As I said elsewhere, if we are not equal citizens of this country, with equal rights to anyone else, why are we smokers paying ANY taxes? Obviously since we are all so unwanted, the nonsmokers can fund everything in the country on their own. There aren't many benefits for smokers as citizens any more, so would we be giving up much to no longer use them and keep our taxes for our OWN care?
Not to mention, smokers are obviously too stupid to make the right choices (non-smoker choices) in regards as to how they'd enjoy living thier life so I don't see them having a problem if we all just quit giving benefits to our country and move away. There are still some places where smokers have rights.
It's been more and more obvious, no matter what they say, smoking is not the issue here, smokeRs are. This is not an attack on a "health issue", this is an attack on people for not making the choices they made.
Doc, I see you're trying, and while we are on different sides of this issue, I sure respect that you are staying away from the bandwagon. I fully believe that if all the anti's were like you, we might actually be getting somewhere productive for both sides.
Mike wrote:
"What business is it of ASH's to tell employers in other countries what to do in terms of who they hire?"
What business is it of yours to tell ASH what to do? Perhaps you weren't aware, but ASH also has been one of the lead organizers in the entire FCTC process.
Mike also wrote:
"Plus, if it was sincere about its efforts to save health care spending for employers, it would most certainly want to advocate not hiring fat people"
While Banzhaf (as a professor of law) has advocated litigation against fast food companies and schools that sell sugar laden sodas as a strategy to reduce obesity and improve diets, ASH only deals with issues involving smoking.
Mike also wrote:
"A second possible motivation might be simply the desire to reduce smoking. In other words, ASH might view firing smokers and refusing to hire them as a smoking reduction intervention. If that's the case, then I find it even more problematic, because I think it's inappropriate to use firing people as a workplace health promotion strategy."
Having collaborated with ASH on many issues over the past several decades, I strongly suspect this is its motivation, as smokefree employment policies provide huge incentives for smokers to quit, and may also prove very effective in discouraging youth from getting hooked.
You have the right to have an opinion of what is appropriate, and you have the right to express your opinion, just like everyone else.
Mike wrote:
"I do think there is going to be a backlash if we move in the direction ASH would have us go, and it's going to be a huge one."
You've been saying that for nearly a year now, but I see no evidence that has or will occur. Nobody testified, and no newpapers editorialized, against the Calabasas smokefree outdoor ordinance. And I'm not aware that any states have enacted legislation banning smokefree employment policies in the past decade. The bill introducted in MI hasn't gone anywhere.
Rather, you, FORCES and Lewis Maltby (whose employment at ACLU was funded by cigarette companies) appear to be the only vocal opponents of smokefree employment policies.
Heil Godshall!!!
Bill,
Only you would hold threat of economic ruin over an individual in order to enforce your will upon them, and have the insolence to call it an incentive, when what it really is, is extortion.
Bill,
What is popular isn't always right.
Bill asked: "What business is it of yours to tell ASH what to do?"
I want to dispel the notion, once and for all, that criticizing an organization for supporting a policy that one finds unethical is somehow inappropriate and is something to be shunned. By the same reasoning, it is also none of my business to criticize Hamas for killing innocent civilians in suicide bomb attacks and for criticizing the KKK for their hatred of African-Americans. I just don't get the point. If we as citizens feel that the policies which a public group is promoting are unethical, I think it is not only reasonable to publicly criticize them, but I think it is actually our responsibility and moral duty as citizens.
Bill wrote:
"Rather, you, FORCES and Lewis Maltby (whose employment at ACLU was funded by cigarette companies) appear to be the only vocal opponents of smokefree employment policies."
How about ASH UK and Simon Chapman? Lawyers are supposed to have a good memory, with all those laws to remember... time to retire perhaps?
Apart from that, you still insist to use the term "smokefree" to describe the practice of firing or rejecting smokers because, well, they are smokers. The meaning of "smokefree" is to get rid of smoke, not smokers. If you want to get rid of smokers, then the correct term would be smoker-free.
Why are you so scared of using the right word? Are you worried of the fact that even the distract reader may understand that what you're really advocating is social discrimination, and so look down on you? Or are you simply following the diktats of the anti's establishment like a mindless drone? If you want to advocate this disgusting policy, at least have the necessary guts to call it with its real name.
----
Argument change, we're talking about the article now.
----
IMO, it may be described with few, simple words: Banzhaf's personal delirium of omnipotence.
Bill wrote: "Nobody testified, and no newpapers editorialized, against the Calabasas smokefree outdoor ordinance. "
But then there is this: " Maybe once this smoking ban takes hold, the Calabasas City Council will take up these other social ills. Certainly, I have lost hope that Los Angeles would ever consider adopting - let alone enforcing - laws that make the city a healthier place in which to live. Even littering seems to be socially acceptable now; just consider the state of the Los Angeles River."
http://www.dailynews.com/marielg...arza/
ci_3433842
Nobody testified against it? How would you know? Calabasas wouldn't publish any opposing voices, would they? I made the experience when in our country, the removed all smoking compartments from the national trains. They also claimed that nobody opposed this measure. However, I know of many people who prefer taking their car again instead of the train, and some even returned their prepaid annual ticket.
"ASH announced that it was providing delegates from countries all over the globe with literature it prepared which apparently is designed to try to convince them to enact widespread smoking bans ..."
This goes to show how much ASH knows about foreign cultures, lifestyles, values, and legal systems. In most European countries, this kind of "typically American" behavior is regarded as arrogant and fuels hate speeches against Americans in general. I wish ASH good luck in trying to impose their believes on other nations.
Bill wrote: "Nobody testified ... against the ordinance"
"Rather, you, FORCES and Lewis Maltby (whose employment at ACLU was funded by cigarette companies) appear to be the only vocal opponents of smokefree employment policies."
You claim nobody testified, but then you condemn those who testify against.
The American dream:
We will free the world of terrorism.
We will free the world of weapons of mass destruction.
We will free the world of smokers.
I am a smoker who has worked out of his house since 1979. I gave up smoking and nearly starved because I was like a zombie and could not remained focused for much longer than a sound bite. I tried it for two years.
In my opinion, smoking bans have removed my rights to equal representation. The idea of standing in lines at a license branch is more than I can stand, let alone attending a political rally, a legislative session, a court hearing, or visiting my respresetatives in their offices or any other enclosed space. Smoking Bans have removed my citizenship rights to be heard.
If I can not work, I can not eat and survive, I can not pay taxes on income I do not earn, I can not consume products and services offered without income.
My body requires cigarettes to function properly. I have studied the effects of smoking and take measures to counteract them. I was born in this country, am over 21, and deserve the right to representation in our republic.
benpal, funny you mention that. I was just waiting to see what extremist anti-smoker ad would be run during the super bowl game. I was betting they would run one that compares smokers to suicide bomber terrorists. Alas, it didn't happen, but it will eventually. I can see it now:
30-SECOND AD:
(Show a bloody terrorist scene where a terrorist blew himself up)
VO: "A suicide bomber terrorist willingly takes his own life ... while killing others around him ...
(Zoom in on the smoke rising from the bomb scene ... transition into smoke being exhaled from a person's mouth (must be extremely ugly looking person male or female)- pan out and show children in the background coughing)
VO: "... when you smoke, you become a terrorist."
(Fade to black: letters appear on screen: "STOP the terror. STOP smoking.")
VO: In disgusted voice: "Stop the terror ... stop smoking"
(ALS, ACS, and AHA logos appear at bottom).
Actually, two anti-smoking groups have already called the tobacco companies terrorists:
The American Cancer Society head called tobacco companies terrorists.
Ignite suggested that our government is harboring terrorists by allowing tobacco companies to sell their products.
Bruce Fox wrote:
"I gave up smoking and nearly starved because I was like a zombie and could not remained focused for much longer than a sound bite."
Here's yet another post on this blog by a smoker who acknowledges that not being allowed to smoke at work greatly interferes with his ability to perform work adequately.
That's exactly why progressive employers have been adopting smokefree employment policies.
But Mike Siegel continues to claim, without providing any evidence, that not being allowed to smoke during working hours has NO impact on work performance.
"But Mike Siegel continues to claim, without providing any evidence, that not being allowed to smoke during working hours has NO impact on work performance."
And where is YOUR evidence? My father was a life-time smoker. For many years he substantially contributed to the successful creation and growth of an engineering enterprise (not his own), working hard, spending many weekends at work.
So much for your tactics of generalizing individual cases, of stigmatizing and discriminating based on external attributes.
As long as we're suggesting force to produce a desirable outcome, I propose that the voting franchise be denied to any citizen whose income is derived from government funding, whether as a direct employee of a government, or as a receiver of government funds, as many in academia and NGO's are.
What? Don't like that? Just quit suckling on the government teat, then you can have your vote back.
If that kind of reason is good enough against smokers, it's good enough against the collectivist opponents of individual liberty.
It's fun to see how our friend Bill repeats the very same arguments over and over (cut'n'paste from some website, i think) without even remembering that they have already been questioned, debunked or dismissed.
We have here the old mantra: he defends smokerfree policies on the basis that off-job smoking impact directly job performance. His reason to suggest so: the contrary has never been proved.
Well, in many posts this logic has been questioned and showed as fallacious. The Doc himself told him that if you wants to claim that off-the-job smoking impact job performance, he needs to show that direct effect.
Moreover, he insists to use the dishonest term of "smokefree" to describe workplace discrimination against smokers, despite the fact that this term is deceiving because it's normally used to describe something quite different, i.e. smoking bans on workplaces.
Then, he simply ignores the objections. He repeats once again the same bunk that has been dismissed before, as if he was a set of recorded messages, or an Eliza program, rather than a real person.
I start to see the inutility of arguing with someone with such a mindset. An old italian proverb says "there's no worse deaf that someone that doesn't want to listen". Probably the best thing to do would be to consider his silly posts as forum pollution and simply ignore them.
But i think it's still important to debunk some of his sorry excuses for arguments for the sake of other people lurking here. Just don't count on him replying, clarifying, or giving meaningful explanations.
tR1cky:
I would love to ignore his dogma and excuses, but I will run into it somewhere else.
I think we need to make them account for the dogma. I will not stop making him look like a fool, and him not being able to prove his gospel.
If we allow anyone to injure themselves by drinking, by having sex, by allowing people to bungee jump or sky dive why are there any regulations to stop the "danger" that is not quantified? I am not going to run around like chicken little and go in circles saying there's danger, but I don't know from where.
I also have to ask. Why in a democracy are we not allowed to take personal "risks".
If you applied the one death must be prevented principle (Bill endorses). We wouldn't have cars, planes, trains, sun tan parlours, plastic, or guns. There's danger there as well, isn't there? The slope is getting steeper the less that it semms there's a lack of justification for making legislation.
tR1cky:
love "old" sayings-always the base of truth.
Our "old" household saying was:
An empty wagon rattles the loudest!!
ASH UK may not outwardly support firing smokers but they have no regard for all the jobs that will be lost if they get their way and we get a complete ban on smoking in 'public' places.
Too late Ali, sorry to say.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2041159,00.html
Looks like Tony Blair, a closet nanny with juice, made sure this one got pushed through. I think the bill was called "666 State Express".
Maybe Blair should see if he can get the Iraqis to go smoke free...just a thought.
Wally is likely celebrating at a big smokerfree ASH party, as we speak, high fiving it with all the other Banzhaf sock puppets and lap poodles. Banzhaf, the Great Eradicator himself, is there. He is sitting on raised sofa. Behind him is a huge poster of himself, giving a noogie to Mayor Bloomberg. His eyes are ticking and spittle covers his chin as his excitement over another "victory for world health through tyranny" takes over his body. Wally is now sitting on The Great One's knee, and Banzhaf is softly stroking his bald, pointy head, while silently contemplating other social illnesses he must wipe out. Yes! End!! and for once and for all!! A small laugh escapes his throat. Wally timidly looks up at him, it's a gaze of pure devotion...
Golly, just look at the bright side of things Ali. Soon thousands of be-knighted Californian vegan school teachers, now at last safe from UKETS, will be flocking to your shores. I warn you though, they're big spenders so better stock up on tofu, sprouts and lattés if you want these exciting health pilgrims to keep coming back.
My prediction? Soon Birkenstocks will be all the rage in swingin' London Town. Wow! England smoke free...I mean how kewl. Like, have fun English dudes.
"Laws to curb what citizens find merely unpleasant should be exceptional in an otherwise free society. Above all, restraint should be consensual, accountable to those directly affected. The concept of local licensing in Britain arose to permit councils and magistrates to reflect local opinion on how social behaviour should be regulated."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/
c...1709974,00.html
"Workplace safety regulations, such as this ban on smoking (it is supposed to benefit bar staff), are a perfect example of how this confusion leads legislators astray. Consider coalmining, a job even more dangerous than working in a smoky bar. Would measures to make coal mining safer benefit coal miners? Dr Stoate and his friends at the BMA will probably think so. But they are wrong. Making coal mining safer would only injure coal miners.
When a job is dangerous, fewer people are willing to do it. The more dangerous it is, the smaller the supply of willing labour and, hence, the higher the pay. A dangerous job, such as coal mining or working on an oil rig, is one of the few legitimate ways an uneducated man can earn high wages."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1984300,00.html
l.duguay - what i meant is that we need to stop giving that person so much importance. There are many topics of interest in this blog, and we'd better spend our time here on them, rather than replying to insults or commenting some nonsense.
That's what i suggest: stop bashing on him; stop trying to argue with him (it's fruitless); comment him only on rational basis (it's more than enough to show him as a fool if he posts absurdities) and with the minimum words necessary; if he posts rude or offensive words, either ignore him completely or drop a brief note in which you express disagreement with such a behaviour. If you're the person being attacked, you can simply reply with something like "i do not respond to trolls".
Capri - Glad to "hear" your words again 
Yes, old sayings are often a source of wisdom, and the one you posted fits well with the character being discussed hehe. PS. there was a typo in my citation, it was "there's no worse deaf than someone who doesn't want to listen", but i think you figured it out anyway.
wrote:
"Moreover, he insists to use the dishonest term of "smokefree" to describe workplace discrimination against smokers"
The term "smokefree employment policies" is consistent with the term "drug free employment policies," which has long been used to describe workplace discrimination against the users of other drugs that harm far fewer users than do cigarettes.
"The term "smokefree employment policies" is consistent ..."
Maybe you can explain how "consistent" relates to "honest".
Bill wrote:
"The term "smokefree employment policies" is consistent with the term "drug free employment policies," which has long been used to describe workplace discrimination against the users of other drugs that harm far fewer users than do cigarettes."
And this doesn't make it less dishonest at all. Moreover, the analogy is false.
The term "smokefree" has been long used to describe smoking bans on workplaces. Using it now to describe employment discrimination vs. smoker is deceptive, exactly because of its precedent use. Someone hearing the term "smokefree" doesn't have a clear idea of what he/she is hearing. A distract person may be led to supporting it, believing that it's a smoking ban initiative, only to discover later that it's a smokers ban initiative.
In the "drug free" case there's no such ambiguity. Certainly the term cannot describe a ban on cocaine sniffing, heroin shooting or joint smoking on workplaces - such activities are illegal, so already forbidden everywhere.
(what is written above is, obviously, for the reader's sake)
Will it ever stop?
Why have the masses allowed this to happen in the UK - Because there are masses of smokers out there.
I do hope the backlash is swift, sharp and decisive. It will now have my support - what ever it is. If someone could tell me where to sign up I would be grateful.
Labour will lose the next election if Cameron has the balls and any common sense to manifest a repeal of the total ban in favour of a choice based legislation.
If we want to "kill" ourselves, then let us do it in "only smokers allowed" bars and clubs - And that includes the workers. The anti-smokers lobby should not be allowed to control and influence our lives in this way.
If tobacco was made illegal, then fair enough - we have to abide by the law of the land. Just as we do for heroin, cocaine etc.... However, tobacco is not illegal and is unlikely ever to be, so why do they feel the need go to such draconian lengths to affect our lives.
Will they be pushing for a total ban on the employment of anyone that takes a drink? Ignoring statistics, we all know drinking alcohol poses a far greater health risk. I have never seen a smoker smash a glass into someones face, when high on nicotine.
I have seen my father commit suicide due to alcoholism - This was after he had already attempted to ruin the lives of all the people around him.
Strange that such a sanctimonious bunch of health do-gooders would only look at smoking, when alcohol is significantly more dangerous.
Let's hope, come the day of judgement (next election day) all the smokers voice their displeasure and do what the British Government have done to us - Kicked us out!
In the mean time, I hope our economy goes into total melt-down, as bars, clubs and restaurants all have to close due to the lack of sustainable trade. Sure, to begin with the novelty factor of going to these newly adopted smoke free zones will make them feel like business will still be good without the smokers. However, just as the Irish have discovered, the smokers were vital patrons. Now they have gone - so have their businesses. Good riddance.
I hope lots of people lose their jobs. I hope serious crime increases. I hope families are put out on the street because the service industry can't employ people anymore due to lack of trade. Then we can all turn to the Government and say "Well done! This is your fault and no one elses."
Simple--
You mean well, but no bad law was ever repealed by being observed.
It's time we filled the jails with harmless citizens whose only crime is insulting the sensibilities of moralists.
Commenting by HaloScan
