Why the next logical step is:
No medical treatment for tobacco product users (and when we run out they'll move on to nicotine replacement folks who will have had, heart attacks, panic attacks, seizures, etc.. cause it was not "case studied" enough) as any tobacco user has self inflicted any and all disease, hurts, body malfunctions.
Once they are done with this group-they will fall upon the obese.
I posted to exmayor Paul Soglin here the other day-he is supporting the statewide ban, as it is here in Madison. I mentioned to him about the future "obesity" ban and how New York is attempting to set up a diabetic database for tracking purposes.
His response was:"After smokers quit they become obese, so eat less and get more exercise". I am not obese, I do exercise daily, I am not on any medication (except tobacco) at all, I am 50 yrs. old, I have been a smoker for 30+ yrs. I work hard and play hard.
I know I have said all of this to you before....I do not believe I am an anomolie in the equation.
The FDA may approve the newest wonder drug today-one stop shopping pill. You will quit smoking and lose weight at the same time. It works on the thc receptors in the brain-ahhh, another brain dead pill to get those masses into shape! Well, I like my receptors just the way they are. Sometimes I get a rush just by doing a great job to the best of my ability! That pill would take that away. I know that, it has to be along the lines of Zyban...and that stuff is more than nasty, No Original Thinking Allowed with those kind of drugs.
Blessing Hospital in Quincy, IL recently made the same decision. Hard to see this as an independent "grass roots" decision by the CEO in KS. There will probably be more such decisions, all of which will be seen as "independent" as this one. Now, after bragging about his contacts nationwide and what he has/will accomplish, Bill will tell smokers they're paranoid because they think of conspiracies...
I can't think of any society that backed away from a communitarian experiment; they all seemed to have ended in catastrophe.
How about "Those who drive without seatbelts need not apply" or, "If, during your 30 minutes of exercise on your roller blades, you are operating without wrist guards, stop filling in application form HERE"
or "If you allow your teenage daughter to drive you in a car, please go home now"
One word: bigotry
Sure... Right, WLC. There is no conspiracy.
It's all just like the anti-smokers' "independent" plug and play, fill in the blank press release system. We've seen it time and again with people in small towns spouting the same quotes. And with the anti-smokers' list servers sending form e-mails to legislators contemplating bans, the same few anti-smokers can look like endless hordes to local politicians.
Anti-smokers are like the Borg of the Star Trek series, all mind synched with the same message, "This is the Borg collective. Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctives to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." As Bill the anti-smoking Borg tells us, they only want to "raise the quality of life" of the species they "assimilate."
Is the AMA really in support of non-hiring or firing of doctors on the basis of occaisional tobacco use at home? If they are then they've failed both as a health organization and as a professional association.
Unless a doctor first informs me he is a libertarian, I know his political views should be ignored, were they not so dangerous.
A doctor's values are not an overriding moral philosophy. Usually they are too narrowly educated to have an political opinion worth considering. Unfortunatley, far too many people have replaced the fraud of clerisy with the fraud of socially active medicine.
The World Health Organization's policy not to hire smokers is a violation of individual rights in the guise of public health.
The public health profession has a history of human rights violations: the experiments from 1942 to 1972 on black syphilitics without their knowledge; the forcible sterilization between 1909 and 1969 of 60,000 persons deemed unfit to reproduce; and the testing of AIDS drugs, ignoring federal guidelines, on foster children in the '90s. We must guard against the abuse of power by public health extremists.
Frank,
Er--that's what I said.
Michael, Why shouldn't a smoker be allowed to work in smoking cessation counseling? How does smoking a cig or two in the privacy of their own home affect their ability to do their job?
Steve Baggins inquired:
"Why shouldn't a smoker be allowed to work in smoking cessation counseling? How does smoking a cig or two in the privacy of their own home affect their ability to do their job?"
That's absurd.
If Mr. Baggins were an alcoholic and went to alcoholism treatment, would he also think it appropriate to be treated and counseled by other alcoholics who drink a fifth of whiskey every day (but only after working hours)?
However, nobody said you had to be a teatotaler to work in alcohol treatment. The only way Bill could make his rebuttal work was to transform any alcohol use into a fifth of whiskey daily.
What's so absurd about an alcoholic teaching temperance, Bill? Don't you pretend to teach us logic?
since when is my smoking anybodys business but my own, especially my employer? i don't get asked if i wear seatbelts when driving or if i wear a helmet when riding a bike, motorcycle, ice skating or skiing, i don't get asked if i regularly take high blood pressure meds or cholesterol meds, i don't get asked if or how much i drink, if my kids go to daycare and get exposed to nasty infectious germs, i don't get asked if i practice safe sex or if i workout at the gym. what gives??? why is the smoking question acceptable? besides the control aspect of how i live my life.
I actually don't think that Steve's question is an unreasonable one. One should not necessarily assume that a smoker would be unsuitable for a smoking cessation position, just as there are some fine basketball coaches out there who have never played the game. I was really just using this as an example of one of the few situations where smoking status would not be an unreasonable question to ask of a job applicant. Steve is right that even in this situation, it should not be an absolute disqualification. But certainly in just about every other situation, off-the-job smoking has no part in the assessment of an applicant's qualifications for employment.
i am also curious as to why the debate seems to shifting to smoking on your own time, away from work. i believe smokers have every right to smoke during the workday as well. afterall, smoking is a legal activity and cigarettes are a legal substance. did anyone not hear of lunch and breaks? i hate to see the middle ground now be some compromise that's it's ok to smoke only away from the work place. this position is giving up ground, valuable ground that we loose everyday.
brandz,
You've already missed that boat. The WHO, ASH, and Godshall are all promoting not hiring smokers period. In addition several companies have proudly announced quit or be fired.
They take no prisoners.
While on this subject, the CDC has decreed it's campus smokefree, and prohibits any ashtrays from being placed on CDC grounds. Bill might voice his concern with them for not providing a recepticle for visitors entering their hallowed grounds to dispose of their butts, as he and ASH feel this represents a significant threat to birds and other wildlife.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
