It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City wants to nip tobacco use in the butt

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
A city here in Ohio, Cuyahoga Falls, does not allow any city employees to smoke.

From their online application: "I understand that I must refrain from using any tobacco products for the duration of my employment with the City of Cuyahoga Falls."

Full PDF of application can be found at Positions Available by clicking on General Employment Application.




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chicken_Bone
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Obama is a Liberal, right?

no


Pelosi is a Liberal right?

somewhat


Reid is a Liberal right?

somewhat

[quote
Well they just made a huge government expansion when they forced through this healthcare bill.
not very huge...they put some new laws in that effect insurance companys and such...no new mega program was created...there will be more positions opened of course, but a drop in the bucket in the sea of administration.

So is that what you mean by Liberals being for smaller government?

Didn't say that...said smart government...effective government. Again with the size thing...



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.

Well, from my view, the person pushing all of this may be the one that is focusing your madness...and she seems pretty conservative to me

You should totally send her a e-mail. Here is her cute little webpage
Jennene Norman-Vacha's site

n-joi



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Ahhh she is not that cute, but maybe on a slow night after a few beers. By the way what makes you think she is conservative. Is it because she is happily married to one man and didn't post photos of an abortion?

If Obama isn't liberal then what is he?

If you are for effective government then why would you be for things like worrying about if a kid wears a helmet or whether people smoke in their own homes. That is just control for the sake of control and doesn't do anything constructive. If we are free then we should be free to make choices as long as they don't physically harm others. If I want to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes a day on my own time then who cares? If I want my kid to ride his bike without looking like he just left the special olympics then whose business is it but mine and my sons?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Chicken_Bone]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


To me this is like being forced to wear a seat belt.

If I was a child of a smoker I would love this law.
Children do not understand all the complicated "rights" the hazards of addictions and "why" people smoke, they only correctly guess,
odds are they will get the great gift of a parent for much longer in their life.

Isn't this the bottom line in this country? Or shouldn't it be?
Keeping kids parents alive to see their grand kids.

If they have to ban cigarettes to accomplish this great feat of survival...I think I could adjust.

I almost wish they were illegal here in FL. Maybe I could quit.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


God, I hope you are being sarcastic.

If you are not, are you really trying to say that you lack self control so much that you need the government to make something illegal to help you quit doing it? That is pathetic.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Chicken_Bone
 


Obama smokes cigarettes too. Just because you are liberal or conservative, when you write or pass a piece of legislation, you most likely cover your own self. Those three you mentioned are more than obliged to enjoy a smoke when they want. They wrote rules for you, not themselves.

Anyone ever watched Escape from LA with Kurt Russell? Great movie that is maybe our end result. Demolition Man with Stallone and Wesley Snipes is also a prescient reminder of where we are headed.

People who enjoy freedoms will always reign, people who want to enjoy same will succumb to the dominating forces. Then we'll have the outlaws who won't bow down. So basically, terrorists vs. sellouts.

Anyways, you can unilaterally ban something that everyone knows is bad, (meantime reap the rewards of said banned substance), yet when it comes to the chemicals that are present in all our good and healthy, FDA approved foods and vaccines... They are approved and disapproved based on politics, not true health worthiness. Just listen to these commercials that say you can sleep better with our product, over half the commercial is just listing side effects.

BTW, last I checked, the leading cause of death nowadays is, BIRTH! We are born to die and hopefully learn something along the way.

I think its all just a cop out for the true cause of all these ailments attributed to cigarette smoking. Industrial pollution has acceptable standards. Smoking has no acceptable standards are what the new wisdom beholds. Crazy...



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


People do what they do because they want to. If its legal to buy cigarettes and fuel a tax economy, should you not have the same right to use the products that are actually paying wages to people?

This could very well be the next bubble. Tax revenue which doesn't show up. The same thing that raises your property taxes to send others kids to school. To be further brainwashed into thinking this is wholly acceptable.

The same people who complain about this are allowing their kids to parrot the thinking that will completely screw their parents over when the time comes to annul old people rights.

Ignorant crusaders become complicit in that which they are trying to prevent. Very ironic it seems. Hegel at his best.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan


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



If you answer that question honestly, I'm sure you'll find why they insist that those folks wear underwear



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chicken_Bone
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


God, I hope you are being sarcastic.

If you are not, are you really trying to say that you lack self control so much that you need the government to make something illegal to help you quit doing it? That is pathetic.


Pretty much. Also why I don't kill people.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 





People do what they do because they want to. If its legal to buy cigarettes and fuel a tax economy, should you not have the same right to use the products that are actually paying wages to people?


Totally depends on what those products are. You really have to draw the line somewhere. This guy wants a prostitute (which I happen to think should be legal in a liberal society) and I would like to get my hands on some opium. Now does common sense, public safety, propriety or risks to general health or the general population get taken into account before something is legalized? If cigarettes came out on the market today you think they would pass the FDA? Guess again.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Good, I wish they would make tobacco illegal.

Every day I notice tobacco is mentally stressing people out, and they are too mentally controlled by tobacco that they can't see it, and will deny it.

My sister smoked for many years until she decided to give it up. She just stopped, no help at all. When she was smoking, she was the biggest b!tch in the world. Always irritated, always stressing, always a bad vibe, and these feelings I knew she felt too because that would make her smoke another cig. which made her think it helped.

A week after she quit, she was the most relaxed I have ever seen her ever. She is more calm, less stressed, completely different. Way easier to talk to as well... In my opinion, she turned back into my REAL sister, and was no longer the the sister that was mentally controlled by nicotine.

It turns out, smoking cigarettes causes a really subtle mental change in its subjects that the subjects themselves don't notice, and it isn't a good change. When nicotine is in their system it fools their mind into thinking they feel better. In reality, once they "come down" from their cigarette high their body snaps in to a stressed out, b!tchy, irritated mood until they have another cig. Once they have another cig their mind is again fooled into thinking cigs make them feel better (like a cure). So, the cigs cause their stress when they don't have one, and it temporarily hides their stress when they do have one. It's a never ending loop of self destruction caused by the cigs and it's ability to mentally control your instincts.

I can only imagine how cigs effect the work place, especially when most work places allow cig breaks! My sister is probably a much better employee now that she is less stressed and irritated by the nicotine in her system.

In my opinion nicotine is right up there with alcohol, and marijuana... Although the mental effects of nicotine are less noticeable to the subject, its effects ARE THERE just like alcohol and marijuana. They are just different effects.

If I was an employer, I wouldn't allow people to smoke on the job. To let them smoke cigs is like letting them drink alcohol on the job, or smoke weed on the job. Most smokers will deny, deny, deny that it has any type of effect, but that denial is actually caused by the nicotine in their system, and they don't see the effects themselves (most of the time).



The sad part is,

Someone who is suicidal and confronted by police is put on a 72 hour hold in a mental hospital until they are no longer a danger to themselves. Countless times I have noticed cig smokers announce that they don't care if cigs kill them, so they are suicidal. Cigs are making them suicidal and they don't even know it.

The really sad part is if you are in a mental hospital because you are suicidal, they DO allow you to take smoke breaks. Sone hospitals even give you free cigs to smoke... like "here, go ahead and kill yourself with cancer and stress, but you can't jump of a building!".


The mental issues surrounding cigs are insane. Some reason everyone overlooks what mental effects cigs have because the effect is very subtle. Since it is subtle, people believe the effects are nearly non-existent. If the effects of cigs. are non-existent then why do people smoke them?? It's a mental thing going on that is going undetected.

Second hand smoke....
I don't really focus on the the cancer causing part of second hand smoke, but the mental changes of s.h.s. is a big deal. If you are smoking cigs next to a child, you are technically forcing your child to the mental changes that cigarettes cause. There is no reason for ANY child to have ANY of the mental effects that cigs. cause. Kids do not need anything cigs. provide. If anything, it stunts their natural mental growth.

Most people smoke cigs because it "helps reduce their stress" like it is a medication.... With s.h.s. the people around you are forced to take the same medication. It should be illegal for one person to unwillingly medicate another person. Second hand smoke is basically that... others forcing medication on others, and kids.

Anyway, I'll shut up now because I know every nicotine controlled person is going to ridicule me. Then when I reply to them, they will get stressed out and smoke another cig and continue to kill themselves slowly.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


No, not ridicule you on tobacco, but let's go this route. What's next? Caffeine? Ephedrine? Saccharin?

When do we get to banning adrenaline because it causes "too much stress on the body"? No adrenaline rushes, anyone. It could cost you your job, now!

Stories like these are perfect examples of a government that is too big, making all sorts of laws that border on unconstitutional because "they know what's best for you and you don't".



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Do you wear a seat belt? Why?
I don't remember the marches in the streets. For God's sake they are strapping you in. Ruins my clothes before I even get into work, I can't even see behind me to back up with the stupid thing on...and yet I wear it. I am required by law to try and save my own life.

And the key here is "reasonable" you must make a reasonable effort to try to save your own life.
You cannot "legally" be asked to do something that is unreasonable. Not that it doesn't happen.

So, this makes me wonder why all the new taxes and fuss over cigarettes all of a sudden? Obama doesn't need this battle now either. Why take it on?

I am beginning to think new information has been brought out today's cigarettes are significantly much, much WORSE for people than anyone has even known or admitted.
Those holding the bag and everyone responsible along the supply line is trying to quickly and quietly make them go away.

It could as well be the reason you are losing your cigarettes.
Going the way of absinthe, arsenic and old lace.




[edit on 20-4-2010 by rusethorcain]



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


No, not ridicule you on tobacco, but let's go this route. What's next? Caffeine? Ephedrine? Saccharin?


I knew someone would ask that... it's like clockwork for someone to make that "point". What you are doing is exaggerating the issue.

Caffeine, ephedrine, and saccharin, are irrelevant to this issue. They do not kill nearly as many people as nicotine. They don't even deserve to be outlawed like cigs do, because you can't really go around and just force people to take caffeine, ephedrine, and saccharin like you can force nicotine on people via smoke. Those substances are a totally different issue, and isn't even worth mentioning in this topic.

That same question you asked was asked when marijuana plants were made illegal. What natural plant is next? Apple trees? Rose bushes? Grape vines? It's just scare tactic...


Originally posted by sos37
When do we get to banning adrenaline because it causes "too much stress on the body"? No adrenaline rushes, anyone. It could cost you your job, now!


I wasn't saying nicotine should be banned because it causes mental stress, I was saying it should be banned because it mentally traps you into a loop of self destruction. The thing people believe is curing them of stress is actually causing it. It's a loop.

Adrenaline is a natural body chemical. Nicotine is not.

Your argument is more of a scare tactic. To scare people into thinking that making tobacco illegal will start a chain reaction of everything becoming illegal. Tobacco is an issue of it's own, adrenaline is really not.


Originally posted by sos37
Stories like these are perfect examples of a government that is too big, making all sorts of laws that border on unconstitutional because "they know what's best for you and you don't".


Unconstitutional? How? Doesn't that mean that marijuana being illegal is unconstitutional too? Why don't you, or all the cigarette smokers care about that?



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I'm a smoker and I don't care anymore. The government and corperations have complete control over us. The only thing they care about is having obediant workers that live long lives and pay lots of taxes.

Personaly I'm not gonna quit smoking no matter what they do. The quicker I leave this mud ball the better.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


No, not ridicule you on tobacco, but let's go this route. What's next? Caffeine? Ephedrine? Saccharin?

When do we get to banning adrenaline because it causes "too much stress on the body"? No adrenaline rushes, anyone. It could cost you your job, now!



Didn't you hear? As soon as they banned the very first thing, everything else was banned.

It happened. Honest.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Maybe Obama is just trying to create a new black market by slowly banning cigarettes. Now people will be gunned down in a drive-by over a carton of cigarettes and we can spend 50 billion dollars on the war against cigarettes.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain

odds are they will get the great gift of a parent for much longer in their life.

Isn't this the bottom line in this country? Or shouldn't it be?
Keeping kids parents alive to see their grand kids.

My God... the same thing was mentioned at the end of the original article:

"I just know that I wish to God that someone had made my mother quit smoking. She might still be here today," Bradburn said. "But, it should be an interesting discussion come Monday."


When did quantity of life take such a back seat to quality of life? You say you want others to live longer... that's fine and noble... but would you seal them in a bubble to make that happen? Would you take away all that makes them human, all their quirks and preferences and desires and wants and dreams, just so you can see them a little longer?

Would you torture them if it meant they lived longer for you?

If you call this love, please, please, please, I am begging you, do not love me. If you call this compassion, please, please, please, I am begging you, do not have compassion for me.

I would rather have freedom to live my life as I choose than your well-intentioned oversight.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by dfens
 





Totally depends on what those products are. You really have to draw the line somewhere. This guy wants a prostitute (which I happen to think should be legal in a liberal society) and I would like to get my hands on some opium. Now does common sense, public safety, propriety or risks to general health or the general population get taken into account before something is legalized? If cigarettes came out on the market today you think they would pass the FDA? Guess again.


First off, you can get opium as much as you want. It comes in the form of hydrocodone or oxycodone. If you have good enough sales talk when it comes to your 'symptoms', you will get your opium. From your doctor.

Car exhaust is more lethal than cigarette smoke. They both emit carbon monoxide. So, basically, its a few more molecules of carbon dioxide which noone has a choice of limiting what they respirate. We take our oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Every green thing in this world uses what we exhale as fuel for photosynthesis.

The FDA passes drugs that cause people to commit suicide. That is a fact. They allow flouride and mercury in everything. They allow aspartame as well. They are a politically motivated agency. You are rather vacuous to trust in them.

Tobacco is a tremendous source of revenue. It costs little to grow and process, yet it reaps humongous profits. More for government in general, yet I think those companies do well enough to stay open.

That big ol' settlement they were forced into managed to balance many states budgets as opposed to helping with health care costs or helping people quit.

Everyone who wants to quit, can quit, with no help even. I personally don't want to, yet I may have to. When that happens, I know that my rights have been screwed. And its the tax revenue that needs to drive the cost up as opposed to actually helping anyone.

If you want to be so crusaderish, why not campaign for the end of alcohol? Or the end of untested pharmaceutical drugs? Or the end of corporate pollution? Or the end of various fast foods? If you are disgusted by others behavior, why not make your own stand, instead of mimicking a party line?

The thing about smoking is that most are respectful about it. If you are with a group of people who don't like it, you don't smoke around them. Even if you want to. But, how is that discriminatory to the opposite party?

Its cool if you hate smokers, but its not cool if you hate people's race or sexual orientation.

Like I say, not like I do. If people were more tolerant, then we might be able to evince some change in our global policies.

You can smoke 100 cartons of cigarettes in one year and emit less carbon monoxide than one tank of gas.

Don't fall for the game that you are ill equiped to play. Cigarettes do less damage than cars, trucks, and airplanes. Just because some pol says it is so, does not mean they are right.

Maybe you can just feel safe in the fact that you are a sheople...



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


I don't know about you, but I wear a seat belt because I know you are much more likely to be ejected from a car during a crash or rollover if you are not wearing one. If you are ejected, your chances of survival are next to nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join