City wants to nip tobacco use in the butt

City wants to nip tobacco use in the butt

www2.hernandotoday.com

First, Brooksville officials cracked down on employees who didn't use deodorant or wear underwear, which sparked debate about whether they were infringing on workers' personal choice.

Now city officials might crack down on employee tobacco use — both at work and during their personal time — by requiring them to quit smoking after one year. The proposal would also disqualify for employment anyone who admits to the habit.

Referring to smoking as the root of all evil

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is outrageous. That a public official would suggest that banning the use of a legal substance while on personal time should disqualify you for employment or force you into a program is overtly communist.

By what right do these same folks insist that folks wear underwear - and how would they find that out?

This a blatant attempt by a government official to jam personal views on others, directly violating freedom of choice. Now it is one thing to ban smoking from city property, but in a personal vehicle and more to the point, when not on the job?

I wonder if they will similarily enforce a ban on being overweight, drinking, gambling or not going to church. It is all the same business.

It is one thing to laugh about this kind of thing. It is something that folks need to consider, as it is a page out of the communist handbook. One of the first things Mao did was force folks to eat their meals in government facilities. They banned eating meals at home. Why? You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. It was and is all about conformance to norms or whims of the government.

That an elected person would even suggest that this is a reasonable thing to propose is scary. The insurance bit is nonsense as well. Extreme sports, being overweight, drinking heavily and even things like excessive repetetive sports activities such as lengthy running and tennis drive more cost to the insurance system than smoking.



www2.hernandotoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If I am correct, I might not be, but I read that some towns will not allow you to become a policeaman or fireman if you are a smoker.

I think I remember reading that in Augusta GA. I was looking into becoming a cop and saw that. I was a smoker at the time and so I didn't bother looking into it.

I hope Brooksville has money in the city budget to defend against the lawsuits that will surely follow... Ridiculous.

BTW - The expression is "Nip it in the Bud" not butt... lol...

Ahhh.... forgive me for the correction... I realize now that it's a pun....



[edit on 19-4-2010 by Anamnesis]

reply to post by Anamnesis


Nevermind, the joke went from over your head to hitting you right in the forehead.

No explanation needed.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Miracle Man]

Originally posted by Anamnesis
BTW - The expression is "Nip it in the Bud" not butt... lol...

Pretty sure that was a play on words. You know, cigarette butt.

Anyway. I am a smoker and yet I do not mind the idea of smoking becoming a thing of the past but I agree with the general idea that banning the use of a legal substance makes no sense. If he realy believes in his idea then he should be fighting to make tobacco use illegal and good luck with that.

Then again, how many smokers started out by getting away with it by hiding it from parents and school officials. I can see a whole town of people smoking in bathrooms with mouthwash and handsoap.

I think these folks have lost their
freakin minds.

My blood pressure just elevated,
I think I need another cigarette
(puff, puff)

Glad I don't live there, I'd get fired for being a smoker and not wearing underwear

Well the city government should just hire a bunch more people with some Obama money. Then they can use those people to hold the hands of the city workers all day and make sure they wipe their ass right, eat the right foods, clean their room, put on clean underwear, and wear a helmet and knee pads when they go for a walk. Liberals make me want to vomit!

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Chicken_Bone]

Vancouver now wants to ban smoking for beaches and parks - talk about ludicrous!! In an outdoor environment? Why don't these idiots just ban tractor-trailers for their pollution, and let the economy totally hit the skids... If they REALLY care about people's lungs

www.cbc.ca...

[edit on 19-4-2010 by TortoiseKweek]

Come June 30 there will be no outlet for a smoker to buy tobacco over the internet.

"The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 ("PACT Act") (S.1147) has now been signed by President Obama. We now have 90 days until the bill takes effect (June 30th). This legislation contains a provision which will make ALL cigarettes, RYO, MYO and smokeless tobacco products nonmailable. (checking on international orders)
This law means you will no longer be able to purchase these products by mail-order, telephone order, or the Internet, because the United States Postal Service, along with UPS, Fed-Ex and all other carriers will be prohibited by law from delivering your orders to you. "

www.smokersoutletonline.com...

A little off topic, but valuable if you smoke.

It seems to me that they want to do away with cigarettes for some reason. I have speculation beyond all the hype over second and third hand smoke which is totally speculation itself. But, doing away with cigarettes reduces the revenue pool. It definitely won't stop kids from smoking like their stated intent.

Its like one of the very key rules to sales, get them to start saying YES. Then you got them. If one town does this, then there are definitely more to come. "Well, everyone else is doing it, why can't we?" That kind of thinking is not very healthy.

You know this is bullcrap on the highest level.. I did quit smoking because I am a diabetic.. I loved smoking and it made me sane most of the time.. But to make you quit to have a job... Boo on them... I herd a joke along time ago about the most healthyist person in the world getting run over and killed by two smokers while he was jogging... Comon people what is this world coming to...Oh yea and those FSC ciggs is a conspirecy in its own rights...

reply to post by TortoiseKweek


LOL, don't give them any ideas. Now you know some Liberal is going read that and form a PAC to ban tractor trailers, because the exhaust is killing us all.

They won't be happy until they ban everything and we starve to death because they banned food production to save the environment. I think in the future we will all die wrapped in the bubble wrap that the government forced us into to protect us, while at the same time they destroyed every means of food production and delivery ever conceived to save our beloved environment.

reply to post by Chicken_Bone


Dude...what do you have against liberals?

This article...is from Florida..a conservative state.
Quick, change your stance.

The more you use generalities, the less your taken seriously. You seem to need anger managment or some other therapy...

-the smoking liberal

reply to post by SaturnFX


LOL, only Liberals would come up with a bunch of rules about wearing your underwear and telling you that you can't smoke even in your own damn house.

Lets see. Liberals think every kid needs to wear a helmet to ride a bike. Thinks they should be able to decide what kind of food you should be able to buy. ETC!!!!

I never have heard a conservative say any of that. It is the Liberals who want a giant government to think for all of us poor idiots who cannot take care of ourselves wthout them. LOL!

Now this is an issue that I am split in 2. One the one side, I do understand banning the use of tobacco products while at work and on city property. Kind of like all of the schools, they are tobacco, drug and alcohole free zones, you can not use such while on that property. However, to invade into a persons life, to intrude into their home life I believe goes way too far of an intrustion and invades a personal privacy. There has to be a line between what is public, when you are work, and private, when you are at home. They may find that the reprecussions for such is not what they will be expecting. I know that if I worked for that city and they did that I would be contacting a lawyer, and having a brief prepared to go when it came into action.

This is really ridiculous, and maybe this town government should concern themselves with other more important factors rather than someone taking a puff or deciding whether or not to wear under garments? For instance, maybe balancing a budget, paving roads, installing new street lights, creating a park, decreasing taxes, or hiring new police officers or emergency services. Those are all responsibilities of local government, to smoke or not is a choice of the individual not a bureaucrat in an office somewhere. Maybe these clowns should go back to basics and do their freaking jobs!

This is clearly not part of it, and another way for them to shirk attention from more pressing issues like a deficit or corruption among city officials. Plain and simple, this is a discrimination issue, and some would-be employees will have quite the pay day when they sue the city. Still, this type of BS really ruffles my feathers.

Originally posted by Chicken_Bone
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

LOL, only Liberals would come up with a bunch of rules about wearing your underwear and telling you that you can't smoke even in your own damn house.

Disagree, liberals prefer no underwear..moving on

Lets see. Liberals think every kid needs to wear a helmet to ride a bike. Thinks they should be able to decide what kind of food you should be able to buy. ETC!!!!

no, mothers tend to push rules shoved into the mainstream..that is a bipartisan annoyance.

I never have heard a conservative say any of that. It is the Liberals who want a giant government to think for all of us poor idiots who cannot take care of ourselves wthout them. LOL!

You will find historically that whenever conservatives are in control, government spending and programs explode, be it military, or military, or military/homeland security. You will note the last time we had a surplus, there was a D in office (granted, Clinton was a bit of a conservative fiscally), but to your point, government actually shrank under Clinton...grew under reagen, grew under bush.

Liberals dont want a massive government...we want a effective one..its not about size (not sure why conservatives are soo concerned with size...freud would have a field day).

You appear to be watching far too much glen beck...your becoming rather confused about reality overall...facts do matter.

Originally posted by Miracle Man
reply to post by Anamnesis

 

Nevermind, the joke went from over your head to hitting you right in the forehead.

No explanation needed.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Miracle Man]

*BONK*

hehe... thanks for reading my entire response....

reply to post by SaturnFX


Obama is a Liberal, right?

Pelosi is a Liberal right?

Reid is a Liberal right?

Well they just made a huge government expansion when they forced through this healthcare bill. So is that what you mean by Liberals being for smaller government?

Look show me some proof that any conservative is worried about people smoking in their own house, or thinking government should do a deodorent check on their employees and we can talk further.