Doc, it's time for all of us to realize what organizations like ASH really are: fascists.
I'll leave to everyone of you to judge what is right to do against them. But keep clear in mind what they're doing: they are actively promoting hate, intolerance and social discrimination against a target group; they aren't shy of deceiving the public in order to have their views become socially acceptable, and they couldn't care less if, in doing so, they are going to ruin the lives of many honest citizens whose only fault is to be part of that target group they want to eliminate.
They are the enemy, not only of the target group in question, that are the smokers. They are enemy of a civil society in its whole. History teach us what can happen when the views of a hate group becomes dominant and socially acceptable in a nation. Once Hitler managed to convince the public that his discrimination policy against jews was socially acceptable, he faced virtually no opposition when he decided to put them all into concentration camps. Many of the germans agreed, many of them didn't care, the few of them who opposed him stayed silent in fear of retaliation.
ASH and the plethora of allies and minions have the necessary power, money and support to have their views become dominant, and they will do it if not stopped in some way. An enemy is an enemy, no matter if it wears a black dress or a white coat. It needs to be fought with any means necessary, even with violence if it's the only way to defend oneself.
Mike,
I'm still waiting to see scientific evidence confirming your hypothesis that smoking does not directly affect job performance.
In contrast, I've seen quite a bit of evidence indicating that off the job cigarette smoking can negatively job performance.
For someone who repeatedly criticizes others for making public claims that aren't based upon sound scientific evidence, you seem to have much lower standards for your own behavior.
From ASH's press release: "companies may [as some do] prohibit employees from having any detectable odor of tobacco smoke about them." In other words, they all stink! What a hateful statement. We are lightyears away from public health and individual health.
If you want to read how far hate can go: Howard Stern and the Klu Klux Klan
Bill wrote: "In contrast, I've seen quite a bit of evidence indicating that off the job cigarette smoking can negatively job performance."
We want to see the evidence!
Why should we believe your word? You are part of a movement which has a tendency to bend the facts according to its agenda, so you every word you say could be a lie. How's that for a generalization? Too bad liars don't stink, it would be easier to single them out and prevent them from getting jobs. Because everybody knows that those who lie are more likely to cheat on the job, to steal or to commit fraud. Another generalization ...
Off-the-job sexual activities can also negatively influence job performance. Some get pregnant, some get infected, and others might be tired the following day.
And I could expand the list of off-the-job activities: drinking, sports, eating, (not) sleeping, dating, partying, ...
Wouldn't it be more logical and more effective to measure on-the-job performance? Isn't that what counts on the job?
You fall into one the many traps of generalization: employers don't hire employees based on a generalized perception but through an indicvidual screening process. They are not interested in an "average" or "mean" of the population, because they tend to hire those who stand out from the crowd.
There are hundreds of studies finding that smokers are at higher risk for heart attacks, many diseases, higher healthcare costs, absenteeism, stench breath, poor educational performance, other drug addictions, crime and other things that some employers consider as affecting job performance.
Employers shouldn't be forced to hire drug addicts who insist upon engaging in self destructive behavior on a daily basis.
Stench breath?
Poor educational performance?
Crime?
What the hell?
Didn't you just chastize someone for making claims not based on sound scientific evidence, and now you're talking about silly things like how "stench breath" (whatever that's supposed to mean) makes someone unfit for work?
"absenteeism, stench breath, poor educational performance," I bet you find all of these symptoms also in non-smoking individuals. So if you hire somebody, do you give preference to the non-smoker with stench breath or to the smoker with higher education?
Are you insinuating that poor educational performance is caused by smoking? Isn't it just the otherway around, as we learn from epidemiological studies?
As for stench breath, are you suggesting a ban on garlic in restaurants and homes?
How deep can you fall ...?
Bill wrote:
"There are hundreds of studies finding that smokers are at higher risk for heart attacks, many diseases, higher healthcare costs, absenteeism, stench breath, poor educational performance, other drug addictions, crime and other things that some employers consider as affecting job performance."
Linking to a few of those "hundred of studies" would be a possible start of a meaningful debate, but you don't seem so fond of posting references backing your claims. Perhaps you think that we must believe you on faith?!?
Anyway, i see that nor my "flying pigs" example to expose your logical fallacy, nor the acknowledgement of Doc Siegel have sorted on you any effect (i wonder if you actually read the posts), since you insist on your line of "the contrary has never been proved". If BY PURE HYPOTESIS i'd say:
"Bill Godshall is a bonehead. The contrary has never been proved."
would you perhaps start to see the flaw in this logic?
Bill-
You stated that you've "seen quite a bit of evidence indicating that off the job cigarette smoking can negatively affect job performance."
But that's not at all relevant. The point is whether or not "off the job cigarette smoking DOES negatively affect job performance."
In other words, if there are some smokers whose job performance is somehow affected by the fact that they smoke at home, and some whose job performance is not, then it's discriminatory to refuse to hire ALL smokers simply because some of them may be affected. That's precisely what forms the basis of discrimination (and bigotry, I might add): judging ALL by the characteristics of SOME.
So even if there were evidence that cigarette smoking off the job COULD affect job performance, it doesn't help the argument that this is not discrimination or that this is acceptable employer behavior.
I would note that in the first place, I am not aware of ANY evidence that smoking off the job even COULD affect job performance, much less that it DOES affect job performance.
I would certainly be willing to consider any such evidence, if there's some scientific literature that I'm simply not aware of.
Smoking does affect job performance. Smokers are sick more often, have lower productivity due to smoking breaks and higher insurance costs.
"Smokers are sick more often."
So are parents with young children, women in early pregnancy, and fat people.
Should we encourage employers to refuse to hire people with young kids, women who seem to be at the stage of life where they may become pregnant, or fat people?
Bill says, "There are hundreds of studies finding that smokers are at higher risk for heart attacks, many diseases, higher healthcare costs, absenteeism, stench breath, poor educational performance, other drug addictions, crime and other things that some employers consider as affecting job performance.".
If this was the 1930's Bill could be writing about Jews for Der Stürmer and few would object. Today, Bill can write this about smokers and few in public health object. Some even endorse such views. I can only hope society will recognize the parallels, and one day individuals like this will joint the ranks of the infamous.
"In the early 1930s, the government of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler utilized highly racialized "scientific" rhetoric for pushing its restrictive and discriminatory social policies. When World War II broke out, the Nazi approach to race became a propaganda piece for the United States, and Boasians such as Ruth Benedict were able to consolidate their institutional power. In the years after the war, the discovery of the Holocaust and the Nazi abuses of scientific research (such as the ethical violations of Josef Mengele and other war crimes which were revealed at the Nuremberg Trials) led to a widespread repudiation of the use of science to support racist causes within the scientific community." See Wikipedia on Scientific Racism.
Several people here have demanded scientific proof of his claim. I'm sure Nazi scientists were able to support their claims with their research. But did this justify the discriminatory social practices then?
Is it wrong to call someone a criminal, only because he comes from a town that has a higher crime rate then others? Well this is exactly what prejudice is. Judging someone not as an individual, but a member of a group. This is what is meant by dehumanizing. In order to promote hate, they must first dehumanize the individual, by their classification as belonging to a group. The most obvious forms of discrimination is race, sex, national origin or sexual preference. The commonality is because they are different then your own. In many cases, the person promoting discrimination is motivated by an inferiority complex, and feel they must prove they are superior. Often it is driven by hate. Hate because someone different hurt them. Instead of holding a grudge against the person that hurt them, they notice a difference in them. They then transfer their hate to a group they can classify the individual(s) as belonging to. Classic behavior for a hater.
Now going back to Bill's statement, he feels it is OK to deny employment on a whole group of people because this group has a higher rate of criminals in it. Does that make sense at all? Is the individual a criminal? More then likely not. But the individual is never given a chance, because the employer is denying the entire group a chance. Am I saying the employer must hire the individual because he belongs to a group? No, I'm saying the employer should not consider his prejudices as applying to every member of the group. Am I saying it should be illegal, No, I'm saying this practice is unethical, despicable, repulsive and wrong. I'm saying that people who promote such practice are even more unethical, despicable, repulsive, wrong, and more than likely a hater.
More criminals smoke, therefore more smokers are criminals (or in Leroy's argument: smoking causes criminality), criminals affect job performance, therefore employers shouldn't hire smokers. This is essentially what was stated.
The criminality issue is often used in discrimination. Going back to Nazi propaganda, one of the arguments often used was because more Jews were criminals (confirmed by scientific Nazi research, as if any research done by Nazi's would prove anything except derogatory finding... Starting to sound familiar?), it was easy for the propagandist to say, being Jewish causes criminality, and therefore you shouldn't hire a criminal.
This is not calling Bill or anybody in tobacco control a Nazi, but illustrating how their use of propaganda, is amazingly similar to the techniques used by the Nazi's. To call Bill a Nazi, is the same as calling a smoker a criminal. It's essentially the same argument, only the issue is different.
Fortunately there is some in the anti-tobacco community, that recognize prejudice and discrimination, and how terribly wrong it is, and why. More importantly they have the courage to speak against such unethical practices, at the risk of being ostracized.
Bill has claimed he has a friend that smokes. I wonder if his friend realizes Bill considers him a criminal, and is actively promoting his unemployment.
Bill, please don't consider this as a personal attack, I'm doing this for your own good. No really, I seriously doubt you see it in your own words, and wouldn't be doing it if you did.
"Smoking does affect job performance. Smokers are sick more often, have lower productivity due to smoking breaks and higher insurance costs."
Again, the person is interjecting on the job activity, to justify discrimination on off the clock behavior. Nobody is arguing about discrimination about on the job behavior, but what someone does at home.
Employers are not required to provide health insurance, and in most cases employers charge employees different rates based on job title, and other external factors. In the case of Weyco, one employee wasn't even on the health plan, because she was already covered under her husbands.
Same for sick days, an employer is not required to pay you for the days you are sick. But I'm highly suspect of this type of research, as it can be distorted quite easily, but this doesn't matter. Excessive absentees are justification for termination, but how do you know the individual will be sick more often then others? You don't, yet you've made a decision he will be based on your prejudices. I think this is called due process isn't it Bill?
Those were some extremely fine comments, as usual, Walt.
Hey, Bill, since you feel so strongly about this, why don't you enter for a chance to go "Bloviate with Bill O'Reilly" on Fox News? What a great opportunity that would be for you to voice your opinions in front of a larger audience. Or maybe you can get your friend Leroy to do it?
Non-smokers usually die of horrible and expensive diseases, too. So the cost argument is bogus.
Which brings us to the real reason for the discrimination. Hatred of those who continue to smoke, rather than submitting to the will of the anti-smoking tyrant.
Good politcal philosophy has no need of the obfuscations of scientific pedantry in the hands intolerant tyrants.
Walt, i fully agree on you, except for one point.
I think that, when someone acts like a nazi, we should have the courage to call him nazi. A wrong thing would be to define the entire anti-smoking movement as "nazis" just because some of them, like Bill, Leroy or ASH, behave like nazis. THIS would be prejudice, the same prejudice that some anti-smoking nazis have against smokers.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/new...nny-
seattle.php
Especially note the content regarding how to teach the children to act out, act up, and they will take the next logical step-(and the children-younger folk already have in the gang attacks against, one convenience liquor store by suited gentlemen-gangs attacking smokers, drinkers, homeless) because they have been told it is ok by the "Adults" to do so.
Mike wrote:
"I am not aware of ANY evidence that smoking off the job even COULD affect job performance, much less that it DOES affect job performance."
That indicates that you either haven't read lots of published research, or that you don't accept the conclusions of lots of publshed research.
In contrast, many people (including a growing number of employers) have read and accept the findings of the research.
Employers behave more like actuaries
than medical researchers, as the former are more interested in assessing and reducing risks, while the latter are far more interested in identifying causation.
Cigarette smokers pose many different undesirable risks for employers, and the best way to reduce those risks is to require successful job applicants to quit and/or to remain smokefree.
That's not discrimination against smokers, but rather discrimination against smoking.
Since there are a few folks who continue spreading misinformation on this issue, I'm seriously considering providing large employers and various employer and industry associations
(e.g. Chambers of Commerce, NFIB, retailers, manufacturers, etc.) with information about the many risks of employing smokers, different state laws, and alternative strategies and tactics for reducing the risks of employee smoking.
"That indicates that you either haven't read lots of published research, or that you don't accept the conclusions of lots of publshed research."
Show us the way, provide the evidence!
"the many risks of employing smokers, different state laws, and alternative strategies and tactics for reducing the risks of employee smoking."
Show us the evidence! I hope you will not just ask them to believe you because you know it all.
And don't forget the risk that is inherent in the fact that employers are human beings with varying skills and motivations towards their job.
Bill-
When I ask for evidence that smoking could or does affect job performance, I'm asking for evidence of a direct effect. The fact that smokers may tend to be sicker more often is not a direct effect on job performance, and it's a weak argument because it is also true of people who have young children, women who are pregnant, and fat people. Your reasoning would lead to policies by which employers should refuse to hire anyone with young children, any woman who may become pregnant, and anyone who is fat.
In order to defend these policies as appropriate, I think you need to be able to demonstrate a direct effect of smoking on job performance. To date, I've seen no such evidence.
To Michael Siegel:
Thank you for the strong and knowledegable voice that has been absent for so long from this debate.
You resonate across the country into the ears of the unrepresented citizen smokers friends and families.
My state of Minnesota did the "side bar" settlement with tobacco in 1998 for$6.1 billion. $500,000 to BCBS of Minnesota to "recover costs to subscribers for smoking related costs"
the half billion is still in the pockets of BCBS MN being used for tobacco prevention exercises.
MPAAT (minnesota partnership for action against tobacco) another "sidebar" settlement of 202 million that is being spent today without legislative oversight under the nose of the Minnesota Legislature and governor.
The 2003 legislature led by a no new taxes Committee Chairman Ron Abrams passed a new floor price on tobacco of .35 per pack.. Fortifying that any new tobacco wholesalers that did not sign the "state tobacco settlement" would be mandated by law to not sell tobacco products for less than the partnership between the four tobacco companies that signed the historic leagal partnership with the state.
Result is that Minnesota that makes money based on tobacco sales would not benied their ounce of blood by the competetive process,
Much government trust and judicial safety once enjoyed by citizens is now compromised.
Mike,
It appears that you agree with my previous statement that employers behave more like actuaries by trying to assess and reduce risks, while you are interested in smoking research that finds a cause and effect relationship.
Employers can reduce the many undesirable risks associated with smoking by simply reducing the number of employees who smoke cigarettes.
John Snow didn't know that cholera was being transmitted by contaminated water at the infamous Broad Street pump in London when he eliminated the spread of cholera from that water by simply removing the pump's handle.
Not sure why the last posting cited an anonymous author, as I posted it.
Bill, you should maybe name those undesirable risks. What are they? So far, we haven't any clue what you are talking about.
Are you talking about risks that are unknown to date, or why would you cite the cholera case?
Or do you want to tell as that modern science (even your's) doesn't know all the risks yet?
Or are you suggesting that we should cease all human activity until we know for sure there are no undesirables risks related to each of them.
A friend of mine, manager in a large pharma company, was in the starting phase of an important long-time project when he was killed while cutting a tree in his garden. Besides the painful loss for his family and friends, it was a major loss for the company.
Reduce the number of employees who enjoy garden work?
Bill wrote:
"Employers can reduce the many undesirable risks associated with smoking by simply reducing the number of employees who smoke cigarettes."
That seems nonsense to me. I can't see how firing smokers could possibly reduce the health risks associated with smoking.
If a smoker is fired, we must assume that he didn't quit. So his health isn't certainly improved by losing his job.
About the health of the non-smokers employees, how can it possibly be improved by eliminating off-job smokers? Last time i checked, smoking wasn't an infective disease, but a vice taken up voluntarly. If i happen to know that my workmate smokes at home, i don't see how this fact could be harmful to my health.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is now apparently boasting on its website that their complaint was what caused CBS to pull the broadcast.
According to Banzhaf in the initial ASH release, "Finally, it should be noted that, while a significant number of states have so-called smokers' rights statutes, it appears that they are rarely if ever enforced."
That gem comes from a guy who professes to teach law, specifically how to play courtroom lotto and sue over and over til you find that one jury in a thousand who will vote in your favor and set precedent to overturn the 999 other verdicts against you. So ASH boasts that smokers' rights statutes are rarely enforced and that apparently makes them worthless or inconsequential. Does that mean Banzhaf and co think that failing to comply with such laws is a legitimate course of action? Should business owners similarly simply ignore smoking ban statutes promulgated by ASH lobbying?
Seems anti-smokers just can't seem to realize how they contradict themselves.
If ASH can lobby for companies to not consider hiring smokers for positions for the lame reasons they list, then they negate the only argument they had for legislating all-inclusive bans "for protection of the workers", since employers could similarly refuse to hire non-smokers should they wish to allow smoking in their place of business.
To Frank:
Bantzhaf must not have influence in fly over country, CBS affiliate WCCO TV Mpls St Paul showed the piece in its entireity, including the "states" that prohibit discrimination against smokers. Also aired was the Attorney against "home invasion by big brother employers" that want to own your soul while on your own time.
Under this blog entry, Bill threatens:
Since there are a few folks who continue spreading misinformation on this issue, I'm seriously considering providing large employers and various employer and industry associations
(e.g. Chambers of Commerce, NFIB, retailers, manufacturers, etc.) with information about the many risks of employing smokers, different state laws, and alternative strategies and tactics for reducing the risks of employee smoking.
01.20.06 - 2:18 pm
But under the blog entry U.S. Anti-Smoking Groups Quiet on Workplace Discrimination Against Smokers Bill wrote:
I don't know of any government agency or tobacco control organization that has been encouraging employers to adopt smokefree hiring policies. Rather, employers have been doing that on their own for many decades.
Unfortunately, the truth is not tolerated by FORCES.
01.20.06 - 5:16 pm
Bill, an agent of tobacco control (so don't bother with the defense that you are not an "organization"), wants to talk about who doesn't tell the truth when he can't even remain consistent within a three hour span?
In light of Bill's warm response to the author of this article in the Seattle Weekly which exposes some of the tax funded hate training program set up by Washington to target the state's youth, Radley Balko gives the blow by blow between Bill and the article's author, Philip Dawdy.
What's worse than Bill's incoherent rantings is the comments we see coming out of the mouths of babes scrolling across the marquee of the tax funded Washington government agency's hate site gathered by their input section called "Shout at the Tobacco Industry". Given the specific wording, perfect grammar, and flawless spelling of all the comments allegedly submitted by young readers, I have my doubts that those are actual unedited submissions. But even so, the founders of Hitler's Youth would be proud to see that even though we won the war, Americans eventually adopted Nazi ideals, lies, and propaganda techniques.
This is the program the anti-smokers built. We should be so proud.
We have a discussion board on this phenomenon over at SpeakEasy.
thanks frank.
In contrast to the false accusation posted by the coward who hides behind an alias, my statements on this issue have been accurate and consistent.
My former posting correctly stated that I was unaware of any health organization that has urged employers to adopt smokefree employment policies.
My latter posting correctly stated that I am considering informing employers about smokefree employment policies.
Even morons know the difference between the past and the future.
Besides, I didn't stated that I am considering urging employers to not hire smokers. But since that's been suggested by others on this blog, I'll have to reconsider.
I'd agree that "even morons know the difference between the past and the future." But you can't even tell time.
On 01.20.06 at 2:18 pm you wrote: I'm seriously considering providing large employers and various employer and industry associations... with information about the many risks of employing smokers..."
You describe this as the "latter posting" ("My latter posting correctly stated that I am considering informing employers about smokefree employment policies.")
Interesting how your words of intent change too.
On 01.20.06 at 5:16 pm you wrote: I don't know of any government agency or tobacco control organization that has been encouraging employers to adopt smokefree hiring policies.
(Interpreted, it defensively protests: "We don't do that" and then in practically the same breath you'll consider it).
You describe this as your "former posting" ("My former posting correctly stated that I was unaware of any health organization that has urged employers to adopt smokefree employment policies.")
When you learn to tell time then maybe you can rise to the rank of those who "even know the difference between the past [latter] and the future [former]."
Oh, I know, when someone is juggling so many deceptions at once it's hard to keep all the balls in the air.
Commenting by HaloScan
