Ash said that "firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees."
Then you say that ASH is calling on companies to fire smoking employees.
But stating that it is appropriate to do something is not the same thing as urging or "calling on" someone to do it.
While you might by right that they are not "urging" companies to discriminate against smokers, they are clearly encouraging on the basis that
- that it is not illegal or
- that laws are not enforced (so far for good citizenship).
Where it gets realy ridiculous is when they say: "... even in states with such laws, companies may [as some do]
prohibit employees from having any detectable odor of tobacco smoke about them – a rule which generally requires smokers to shower, shampoo, and change their clothes after each smoke."
The worst however is that CBS backed off from airing the piece: CBS-TV Holds Smoker Piece Following Complaint and then aired it with a completely different tune:
"As then aired after the delay, the piece was generally quite favorable in reporting on a new policy by Scotts Miracle-Gro to fire all employees who smoke, even off the job, pointing out how unnecessarily expensive it is to employ them. CBS closed by suggesting that firing employees who smoke may be a "national model" and a "new reality."
And CBS/ASH to conclude: "... with words which seemingly lend support to the position ASH and many other antismoking and nonsmokers' rights groups have taken – that firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees."
The hunt is on, eliminate all those who burden health care, for whatever reason!
ASH visibly has forced the mighty CBS into a kowtow.
But ASH isn't that bad. They want us to get a balanced view by citing: "Since responsible broadcasters always try to feature quotes from both sides on controversial issues, it is interesting that the only employee who is quoted in the report is a smoker who doesn't object to the new policy. Instead she says that "he is giving [employees] a choice.""
That's what people say after a thorough brainwash (and a threat to loose their job).
ASH most certainly is encouraging employers to adopt these policies. They issued a press release on this. No one forced them to intervene and try to capture massive media attention on this issue. They obviously did it for a reason. And the reason is that they want to publicly encourage these policies. I think it's quite obvious.
Benpal,
I highly doubt CBS was influenced or substantially changed their report based on John Banzhaf threats. Banzhaf has always been known to "embellish" the truth quite a bit, as all snake-oil salesmen have a propensity to do.
Remember that CBS also broadcast on "60 Minutes" back in October a segment called, "Whose Life Is It Anyway?", which was about increasing encroachment of employers into employees' private lives. They revealed (on page three) that the city of North Miami quietly repealed their ban on hiring smokers for the police department and CNN quietly dropped a 13 year ban on hiring smokers. Now why don't we see those events making headlines?!? Is it only when companies start firing smokers that it is newsworthy enough to shout to the world in the main stream media, but when they start hiring again because they realize their stupid policy was misguided, it has to be done in a whisper? That shows you the lack of impartiality of the main stream media.
This trend is clearly spawned by 2 decades of anti-smokers spewing hate over the airwaves, but like polyester leisure suits and discos, it will be short lived. I don't see how Scott's expects to be able to fire 25-30% of its workforce and expect to replace them. As more and more companies jump on this ban-wagon such policies will start to effect their ability to find and retain qualified workers.
I think John Banzhaf is trying to distract everybodys attention from something.
When ASH was founded some 35 years ago, based on a claim that smoking tobacco 'causes' lung cancer, there were about 50.000 lung cancer deaths in the US. Today, after 35 years of 'indespensible' ASH service, smoking in the US is down to about half and lung cancer deaths have tripled. Now lung cancer deaths are rising again, this time to 163,500.
I smell a big, fat rat.
Well, hey, the compassionate Mr. Godshall has already informed us we should be grateful he's not advocating murder charges against smokers.
Thanks for the warning Bill; we now know a future tactic of your fascist movement.
I don't really think the ASH stand on firing smokers is "lower" than any other initiatives or policies of the tobacco control movement. Why should punishing smokers by removing one means of their obtaining financial security (ie: firing from employment) be considered worse than stealing private property rights and opportunities for entrepreneurial free-market exercises (as is what re-defining "employee", "workplace" and "public place" was really all about) - other favorite "very effective ways" the tobacco control movement demanded, as a "win by any means" way to stop burdening the great majority with having to take responsibility for their own decisions or actions leading to their voluntarily exposure to any real or perceived personal health or safety risk?
By not advocating making the importation, manufacturing and sale of tobacco products illegal (and instead trampling rights, family decision-making authority, and all free-market entrepreneurship. through consumer "denormalization" campaigns), the entire tobacco control movement has clearly and consistenly identified itself as a tyrannical, "get control over everyone and their formerly-independent decision-making sovereignty" movement - in every aspect, since day one. Their relentless attacks against principles supporting The Family, Free Enterprise and Property Rights clearly indicates their top-level proponents' embracement of Platonic philosophy, so expect further societal disintegration at their hands under their Big Government empowerment.
There are two points of view on smoking - the anti view and the smoker's view. Currently there are 20 to 30% of the population who smoke and obviously do not agree that smoking is harmful. As smoking bans and now this action takes place, smokers will either be out on the streets and selters or will press for employment in smoking companies, no non-smokers can be hired. No non-smokers will be allowed access.
Since the creative population of this world also smokes - what companies will survive? Without new and better products what will a company produce? Maybe government can survive, but what is happening to the local auto industry, software industry, or consumer electronics industry, all their creativity is off shore or non-existent. This country can not exist solely on the stock market. Pretty soon the non-smoker will also be on the street because their employers have no new ideas and cease to exist.
As the baby boomers retire and start to consume a greater portion of the countries' GDP, the anti smokers may be healthier, but what pleasures will they enjoy as they support the boomers?
As smokers develope new products in their basements, garages, and dining rooms, and need to expand, hire employees to make and sell their products, will there be a city, county, or state for them to do it?
Non-smokers are creating an adversary in their quest for clean air. Those adversaries will have no interest in employing these people and will pursue their needs amongst those who have their values. They will feel justified in letting the non-smokers live in the parks they have created for themselves.
Be warned.
A policy of firing smokers will appeal to nonsmokers. It will, afterall, remove some of their workplace competion.
If there can be some good in this story, it's that it helped the public to draw a precise line between good and evil. To be more clear, a border between the fews who try to act in public's good behalf and the fascist hate-monger part of the anti-tobacco movement.
ASH's press release did NOT encourage the firing of all smokers, as Mike Siegel claims.
Rather, ASH correctly pointed out that most employers have a legal right to fire employees who choose
their drug addiction over their job, and that doing so is appropriate and very effective for employers.
I think issuing a press release stating that firing smokers is an appropriate and effective way to deal with the burgeoning costs of health care is certainly encouraging this policy.
Bill's argument would be analogous to stating that if I issued a press release stating that firing all Asian Americans was an appropriate and effective way to deal with poor performance in the workplace then I was not encouraging racism, merely noting that it would be an appropriate and effective policy approach.
Your accusation "ASH Encourages Firing of All Smokers" is inaccurate.
Since its illegal for some employers to fire some smokers in some states, you have basically accused ASH of encouraging thousands of employers to violate various state laws.
You are free to disagree with ASH, but publicly accusing ASH of encouraging illegal activities is a very serious charge, and you presented no evidence to substantiate your accusation.
Bill wrote: "Since its illegal for some employers to fire some smokers in some states, you have basically accused ASH of encouraging thousands of employers to violate various state laws."
Wow, what I nice linguistic and logical flip-flop. You got it all wrong.
ASH also said that even where it is illegal, the laws are not enforced. But you are putting all your arguments into the legal field. Let's rather talk moral, human rights, consideration for others.
Bill defensively and accusingly states: Since its illegal for some employers to fire some smokers in some states, you have basically accused ASH of encouraging thousands of employers to violate various state laws.
Let me help you out here Bill and provide the clearer statement Banzhaf made that says exactly that:
"Finally, it should be noted that, while a significant number of states have so-called smokers' rights statutes, it appears that they are rarely enforced."
At no time before or after making that statement does Banzhaf add that he disapproves -- either personally or professionally -- of the non-enforcement of a protective law. His approval of it lives within the notation of it.
And only when one supports something does one go on to try and prove what they've said:
"Indeed, a check of Lexis news articles and judicial opinions failed to disclose even one reported instance of a discrimination-against-smokers case. On the other hand, there are a growing number of surveys and anecdotal evidence showing more and more companies refusing to hire smokers..."
Nevermind that perhaps the reason he can't find any reports might be because the law is... ummmm... working?!
More importantly, an attorney who took an oath to uphold the law (personal bias disallowed) is obviously suffering a corruption of his professional ethics.
Your accusation "ASH Encourages Firing of All Smokers" is inaccurate.
Since its illegal for some employers to fire some smokers in some states, you have basically accused ASH of encouraging thousands of employers to violate various state laws.
You are free to disagree with ASH, but publicly accusing ASH of encouraging illegal activities is a very serious charge, and you presented no evidence to substantiate your accusation.
Bill Godshall
The evidence is in the article Bill, or should I say; not there.
Title; ASHPR: CBS Holds Up Story After ASH Questions its Accuracy,
Then Reports Anti-Smoker Employment Policy Favorably as a "National Model" and "New Reality" [01/21/06-1]
http://no-smoking.org/jan06/01-21-06-1.html
hmm... I don't see ASH informing employers that it "may" be against the law to follow this "New Reality" in their state in the title of the article. Nor did I see in the body of the article; a list of states which would not allow this "New Reality."
ASH IS INDEED ENCOURAGING "ALL" EMPLOYERS TO FOLLOW THIS "NEW REALITY" REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS. THEY ARE ENCOURAGING EMPLOYERS TO FIND LOOP WHOLES OR TRY IT AND SEE, FOR THOSE THAT FEEL IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED DISCRIMINATORY IN THEIR STATE, STATING;
http://no-smoking.org/jan06/01-19-06-5.html
"First, many laws, even as written, provide little if any protection.
Second, even in states with such laws, companies may [as some do] prohibit employees from having any detectable odor of tobacco smoke about them... This requirement may effectively prevent people who smoke off the job site from working there, even if abstaining from tobacco use isn't made an express “condition of employment.”
while a significant number of states have so-called smokers' rights statutes, it appears that they are rarely if ever enforced. Indeed, a check of Lexis news articles and judicial opinions failed to disclose even one reported instance of a discrimination-against-smokers case. On the other hand, there are a growing number of surveys and anecdotal evidence showing more and more companies refusing to hire smokers…"
quote ASH article;
"In closing, CBS seems somewhat supportive of the new policy, and suggests – as ASH does – that it represents the long-overdue wave of the future: Change is never easy, but it's the new reality for these workers. And, if it works, everyone's bottom line will look better."
If you notice after "As ASH does" in the above quote; there is NO; "In states that would ALLOW IT..."
I suggest; you go ask ASH why they are; "encouraging illegal activities," Bill. Please, get back to us, I am curious as to what they say. ;o)
1. What's to prevent others from being targeted by miserable people who wish to spread their misery to others like obese people, (as stated on the website post), etc.
2. Notice how Bill uses "fear tactics" in his defense of ASS, I mean ASH.
"...You are free to disagree with ASH, but publicly accusing ASH of encouraging illegal activities is a very serious charge, and you presented no evidence to substantiate your accusation."
Borderline threatening.
Meanwhile firing smokers -even though they may smoke only off site- does not seem to bother him at all. Smokers who may be fellow Americans. Who may be firemen or soldiers. As stated, who may have children to support.
3. It proves is that, when one dehumanizes another group, rights can be violated and it's
"appropriate and very effective" to do so.
Also that when one is de-humanized by hate and feelings of inadequacy, one has no problem violating others humanity or individualism, interfering in others personal life.
People who obviously don't care how this might affect their own children, let alone seven generations, are totally blind to the damage they do to the society they claim to want to protect. Hello! News Flash! These smokers are also part of the society.
Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Bin Laden? Bah! We've got terrorism and plenty of people who hate americans right here in our midst. They just happen to be other americans.
Reading another article on this site made me think of another point.
If this policy is a public health policy and implies that smoking is an issue -even when the smoker is not smoking- one has to ask about other poisonous gasses and groups.
Perhaps it would be "appropriate and effective" to fire all persons who drive to work. We all know that the exhaust from internal combustion engines is toxic and can be lethal. I bet most of ASH drives a personal gasoline burning vehicle. Someday we could make them live in Special parts of the city.
I don't think there are any laws on the books against that, so it must be okay.
Cool. See, just that easy, another dangerous group dehumanized and eliminated!
souljer might be surprised to find out that many local governments have employment policies that require all employees to live in that same jurisdiction.
While those employment policies clearly impact on legal off-the-job activities, nobody posting on this blog has criticized those employment policies.
And in fact, there are hundreds of legal off-the-job activities that various employers have forbid employees from engaging in.
Same old bunk. Same old sorry excuses to justificate social discrimination by giving the impression that it's a normal thing, done everywhere and that doesn't upset anyone, unless smoking is mentioned. In this case, the "selfish", "arrogant" and "irated" smokers, dare to call for unjustificated workplace protection. Is it right, Bill?
Too bad the people here are too intelligent to be fooled by you. Your stating is meaningless:
"souljer might be surprised to find out that many local governments have employment policies that require all employees to live in that same jurisdiction."
What are these jobs? Where it is enacted such a policy? What is the reason? Without this info, your words say nothing. There can be many reasons to request to be resident in the area for a job, and until those reasons are revealed this policy cannot be judged.
About this:
"And in fact, there are hundreds of legal off-the-job activities that various employers have forbid employees from engaging in."
Have any reference? Can you name, say, 100 of them? They aren't that much, since you say "hundreds". Anyway, those words are meaningless too, since it's not explained if those "hundreds" of legal activites (supposing they exist) are impacting job performance or not. Care to explain better?
tr1cKy wrote: "Same old bunk. Same old sorry excuses to justificate social discrimination by giving the impression that it's a normal thing, done everywhere and that doesn't upset anyone, unless smoking is mentioned."
Exactly. Let us suppose that homosexual activity was neither politically correct nor legally protected at the moment. We would see the Bills and the Weycos and the Scotts making quite similar arguments with regard to the "outrageous" medical costs to employers of hiring gay workers.
There'd be notes of distaste for public displays of affection between gay people, probably even all sorts of pseudo-scientific hate research trying to claim that AIDS is spread by sneezing or mosquitoes and based on the same sort of "zero-tolerance, no-threshold, no possible 'complete' protection" nonsense.
There'd be claims of "I'm not Anti-Gay, I'm just against people practicing gay sex."
And statements like "Yeah, condoms provide SOME protection, but they can never eliminate ALL chance of AIDS transmission."
And holy pronouncements of "Every act of gay sex increases the chance of an AIDS transmission, and every AIDS transmission increases the change of having the virus mutate into a more transmissible (i.e. airborne) form, which obviously THREATENS TO KILL OUR CHILDREN!"
And "Children who see gayness accepted on TV and in the movies are 37% more likely to experiment with gay sex and become hooked on it."
Fortunately for gay people, they saw their danger early enough to form a movement with enough power to protect themselves both legally and through their media presentations.
Bill, think about it: how different are you and what you are doing, in a fundamental way, than those who would have been out for gay blood if things had gone differently in our society over the last 30 years?
:/
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Apart from that, it seems to me that encouraging employers to fire smokers on the basis that
"while a significant number of states have so-called smokers' rights statutes, it appears that they are rarely if ever enforced."
is a not-so-covert encouragement of an unlawful behaviour. They are telling that, if an employer breaks the law by firing smokers because of their habit, the employer in question is quite likely to remain unpunished because the law is rarely enforced.
I see no difference from encouraging smuggling because you're quite unlikely to be caught by the cops with the contrabanded goods on your car, or from encouraging car robbery because you're quite unlikely to be caught in the act.
Michael McFadden's gay analagy is spurious.
There are as many exsmokers in America as current smokers (about 45 million), but I've only heard of a few cases in which gay people became heterosexual (which occurred due to religious conversions).
Also, there are more employers in this country that don't hire gays than employers that don't hire smokers.
Bill wrote:
"Also, there are more employers in this country that don't hire gays than employers that don't hire smokers."
care to name a few of them, Bill? C'mon, at least once in a time, bring some proof of what you say. I promise, if you do that, i won't bash you for a whole week.
Why could I find Diana Woodbury's comments on this Blog around 7AM this morning, but not now? Here it is, along with Michael's reply:
Dear Michael,
I am confused and horribly disappointed with your posts regarding the Helena, Mt study as well as your latest attack on ASH's point of view on hiring smokers. As a performer who cannot even do my job, as the only venues available to me are the smoke-filled casinos, I find it alarming that a supposed "anti-smoker" or someone who supposedly cares about putting an end to the death and disease caused by the tobacco industry, would go out of his way to sabotage studies that would help to alleviate the pain and suffering. I don't mean to insult you, but did you recently receive money from the tobacco industry? If not, why not use your incredibly persuasive writing skills to get the smoke out of my workplace instead of helping an industry that has limitless funds to fight its own battles???? I am asthmatic, and was diagnosed with heart problems, yet my profession forces me to work in smoke-filled venues! And you are worried about the people who choose to smoke, when all they have to do is stop buying their miniature toxic waste dumps and stop smoking them???? What am I supposed to do? Stop breathing? Whose side are you on??? Many of my loved ones, including my father, either died or are sick from smoking and secondhand smoke. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would be able to quit this horrific addiction without a HUGE incentive, so why NOT refuse to hire smokers???? When I can get a job in a smoke-free casino, get to my favorite restaurant without having an asthma attack from inhaling all the smoke from people crowding outside the doorways in California, can walk on the beach without watching a mother smoking a cigarette inches from her baby's nose, and never have to see another lit cigarette being thrown out of the car on a dry summer day into one of the most beautiful forests in the world, then perhaps I will have more sympathy for someone's deadly addiction that not only kills them, but their families and friends along with them. To date, I have three friends who are dead because they loved a smoker. They put up with their spouse's freebasing next to them and died the most drawn-out agonizing deaths imaginable. Not one of them ever smoked a cigarette or asked to be subjected to their loved one's smoke.
Admit it. If it were ANY other drug, it would never have been legal in the first place, and we would not be having this discussion!!! I am so sick from all the second-hand smoke I have had to breathe over the past 36 years that I can't even walk past someone smoking a cigar OUTSIDE without getting bronchitis, headache, sore throat, runny nose, coughing, and wheezing for weeks. As someone who is paying the price for all the smokers that you are trying to protect with my health, my income, my astronomic hospital bills, and my very life, I beg you to use your efforts AGAINST the tobacco industry. Believe me, the murderers have plenty of money. They don't need your help! And the smokers need to start taking responsibility for the death and disease that they PERSONALLY cause, as well.
Sincerely,
Diana Woodbury
Diana Woodbury | 01.24.06 - 6:01 am |
Diana,
I'm a little confused about your comment, because I am actually one of the few (and possibly the only) "anti-smokers" who stood up and publicly denounced the New Jersey anti-smoking groups, legislature, and Governor for failing to protect casino workers from the hazards of secondhand smoke. I'm not sure you are aware of that, but perhaps you might want to read those posts on my blog. That should clarify any misperception about who exactly is willing to stand up for the health of those who work in casinos and who exactly has cowered down to the political power of the casino industry.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 01.24.06 - 11:07 am | #
Mark-
Diana must have inadvertently placed her comment on the "Comment Policy" post instead of this post. That is where I responded and those comments are still there. I certainly did not delete her comment or my own response. Sorry if you got that impression.
Thanks for placing these comments over here.
Mark wrote: "perhaps you might want to read those posts on my blog."
Mark, is your blog open for entries by the public? And if so, do you censor those entries?
:?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Mark, i have a question for you.
According to what the mainstream anti-tobacco movement says, tobacco kills 400,000 people each year in the USA. Of them, some 3,000 deaths are attributed to passive smoke.
In your website, you claim that smoking in Nebraska kills over 2,700 smokers and over 300 nonsmokers.
According to http://www.areaconnect.com the 2002 census reports for Nebraska a population of 1,729,180
According to the CIA world factbook (accurate, i presume), an estimate of the total population of USA in 2005 is 295,734,134.
This means that Nebraska has a population that is 0.585% of the total population of the USA.
Your report of Nebraska's first hand smoke deaths gives a 0.75% of the total first hand smoke deaths in USA, substantially consistent with the respective ratios of population.
But how is it possible that passive smoke in Nebraska is accountable of 9% of all the second-hand smoke deaths in the whole USA?
Aren't your numbers a little bit too "creative" ?!?
Are we going to ban;
Colds (she should bundle)
Some plants and trees
Grass (Who needs them inside, anyway?)
Hard exercise (Which performers are known for, that would have to stop for Diana.)
Perfume (Which she might wear. Her audience is sure to.)
Dust and dust mites (A good cleaning of her workplace every 4 hours should do the trick! Of course we need to make sure her, or her audience doesn't carry any of those pesky mites in. Blowers at the door should suffice.)
Hair spray (She may wear. Her audience would definitely. We can require showers before she comes to the building, this would take care of perfume and hairspray on the body. We could always put her audience in robes, and their clothes in zip lock bags.)
Pollution (This would help us ALL, BUT; TOBACCO "IS" SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT...)
Cockroaches (ewww... But, we will have to get roach motels because; well, that pesticide may trigger an attack.)
Worrying (Eliminating tobacco or anything else she is terrified of, should help here.)
Being upset (As well as here...)
Exhaust from a car (Who needs transportation; Diana probably rides a bike. Oops, she may consider that strenuous exercise, maybe she walks.)
Some pesticides
Some medicines (like aspirin)
Furry animals (Who needs pets)
Molds (a thorough investigation of inner walls and that, should eliminate any mold.)
Smoke from fires (no fireplaces)
for Diana too? Because all of these things could trigger an asthma attack, also. Diana's comfort should be our priority, right? (BTW, just in case someone doubts it; this is sarcasm...)
I am just trying to point out; that not only are there other triggers to asthma, but how many other people have to suffer for Diana's comfort? A fact, Diana has asthma. A fact, just like perfume and hairspray; tobacco may trigger her asthma. To eliminate ONLY TOBACCO is not going to insure that Diana isn't going to have an attack. The only thing this does is single one product user out from all of the people who could be guilty of causing Diana to have an asthma attack.
From her post I see she blames tobacco users for her discomfort. Yet; in reality; it could be dust in the building, perfume on the clothes of her audience, or maybe even the stress she experiences when she sees someone light up. NO ONE KNOWS...
Asthmatics have been much to presumptious.
The people at ASH sound like a bounch of Nazis during the 1930's when they passed the Nuernberg Laws. I spent 21 years defending this country against all enemies foriegn and domestic. But it looks like I might wake up one day and find myself under a dictatorship. Lord help us if these type of people get thier way. What next camps and ovens!
The facts simply don't support Dave's
ad hominum attack claiming that "people at ASH sound like a bunch of Nazis during the 1930's when they passed the Nuernberg Laws."
No wonder Dave won't reveal his last name.
Mark, I think cyberspace may have had a hiccup because my own comments to Diana also went south.
Here they be:
Diana, I'm afraid I must agree with Xylog, particularly since a person whose symptomology was THAT extreme would be extremely unlikely to have tied their lifelong career to venues that produced those symptoms.
And it's clear we're talking a lifelong career here, since the statement, "To date, I have three friends who are dead because they loved a smoker. They put up with their spouse's freebasing next to them and died the most drawn-out agonizing deaths imaginable. Not one of them ever smoked a cigarette or asked to be subjected to their loved one's smoke," clearly indicates someone well beyond their teens or 20s or even 30s or 40s.
That statement is notable in another light as well. The Antismoking Lobby's claims have grown to the point where they are now talking about millions of deaths from secondary smoke (50,000 a year just in the U.S. would be 1 million over the last 20 years alone)and yet THEY, despite a budget well into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, have not been able to produce three bodies, while you, Diana, all by yourself, have three friends that you could name. This is truly amazing, and it seems even more amazing that for some reason you haven't revealed this information to the people who would use it for their campaigns.
Diana, I don't doubt that you hate smoke, are made uncomfortable by it, have a deep and unfortunate fear of the effects of exposure to it in your job, and may even believe that you know some people who died from it... but you need to need to understand how much of the above comes actually NOT from smoke, but from the psychological condition you have developed due to the media-based propaganda campaign of antismoking extremists.
Dr. Siegel would disagree with me on this, but I see the harm coming from that campaign, the harm to our psychological and social well-being, as far exceeding any harm that could ever come to us from the levels of smoke we'd find in reasonably well-ventilated surroundings.
Diana, I would certainly support you in seeking standards that would provide you with a safe and comfortable working environment. I would not support you if you simply sought to promote smoking bans based upon what I see as deeply neurotic beliefs.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Anon (Bill?) quoted ASH as saying "firing smokers is an appropriate and very effective way to stop burdening the great majority of employees who wisely chose not to smoke with the enormous unnecessary costs of smoking by their fellow employees."
and then went on to say himself: "...stating that it is appropriate to do something is not the same thing as urging or "calling on" someone to do it."
So I guess by that rationale I could put out flyers and information sheets telling bar owners that "an effective and appropriate way to fight a smoking ban is to simply refuse to obey the law." (assuming that the particular law requires them to enforce said ban) with feeling that anyone should accuse me of urging them to disobey the law.
Is that correct Bill? (Or Anon. My guess is there's an equal chance of an answer from either...)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com
According to the National Association of Attorney Generals (NAAG) they will collect $361 billon from the Master Settlement Agreement ( I kid you not, they stated this at their annual meeting carried on C-Span). Instead of using this funding for almost everything but tobacco related health. The states could set up a program to compensate business owners that employ smokers. This would not be a subsidy. After all it is the smokers that are paying into it by paying for the MSA through higher cost as consumers. The original settlement was to pay for cost the tobacco related health care. I feel this would be a far better use of the funds than paying for people like Godsell, Gantz and Repace to spread their prohibitionists BS.
Smoking is a recognized mental disorder, one that is dangerous to self, others, and property. It is good policy to not hire the dangerous mentally ill. For references on the subject of not hirng smokers, and precedents on firing and suspending smokers, see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/do...om/
donthire.htm and http://medicolegal.tripod.com/
sm...ingonthejob.htm
Commenting by HaloScan
