lower.

The studies on smoke filled bar rooms, eight hours a day only equaling 4-5 cigarettes in a weeks time. Or onc per day. Even the US Surgeon General finds cancer in 1 out of 7 pack+ a day smokers on the worst study (1 in 17 on the best).

And none, zero of the studies that are anti-smoking have allowances for environment, genetics, occupaton or other outside factors. None of them do.

What my original post dealt with was the biggest problem in the whole debate is the vocalization of the mis and ill informed when other lifestyles and conditions also have their detriments on society as a whole as well.

Thus, the worst affect (

I have worked in one company and they always let the smokers take as many breaks as they wanted. This was not good for the none smokers for 2 reasons 1- we couldn’t take a break to just to get air, and 2nd we had to pick up the slack for the smokers. The smokers never took a break when it was slow, it was always when they where stressed out and busy. I live in Boston and the best thing MA did was banding all smoking in public places, like Bars (thank god). I really hope they band all public smoking. Nothing gets me madder then driving down the street and have the car in front of me throwing a butt out the window and it hitting my car. Once I had the cig go into my car and now I have a hole in my seat.

I've looked for my point of view earlier in this thread and was surprised I didnt see something like it.
As a non-smoker: I have to pick up a habit (cigarette smoking) in the work place to recieve the same "time off" as smokers" or should the employeer be allowed to deduct the time spent on smoke breaks from the smoker's pay.
I fell in love with someone who is a smoker,,I'm not addicted to cigarette smoke but I reallly dont want to loose my relationship with them. I look forward to 10 years from now when I can visit them in the hospital as they undergo chemo therapy, I can help them drag their oxygen bottle around on the now limited trips that we can go on because of their emphysema.
When you are around cigarette smokers you can smell the tobacco in their hair, clothes and on their breath. Cigarette smoke stains clothes, headliners in cars and windows. There are so many consequnces to being around a cigarette smoker.
What should an employer's responsibility be to smoker's.. offer them disability care,, free smoking clinic's and offer smoking ceasation programs. Not paid time to contiue in a habit that is disabiling to themselves and an irriatant to others (many are allergic to cigarette smoke) i.e. reactive bronchial spasm, irriative conjuctivitis, bronchitis.

Smoke if you have to ... but please remember those of us who love and care about others,, suffer from the effects of your habit.
You are free to choice to smoke but not make non-smokers miserable with your habits in public or the work place.

reply to post by sparda4355


This is your second thread based on "smokers rights", I can't help but feel you are somehow trying to justify smoking ro make your own habit more acceptable to you?

I am a regular smoker, I am aware of the health issues, I think it would be totally unacceptable for me to inflict my bad habit on others in public places and no I do not think we should have special treatment in terms of cigarette breaks and the like.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by jbmitch

What should an employer's responsibility be to smoker's.. offer them disability care,, free smoking clinic's and offer smoking ceasation programs.

What?! Why the hell should the employer have to pay for all that? The employer doesn't shove cigarettes in their mouths and light them. They do it to themselves.

This whole argument, this whole thread, is like saying, "Gee. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Every day at noon, I have a compulsion to cut my wrist open with a box cutter. OCD is a documented and proven medical condition, which I have been diagnosed with by a doctor. Since my co-workers don't want me to bleed all over them, my employer should give me a special room to cut my wrist in!" And now, you're adding to that: "And then pay for the medical care I need as a result of my own actions!"

What's the next claim going to be? I can hear it already!!

"Oh, well it's hard to work well if we haven't had our fix, so our employers should be required to buy the cigarettes for us! After all, its not our fault we're addicted! If they don't, its discrimination!!!"

reply to post by sparda4355


Ha-Ha, I did not realise that you were the OP. But you can see how often I hear these kinds of things and instantly enter defensive mode.

But we do disagree slightly. It was not the employer that voted in these laws. Forcing a further detriment on employers would force a discrimination policy in hiring. One that is increasing in the modern age. As there are employers that will not hire anyone that uses tobacco and will perform tests after hire to insure they remain tobacco free for continued employment.

Violations of an employment contract are terms for dismissal and unemployment security can be denied on those grounds much like termination for insubordination does. However, you can always say to an employer that you think or feel that you might have a problem and you need their help. That is the magic phrase. If the employer refuses assistance then you are protected automatically under wrongful termination. It doesn't matter if your problem is cronic public masterbation or excessive farting.

Here lies the problem as I see it. You have three positions: The anti-smoker, the non-smoker and the smoker. The largest group is the non-smoker that is generally apathetic as neither outcome deeply impacts them. The anti-smoker uses that to their advantage. The smoker has very little non-smokers sticking up for them nor a honest policy from the anti-smoker of the agenda and propaganda being used for their support. There are lawyers that specialise in having smoker's leases broken and evicted from their building for crying outloud as well as losing custody and visitation rights to their children.

But what can you expect from a country that is about to debate the meaning of the Second Ammendment next week as to if private citizens can continue to own firearms. My opinion on that is go ahead and decide against the people so I can be extra patriotic and gather up as much guns and ammo as I can to turn into elected officials one bullet at a time. And I promise to spread it around to as many as I can so no one feels they were left out.

But involvement with prostitution is absolutely illegal but so far the Gov. of New York still has his job. I wonder how many people know that Obama was a smoker that only quit for public image reasons during the presidental campaign. Kinda tells the whole story right there.

"many are allergic to cigarette smoke"
------------------------------------------------
yes, I have a nephew that is....
but...
guess what, there's a whole list of things that will set him off....perfume and other scented products are on the top of it also....
so, when we gonna do something about all those other allergins out there?
we ain't!

You know... This is a little off subject for this thread, but I am the OP so I will say it anyway!

All of you NON smokers that get together and throw a @#$%^ fit about second hand smoke do things every day knowingly and unknowingly that have far greater health risks than being in the same room as or near somebody smoking a cigarette!

The same people that complain about cigarette smoking go tanning, eat carcinogenic foods, consume large quantities of liquor, use skin products that are horrible for you, spend hours and hours a day with their cell phone pressed firmly against their ear only inches from their brains, eat frozen dinners, pop over the counter pain killers like candy every time they have the slightest headache or body ache, the list goes on and on...

The Bible actually has a quote that I think is perfect for this thread... Don't pull the thorn out of somebody else’s eye until you pull the 2x4 out of your own! I updated this quote a little, but the fact remains... As my 7 year old daughter would say; every time you point your finger at a smoker, just remember there are three more pointing back at you!

Yeah smoking is not good for you, but there are positive sides to smoking... Stress relief, enjoyment, mellow feeling, time killer, social activity, etc... We choose to take advantage of the good without spending every day worrying about the negative... You don't like it, you want to tell us how we should quit... You better not be doing any of the above things or any other things that are negative for your health!

Now... Give us our smoking forts, give us our integrity and humanity, leave us alone and move on with your "perfect" lives!

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by sparda4355

 

Ha-Ha, I did not realise that you were the OP. But you can see how often I hear these kinds of things and instantly enter defensive mode.

But we do disagree slightly. It was not the employer that voted in these laws. Forcing a further detriment on employers would force a discrimination policy in hiring. One that is increasing in the modern age. As there are employers that will not hire anyone that uses tobacco and will perform tests after hire to insure they remain tobacco free for continued employment.

Violations of an employment contract are terms for dismissal and unemployment security can be denied on those grounds much like termination for insubordination does. However, you can always say to an employer that you think or feel that you might have a problem and you need their help. That is the magic phrase. If the employer refuses assistance then you are protected automatically under wrongful termination. It doesn't matter if your problem is cronic public masterbation or excessive farting.

Here lies the problem as I see it. You have three positions: The anti-smoker, the non-smoker and the smoker. The largest group is the non-smoker that is generally apathetic as neither outcome deeply impacts them. The anti-smoker uses that to their advantage. The smoker has very little non-smokers sticking up for them nor a honest policy from the anti-smoker of the agenda and propaganda being used for their support. There are lawyers that specialise in having smoker's leases broken and evicted from their building for crying outloud as well as losing custody and visitation rights to their children.

But what can you expect from a country that is about to debate the meaning of the Second Ammendment next week as to if private citizens can continue to own firearms. My opinion on that is go ahead and decide against the people so I can be extra patriotic and gather up as much guns and ammo as I can to turn into elected officials one bullet at a time. And I promise to spread it around to as many as I can so no one feels they were left out.

But involvement with prostitution is absolutely illegal but so far the Gov. of New York still has his job. I wonder how many people know that Obama was a smoker that only quit for public image reasons during the presidental campaign. Kinda tells the whole story right there.

Well dude... We totally agree... I actually pointed out that it wasn't the employer and to give you some piece of mind... I am pretty sure, no wait I am possittive that if you get hired as a smoker they can not fire you for smoking! I am not possitive but I am pretty sure they could not get away with not hiring your for smoking either, but I could be wrong their... All I can say is I would HATE to be the guy that told me that news! TRUST ME!

As far as your stance... on the gun law... I TOTALLY AGREE... but I would be careful about saying that... They take away our rights every day, who knows when our freedom of speech goes! Plus we don't know who the "owners" of this @#$% really are? do we?

Originally posted by tommyknockers

Originally posted by sparda4355
… As long as we are “attempting” to quit we should get the following… Companies should be forced

Should we provide a safe place for our sexual predators to molest our children as long as they are "attempting" to quit? Maybe those addicted to food should be allowed to gorge on a company provided buffet as long as they promise they will try to quit.
Is it ok to give smokers the legal right to smoke indoors with those that choose not to be addicted to nicotine? If so is it ok to smoke in a room full of newborns? What's the difference?

Come on... Must I even respond to the idiocracy of the comparison between a cigarette smoker and a child molester? Come on... seriously... Nope, I can't do it... I can't even begin to tell you how I feel about somebody who would make such a comparison without losing my ats points...

Now on to the newborns... once again... come on... have you no heart?

When was the last time we were aloud to smoke freely around non smokers... Where do you live man? We had SMOKING SECTIONS... We had Smoking areas...

This is the most over dramatic and nonsensical use of analogies I have ever seen... I am sorry to you, I do not intend to offend you, but quite honestly if they want to take away my ATS points they better take away yours because you just compared me to a child molester!

Originally posted by sparda4355

Now... Give us our smoking forts, give us our integrity and humanity, leave us alone and move on with your "perfect" lives!

Build your own freaking fort, you're the one who wants it. Why should we "give" you anything?

Originally posted by mattifikation

Originally posted by sparda4355

Now... Give us our smoking forts, give us our integrity and humanity, leave us alone and move on with your "perfect" lives!

Build your own freaking fort, you're the one who wants it. Why should we "give" you anything?

Because... We are superior to you non smokers...

No...

That's not it...

It is because you guys took away our ability to smoke inside... Now give us an alternative!

Thanks for playing!

reply to post by sparda4355


Yep, the cost for all those little smoking huts would have to borne by all the tax payers. Of course you could demand that it be paid by increased sin taxes, which would only prove the point that it had nothing to do with health reasons. Stones and glass house and being careful what you wish for and all that.

Perhaps the smoking hut issue needs to be addressed in a court of law, which means until they are built we would be free to smoke indoors in designated areas again.

Oh and remember when the smoking ban came into effect in the mid to late 80's on domestic flights? Did you know that I did legally smoke on a flight from Knoxville, TN to Dallas, TX on my 19th birthday in 1989? But could not on the return flight as it was after Jan 1, 1990. Same type plane same type of flight, privately chartered. Something to tell the grandkids one day, being one of the last free americans that could smoke on a plane. If of course procreation isn't outlawed due to moral implications of actually having flesh to flesh contact for fear it might inspire feeling of a human nature between two people.

Honestly I do not think there is an end to what some beliefs some people would want to foster on others.

Originally posted by mattifikation


Build your own freaking fort, you're the one who wants it. Why should we "give" you anything?

okay all you people who've been kicked out into the cold for your cig breaks......gather some wood, some nails, and don't forget the extension cord and electric heater!!! show up at work early tomorrow and get busy building your smoking fort! I can just imagine your bosses face when he goes to pull into his favorite parking space and finds a small smoking shanty sitting in it's spot!!

oh...and by the way....
the bans go on....

news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by mattifikation


This portion of my post was more or less a rhetoric response to the original thread as to "rights of smokers" as a demographic group realtive to the work force. I dont think you can legally not hire or fire an employee for cigarette smoking so what options are left in the work place for the employer who feels a "smoke free" work place is the responsible thing to do for its employees. I definetly would leave and never return to a food establishment of any type if I noticed their employees smoking around food production or serving.
As someone who truely cares about an addicted cigarette smoker,, there are so many ways I've tried to tell them and inded they have tried but to date have not been able to "kick the habit". From my view.. their smoking seems to be a response to stress management,,oddly enough many over eaters manage stress in the same way. So stress management courses?
Lets not hate those who may or may not want consideration from others but look for viable options for them, as their actions effect us regardless of whether they care or not.

Originally posted by sparda4355
It is because you guys took away our ability to smoke inside... Now give us an alternative!

Before they did that, you were taking away our ability to work, eat, shop, watch movies, etc. in a room that wasn't full of cancerous smog. We simply made you stop blowing that crap into our lungs, get over it.

Again, WE are not the ones sticking the cigarettes in your mouth and lighting it, so you're S.O.L. if you don't like what you have to go through to do it yourself.

Why in a place i worked the smoke free building eating area was only used by three to twelve people with a work force of 100 on a shift?Most sped to Hardies causing traffic hazards,the rest just wanted to get out of the building.
There is the squeeze ,40 people in a 20+15 open air patio,two tables(possibly looted from a nearby park),coffee can ash trays.
This company had a backlot two football fields!Facilities on two contenents,Yet the bottom line was this small fenced holding cell for smokers that all that wanted to see the sun or moon had to use or leave the property(be sure you were back before that half hour of freedom expired or you were locked out(needless to say that union sucked).

All enjoyed the lunch half hour as short as it was,nobody complained of the second hand smoke.

Originally posted by mattifikation

Originally posted by sparda4355
It is because you guys took away our ability to smoke inside... Now give us an alternative!

Before they did that, you were taking away our ability to work, eat, shop, watch movies, etc. in a room that wasn't full of cancerous smog. We simply made you stop blowing that crap into our lungs, get over it.

Again, WE are not the ones sticking the cigarettes in your mouth and lighting it, so you're S.O.L. if you don't like what you have to go through to do it yourself.

First of all... Where do you live... What century do you live in?

We have not been able to smoke freely in work, in stores, and in movie theaters since like 1990... What are you smoking???

We had smoke rooms maybe, smoking areas, but not freely so you anti smokers just had to go to a smoke free area and you were good to go!

Well then, let me reiterate. Before 1990, you were taking away our ability to work, eat, shop, watch movies, etc. in a room that wasn't full of cancerous smog. We simply made you stop blowing that crap into our lungs, get over it.

Oh, and for the record, studies have shown that separate smoking and non-smoking sections does nothing to curb the effects of second hand smoke.

The fact stands that non-smokers shouldn't have to pay, in any way shape or form, for the habits of smokers. Neither in the form of physical health, nor in the form of buying you special little forts so you can give yourselves cancer in comfort.

I hope you realize that by your bizarre logic, we could make the same argument that since we took away the "right" to drink and drive from alcoholics, we should now pay to have special "drinking and driving" roads constructed so that they can still drive around intoxicated without hurting the rest of us. It's literally the exact same thing.