Excellent news, Mike! Thanks for making note of that for us, and for speaking out against employment discrimination here.
Signs of reason, within the EU, eh?
Perhaps there is hope they can be persuaded to stop funding Globalink...
some common sense finally. this is why i like to go to europe...SMOKING IS NOT A BIG DEAL! of course, in the usa we focus on the petty and frivilous. distract, distract, distract.
While I applaud these groups speaking out against blatant discriminaton against employees, I am still of the mind that private employers are entitled to hire whomever they please in respect to that which prospective employees can not change (age, race, gender, nationality) or has no bearing on their ability to perform the required job (someone with bad back can't lift 100 pounds, for example).
Now with all of that rambling said.......I stand by my position that as long as any public (meaning taxpayer funded, in whole or in part) entity remains a public entity they have no business denying employment to any person qualified for the position because of legal activities in which they engage while not on duty.........I don't care if it is tobacco consumption, alcohol consumption, eating fried foods or owning firearms.........as long as the activity is legal and does not have a day to day impact on job performance, such discrimination needs to cease and desist immediately.
Now, I will go on to my MAJOR huge problem with Dr. Mike's commntary.
I smoke tobacco, it's a habit I acquired many years ago. It is NOT an addiction. It is an habituation, always has been and always will be. If it was such a horrible addiction I would have been climbing the walls today because when my husband left for work this morning he left with the check book, the bank card, and all the cash.......I had smoked the last cigaratte I had about 10pm last night and he didn't get home until close to 9pm tonight.
I am seriously over the crapola about addiction........people claim they are addicted because it has been pounded into their heads 24/7 by the likes of Dr. Siegel, the rest of the tobacco control cartel, the sugreon generals who have changed the definition of addiction, and their stooges in the media. Why is the use of crack, meth, and heroine up, especially in young people? Because the anti-smoker cartel has been pounding our kids with the BS that tobacco is more addictive than any of them.
Smoking one cigarette is not going to either create a life-time smoker nor kill a person.........but look at the news reports about the new forms of heroine that are on the streets of places like Philly, Chicago, and even Wilmington Delaware and the number of deadly overdoses occurring - often in first time users.
Dr. Siegel, you wish to get credibility back to your movement - I suggst you add this pack of lies to the rest of the ones your side is promoting. But I would venture to say that since none of the other lies and vicious propaganda from your side has been retracted, neither will this.........and thus your credibility is doomed.
Do they really support this kind of discrimination,,,[?]
If Mr Bill and the posters on his team are any measure-- absolutely.
As for the legally "protected" categories, not all are immutable either. People often willingly convert to other religions ( tho such conversions can also be self-protective reactions to, say, Inquisitions, Storm Troopers, and Death Squads.) And, hey, if your employer has a "gender preference," if you want to keep your job, why can't you change your sex? As for age, you can always lie and your urine won't give you away. At least one point being that protected categories weren't always protected-- those battles, for better or for worse, had to be won--and the defense of immutability doesn't always wash.
Interesting to note too that in a couple of famous cases which have reached American courts, alcoholics have been "protected," even when their jobs involve for instance driving a truck or, in another case, steering a ship.
As far as I am concerned these European anti smokers are being hypocritical.
I recollect that some years ago a Norweigan citizen took it to the Human Rights Court whether or not his smoking was something his employer could address as an issue. The Norwegian citizen won the case, so essentially smoking is a human right (presumably because smoking is legal). This is therefore a human rights issue in Europe, and anti smokers are simply being realistic. They are paying lip service to the issue, which of course is better than no service.
It took a determined Norwegian smoker to deal with the problem. No anti smoker group has anything to do with it.
Gabz said: "I am seriously over the crapola about addiction........people claim they are addicted because it has been pounded into their heads 24/7 by the likes of Dr. Siegel, the rest of the tobacco control cartel, the sugreon generals who have changed the definition of addiction, and their stooges in the media".
I understand your perspective on this, Gabz, and I'm sure that your assessment of your own experience is quite accurate. Nevertheless, and with respect, I disagree.
It seems to me that there is a range of individual experiences with the addictiveness of inhaling nicotine - from people who always seem able to "take it or leave it", no matter how much or how long they smoke, to people who suffer quite horribly when they are forced to go without. The most objective information on the neurological effects of inhaled nicotine, that I've been able to dig up (through the Royal College of Physicians in England) backs this up and explains it to some extent. People's reactions to inhaled nicotine are quite individual and dependent on their personal neuro-biology.
Gabz - I have some stuff that you will enjoy reading...
You are quite right when you suggest that the issue of nicotine dependency is a major problem for the credibility of the entire TC movement. In my opinion, this is so because they blatantly change their own claims about the addictiveness of smoking depending on what is most convenient for them at the time. LOL! When they are trying to scare off potential new smokers, they will claim that smoking is more addictive than cocain or heroin - period. When they are trying to justify the obscene levels of taxation on tobacco products or public smoking bans, they will claim that "anyone can quit smoking, all it takes is a little willpower".
I have some pirate copies of papers produced by one of our foremost Tobacco Control cabalists - Paul MacDonald, the cheif researcher for the Ontario Tobacco Reduction Unit. These were intended for 'internal' circulation, not for public release, and in them he makes statements that you will get quite a kick out of.
Bear in mind, however, that this guy is blatantly an agent of the pharmaceutical companies, from whom he receives "minor stipends" (ROFL!).
He wants to help them sell more smoking-cessation products and everything he says or does revolves around this 'curious' obsession of his...
In one of these papers, he whines about the claims that smoking is as addictive as heroin use discouraging smokers from "trying" the smoking-cessation products he is a blatant shill for. Like this:
"Many current messages disseminated by the tobacco control community may not only be misleading, but potentially demoralizing to smokers. For example, many current websites and
pamphlets suggest that smoking is more addictive than cocaine or heroin. The evidence to support this claim is filled with problems. For example, not all smokers develop nicotine dependency (McDonald, 2003). Most smokers (and non-smokers) know someone who has quit smoking with relative ease. As such, people’s personal experience (which is generally more salient) is inconsistent with public health messages and this erodes our credibility. A more appropriate message would be that smoking can be as addictive as cocaine or heroin for some people. This alerts youth and existing tobacco users to the real possibility that they may become
addicted without creating the false impression that it is inevitable."
I'd be happy to share these documents with you. Take my last name (no capital letters) and put @canada.com after it and you'll be able to write me. Then I'll send you these pdf files if you wish.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "Let me focus the issue by noting that I am not talking about the legality of these discriminatory policies. In most of the states, and in most other countries, these policies are perfectly legal. But that doesn't make the policies right, and anti-smoking groups should make it clear to the public that these policies are not justified."
This is really what the problem is. Smoking is legal, yet the anti's claim it isn't right, nor do we have a right to use it. YET, those same anti's will turn around and have no problem with discrimination, because they choose to re-define the word. They think they are right, therefore they can do what they want.
In this day and age, it's amazing that they don't see that discrimination is discrimination regardless of how you attempt to dress it up. Yes, private business owners have the right to make their own choices about how to run their business AND who to hire or fire, however, having that right does not make it right to fire and hire based on personal preferences and prejudices. THAT is the point of the anti-discrimination laws and just because a group of people aren't listed specifically, doesn't mean it's suddenly right to discriminate. They are so concerned about the cost of healthcare? What about the cost of WELFARE when those same smokers can't get employment because everyone else is using their "right" to hire and fire whomever they want.
We (in general) are also basically "at will" where employment is concerned here, at least any state I've lived in has been this way. No one is forced to work anywhere, and yet we are expected to support ourselves, while employers are allowed to hire and fire at will, provided the at will does not include, religion, sexual preference, color, etc. Well a person cannot support themselves if all of a sudden their private, off the job legal activities are suddenly called into play.
It's the same thing with housing too. We will end up being the new homeless unless we agree to give in and live by the rules the anti's are dictating.
I've also heard the anti's accusing smokers of putting some businesses out of business by not being loyal enough to support them with the bans. Well, they took away the business owners right to choose to allow smoking or not, and we CHOSE not to patronize that place any longer. It's not about loyalty, it IS about CHOICE. Yet the non-smokers still aren't going out in droves as promised. Even the business that are now choosing to go totally smoke free (like hotels), we make the choice to not patronize any longer, because we CAN make that choice. And when that choice is no longer available, I would go so far as to say that many smokers will opt out of vacations and possibly any job that requires a hotel stay. But that's just me.
I wonder if all the immigrants coming here for a new life, free to pursue their "life, liberty, and happiness" are aware that this particular aspect of what America has always stood for is rapidly disappearing and they may find themselve under more control than they currently are (given how our kids are dying to "free" other nations).
People have gotten so selfish that IF it isn't spelled out precisely, they feel they have the right to actually ignore the true meaning of a law against discrimination.
IF anyone wants to control me THAT badly, they better damned well be prepared to support me, financially, and in every other way, for the rest of my life. Because until then, they have NO right to attempt to tell me how I have to live.
This just brings to mind the Scott's Miracle Gro policy over in Marysville, Ohio.
A veteran employee will be fired if they do not quit smoking......AFTER HOURS. This is not about a place not hiring new employees who might happen to be smokers, this is about firing loyal employees already IN the company.
This also is not about a smoker having the option to pay a little higher premium either on their health insurance.
I do not agree with this higher health insurance premium policy some places are adopting to target smokers....however at Miracle Gro it is not even AN OPTION that is offered for the employees who smoke.
"It is OUR WAY or the HIGHWAY".
I saw a clip on msnbc a few months ago about this company and the feeble minded old man from Weyco talking about their particular policy, also.
The little on site spa on the Miracle-Gro part of the segment did not impress me either.
Reminded me of "your body belongs to us". In this case it was Miracle-Gro. I wonder how long it will take before it is the Vaterland if these policies are not stopped.
Of course, I am all for employer choice of what they want to concerning their private business policies....at the place of work......but NOT after business hours concerning an employee's private life.
(And for whatever anti wants to say...."Well they test for pot!""
Just a little hint here......
I wouldn't admit the reasoning area of your brain was that fried if I were you.....)
These smokers are not even grandfathered concerning their jobs at Miracle Gro. It's a case of "Get with the program ....or else".
This ought not to be.
It's not clear to me why U.S. anti-smoking groups are afraid to speak out.
It's pretty clear to me that fear has nothing to do with it.
Do they really support this kind of discrimination
Yes, of course they do. Anything that gets people to stop smoking is a good thing. To paraphrase one of your recent posts: "If they can't see how stupid they are and quit on their own we'll force 'em to quit."
Thank you Robin, for your comments.
I understand your reason for disagreement with me, and I do lean more toward your position than my little tirade last night would lead some to believe.
I think your quote from Mr. MacDonald is actually a much more honest assessment of what is going on than most in tobacco control would be willing to admit. The problem remains however that according to TC, only anecdotal evidence (personal experience) that is in lock step with their positions is of merit; that which is in disagreement, such as my experience, is not even worth the space it took to type it. It is all or nothing in the mind of the TC movement.
You are right on the mark regarding the lack of consistency within TC when it comes to claims of addictiveness...they change it when it suits their purposes.
So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work, but it's outrageous discrimination if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?
Such arrogant hypocricy.
Bill the point you are missing here is that smoking is LEGAL (at least it was as of this morning when I last checked), whereas your preferred drug of choice isn't.
Get over it OR expend some of your venom in getting illegal drugs legalized. Now that would bring in some heavy revenue in tax dollars for the government.
And sorry to point out another interesting "anecdote" but since people aren't dropping dead all over the place, I hardly think smoking and second hand smoke are THE deadliest anything.
I've just realized, you just pissed that you can't do your drugs in public, and since you hate the smell of cigarette smoke you figure you'd take that hatred out on us.....hehehehehe
OH, and billy, have you heard that even smokeless tobacco (your other drug of choice) is being banned in some places along with cigarette smoke? AND I do believe it is the college that the Doc wrote about recently.
The Dutch anti-smoking organization STIVORO also has spoken out against it: "In this country we have certain values in which these types of measures against smokers don't fit", they announced in a newspaper article.
But, like Soren, I believe that they just wait until public opinion has changed and then will come up with the issue. There's often a 1-2 years lag before new American opinions enter the European continent.
BTW, we also got an answer from the European Commission after we issued a complaint against them.
Wiel, they don't just wait for public opinion to change, they set about changing it with their phoney 'opinion polls' issued on an almost weekly basis and issued to a compliant media.
In any case European anti-smokers can't be too bothered about people losing their jobs; if they were, they would be up in arms about the job losses in the hospitality industry. A direct by-product of their missionary zeal.
Minx, I agree with you.
Isn't about 80% or more of the 'studies'/polls on smoking and ETS either financed or carried out by the anti-smoking pressure groups themselves? Like butchers certifying their own meat?
What does that say about the credibility of the public opinion?
I remember that once here in Holland the Ministry of Public Health conducted a poll about smoking bans in the hospitality business. One of the questions was something like: "do you support government regulation of smoking in the hospitality business?". Even I as an activist smoker could have answered "yes" or at least "partially" to such a question because it does not suggest a total ban.
But what was the interpretation of the MoH? In a press release they stated that over 70% of the Dutch population was supporting a smoking ban! That was exactly the percentage of respondents that answered either "Yes", "Partially" or "Neutral"..
So by formulating your questions carefully (so they can be misinterpreted by the respondents) and interpreting the results in a way that favors your own position, together with the 'credible' face of government, you make people believe that your results are the correct representation of the truth...
During my study at the university I was teached that, if you create questionaires, the questions should not be multiple interpretable by the reader. Seems that that paragraph has been removed in the last couple of decades...
Maybe Michael can answer that question.
Actually Bill Godsall, I like a bit of marijuana myself, and don't give a monkey's birthmark who knows it and, it's a great drug when used wisely and in moderation. Moreover, as it's also used extensively by many of those in positions of authority, not that many people are really in a position to say anything other than that which is hypocritical.
However, just as marijuana which is still illegal in the UK is impossible to control by the authorities, so will smoking tobacco be should a ban be imposed. We already have a thriving black market in tobacco and alcohol as it is.
It always amuses me greatly though to hear the words of the puritans who "hrrrmph" and froth where pleasures are concerned which they don't understand.
I suppose you need to realise Bill, that you just can't control everything and jolly good show too! Whatever, you try and do to control people will always ultimately end in failure and history will testify to that fact time and time again.
Also, in twenty years time or so, the anti-smoker lobby will just be a distant memory, well exposed for its frauds and downright stupidity, but people will still chose to smoke if they want to.
Bill wittingly retorts "So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work, but it's outrageous discrimination if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?" as he fumbles around trying to remember which end of a doobie you suppose to light, as he makes his last post.
They say cognitive impairment is a sure sign of Marijuana abuse. There must be some truth to it right Bill? Especially considering it has totally slipped your mind that tobacco is legal, and marijuana isn’t. But Bill, you also can’t seem to remember we’ve already had this conversation, as he repeats himself every time the subject comes up, just before you tucked your tail between your legs and crawls off after embarrassing youself once again with such a ridiculous argument.
As for marijuana use, which also make marijuana users criminals. Of course Bill is clueless why an employer would want to jeopardize his enterprise by employing an active felon, especially considering the fascist seizure laws enacted in more recent years, but none the less…
No Bill it’s not OK. It’s illegal for the government to force you to give a urine sample without cause, and without getting a court issued warrant for search. Key elements of what was once considered a “Bill of Rights”. However, the marijuana prohibitionists within the government have encouraged Employers to drug test their employees, holding that the Warrants for search only apply to government and not business. If our government can’t do it, why should we allow our boss? It’s an abuse of power… The power of employment, the need to provide for ones family. The need for honest gainful employment.
Of course we have our Caped Anti-Tobacco Crusader from Pennsylvania, whose only mission in life appears to be to harass smokers, encourages businesses into discriminating against users of a legal product, and subjects non-smokers to have to be nicotine tested as well. Be sure to thank Bill, and those like him, the next time you happen to be humiliated by being forced to urinate on demand.
My rights to privacy are being given away by individuals like Mr. Godshall who are trying to prevent others from using legal, and illegal products. While I don’t use illicit drugs, I deeply resent my job going on the line every time someone gets a wild hair up their arse to run a random drug test. I’m dependent on someone else to not screw up the test, because our government has failed in its war against drugs.
So much for reasonable search, and the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. We are all guilt until our drug tests come back negative to prove our innocence.
Furthermore, the nicotine tests companies give, can not distinguish between the patch, and inhaled nicotine, therefore, not only are companies discriminating against smokers, but against even those who have quit but are still using NRT.
Reply to brandz.
Actually brandz, smoking is becoming something of a big deal in the UK and one or two other European countries. However, there are many others, it is true, where it is not and ultimately, I shall be amazed if anyone is able to stop the French, Spanish, Portugese and Italians from doing it, let alone prevent them from having jobs.
So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work, but it's outrageous discrimination if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?
Such arrogant hypocricy.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 08.21.06 - 4:03 pm | #
Speaking about hypocracy........YOU, Bill are the epitome of it.
The "deadliest" drug addiction????? Not only are you a hypocrite, you are a LIAR. How dare you call others hypocrites when you refuse to answer any question posed to you, yet demand those who disagree with you be held to a different standard.
If this is true, it's funny how much of anti-smoking literature I remembered was about how you shouldn't give in to peer pressure or advertisers.
But once the public reacts favorably to a possibly manipulated poll, well then you'd better get in line, for your own good.
In fact I've always encountered more peer pressure to think less of smokers than to go start smoking. Not to say, I won't smoke, but smokers are rather dumb for keeping up their habit so long. This was in an Enlightened Community, 20 years ago.
And slapdash responses like Bill Godshall's make sense in a hit and run situation and make us feel reflexively virtuous if we assimilate them unthinkingly and ignore that nagging feeling it's not quite right, but they are downright scary applied to another legal habit, err addiction. Let's try television.
THE TRUTH: oh, television may be legal, and they may entice you with many WAYS to waste time, but watching 1hr television a day takes away 1hr of life that could obviously be used more constructively, as even sleeping through it would make a person more alert for work or even, gosh, more willing to serve overtime. Time to take a stand and help people stop ripping themselves off(wipes away tear at own compassion.) Of course it's ridiculous for people to be watching TV at work but WE MUST DO BETTER. IT IS IN OUR POWER. NOW IS THE TIME. LIVES ARE BEING WASTED!
I've just realized, you're just pissed that you can't do your drugs in public, and since you hate the smell of cigarette smoke you figure you'd take that hatred out on us.....hehehehehe
LyndaF - are you saying that Billyboy is one of them? The pot smokers who want tobacco and pot to be switched in the legal/illegal realm? OMG.
Those people annoy me to no end. I would much prefer to encounter someone that had just smoked a pack of cigarettes while I'm the road than I would someone who had just smoked a joint. I smoked my fair share of weed back in the day, but it has been many, many years, and I never got behind the wheel of a car after doing so. Smoking tobacco before, during, or after driving a vehicle causes no impairment.
Those type can pound sand for all I care. Anyone who supports legalization of marijuana (which I do) but also supports the criminalization and/or denormalization of tobacco users is nothing less than a hypocrite. And I have a few other choice descriptors of them, but I will respect Doc Siegel's space and refrain from their use.
Bill said: "So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work, but it's outrageous discrimination if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?
Such arrogant hypocricy."
There is nothing hypocritical about suggesting that an employer can legitimately expect employees not to commit crimes, but should not intervene regarding lawful behavior in the home.
Bill may disagree with whether or not marijuana and other illicit drug use should remain illegal, and is entitled to make an argument that it should not, but as long as it is illegal, there is no hypocrisy in this argument.
And there's certainly nothing arrogant about it. It's the law of the land. Might I humbly suggest that if anything is arrogant, it's putting oneself above the law and suggesting that the law should be ignored.
Bill said - "So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work..."
No. That's not ok. As a general policy, it is evil & vile.
No hypocrisy here.
The only exceptions, would be persons whose jobs involve the welfare of others and where the wellbeing of other persons depends on the worker's judgement being unimpaired - such as an air traffic contreoller, surgeon, paramedic or police officer.
In those job categories, it might be justifiable to require periodic drug testing, but only for substances that provably cause impairment. Inhaled nicotine does not cause intoxcication and not only does not impair judgement, but has been shown to increase mental alertness.
Hey Doc,
How about covering the real news of the day?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-set-
their.html
Here's the Reuters story on the UK sanitizing smoking out of classic cartoons. Oh, pardon me - the smoking scenes can stay in so long as the only characters smoking are villains.
I'm sorry, but the thanks for this go to the juggernaut of tobacco control that's gotten so wildly out of hand. Thanks for "caring."
http://today.reuters.com/news/
ar...also_on_reuters
----The licensee has ... proposed editing any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorized or where it might encourage imitation," Ofcom said, adding that "Texas Tom" was one such example.
Akindele said cartoons would only be modified "where smoking could be deemed to be cool or glamorized," and that scenes where a villain was featured with a cigarette or cigar would not necessarily be cut.----
Josh wrote: "Here's the Reuters story on the UK sanitizing smoking out of classic cartoons. Oh, pardon me - the smoking scenes can stay in so long as the only characters smoking are villains."
Who says TC doesn't want to criminalize smokers? Geeeeze, these people really need to get a grip on reality.
Let's also explore the immature and "angry person" mentality exhibited by Bill's comments (including the repetitive nature of it).
Let's read it again.
Bill said: "So it's OK for employers to not hire and to fire those who smoke marijuana or use many other different drugs when not at work, but it's outrageous discrimination if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?
Such arrogant hypocricy."
Aside from all the other arguments already made that I agree with, what we also have here is "two wrongs make a right"!! What a mature reaction, Bill.
One could even say that the hypocrisy rests at your feet -- in that it frustrates you that people could be fired for off-duty marijuana, etc. smoking but doesn't frustrate you that people could be fired for off-duty cigarette smoking.
That's why there's no reasoning with self-absorbed people like Bill. It's what suits them, not a principle. No substance whatsoever. A shell of a person that can be blown away with a puff of smoke.
Actually brandz, smoking is becoming something of a big deal in the UK and one or two other European countries. However, there are many others, it is true, where it is not and ultimately, I shall be amazed if anyone is able to stop the French, Spanish, Portugese and Italians from doing it, let alone prevent them from having jobs.
this is why i've been to spain twice and italy once. even though i'm of irish ancestry, i will NOT go to ireland. england and scotland are off the list too. i here greece and germany and the czech republic are good places to go if you smoke. btw, both spain and italy were wonderful and NOBODY gave one shit if you smoked. even though both countries supposedly had 'smoking bans'(very misleading), they were either non-existent or everyone just ignored them. you know, live and let live.
I think that anti-tobacco will have a harder time in continental Europe, partly because a higher percentage of the population smokes, but mostly because there isn't such a striking division there between smokers and non-smokers in terms of income, education, etc. That perceived culture/status/class gap is much more pronounced in the English speaking world, especially the US, and it's a big part of why the American anti-tobacco movement has gone so crazy compared to its international counterparts.
Just a few thoughts for conversation as everything seems to have been covered:
1. Those of you with an economic libertarian bent here should be careful not to play into the hands of people who want smokers fired from jobs. If you beleive in liberty, you should understand that your body belongs neither to the state, NOR your boss. Your body, and your time, is your own. If you allow your means of very survival to be taken away by a private entity because of something you do on YOUR OWN TIME, in YOUR OWN LIFE, then you have just substituted governmental oppression with corporate oppression. Mussolini's Italy is a good example of what happens when copporate power infringes on what I believe to be the natural rights of all human beings. NO, a company has NO right to deny you a means of survival because you smoke. You may say "just find another job," but what happens when ALL companies toe the same line? This is where we are headed.
2. Regarding the sanitizing of cartoons, tis is just another example of the revisionist history which Orwell described to a tee so long ago. Nobody seems too alarmed. They should be very afraid. These people are re-writing the past. They are therefore knowingly spreading propaganda and lies of omission, albiet in a "disguised" form. Why people in a supposed "free" society stand for this nonsense over and over and over again is beyond me. I'm just waiting for an eventual re-writing of the very important role that the tobacco plant has played in American history. Over the years it will probably morph into something else, maybe corn or tomatos (at least that would keep it in the same plant family). You will see FDR's, Ike's, JFK's cigarettes disappear along with Gerald Ford's pipe for that matter. This will no doubt be applauded by everyone.
3. Bill G., once and for all MANY people here are also opposed to discriminating against workers who smoke marijuana. I'm sure that, if you put forth a serious effort to fight against this, you may find some allies here. But, instead, you come across as a self-righteous bigot and continue to alienate people you might have something in common with. I'm afraid this is because you have bought into the "us-vs-THEM" anti-smoker propaganda so deeply that you cannot possibly imagine working together with anyone who is not anti-tobacco-smoking. You know what they say about a house divided. I've never smoked dope and have absolutely no interest in doing so, but I would defend your right to do whatever you please on your own time. You of all people should be aware of the injustice inherent in the criminalization of marijuana and all the oppression and crime that it breeds. But, for some reason, you would want to see oppression and crime of a much larger scale when it comes to tobacco. I've seem so many others also take the same stance. I've seem someone with young children allow pot smoking in the home but forbid tobacco amoking. Whatever, it's their home not mine, but it just struck me as rather odd. Guess I'm just not "with-it" enough to understand.
i had some friends once who would not let me smoke a cigarette in their car as they were smoking weed. go figure.
talk about assinine.
Hmm, I copied Mr Bill's atrocity but then found that first Robin and then cj had said everything I'd've said and they said it all perfectly.
As a post script I can only wonder parenthetically if employers could can (or not hire) people who take all kinds of legal prescription drugs--
anything from tranquilizers and sleeping pills to blood pressure and allergy meds etc., and even some antibiotics-- all with that "warning" about not driving cars or working with machinery, and many of which warn of side effects that could even impair the performance of desk jobs.
Ah, but wait. We're not talking about job performance, are we? Or "costs," for that matter, since the underlying diseases that lead to prescribed drugs are surely markers for "higher costs." So in fact, we're only talking about ways to destroy smokers. Sorry. Forgot.
The anti-tobacco movement has set the marijuana legalization movement back 20 years.
That may not have been their main goal, but that's effectively what they have done.
The idea that marijuana would be legalized as a "health" measure is a pipe dream. Arguing for legalization on the basis of "health" only strengthens the hands of both sets of antis. Every attack on the rights of tobacco smokers is a de-facto attack on the rights of marijauna smokers. And all the anti-smoking punishments being proposed will hit marijuana smokers worse, I promise you that.
Good try Bill, but your method of distraction is getting rather cumbersome to handle. When you compare apples and orgeanges, you get a disttraction, not a real attempt at debate.
Lets view the differences (again):
marijuanna -hallucinogenic, and alter perceptions, illegal to obtain or have in your control
tobacco- non hallucinogenic, legal, doesn't harm your judgement skills, or coordination skills
Do I also need to mention that there should be limits on how your work can tell you what they want you to do with your free time, and the slippery slope argument?
Come on Bill give us a real challange, soemthing we haven't countered before. Would ya?
Bill, you are such a firm believer in legislation, laws, bans, and prohibition. You might want to take some advice and gain some common sense from those who worked in law enforcement for prohibition, before they turned around, with good reasons: http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm
Mike wrote:
"There is nothing hypocritical about suggesting that an employer can legitimately expect employees not to commit crimes, but should not intervene regarding lawful behavior in the home."
The point Mike and other posters on this blog continue missing is that the goals of employment policies are to improve an employer's ability to thrive or even survive in a competitive labor market, not to discriminate against those who might violate laws that were enacted largely due to racial and cultural discrimination.
According to Mike's logic, refusing to hire blacks would have perfectly acceptable as long as Jim Crow laws existed.
And similarly according to Mike's logic, smokefree hiring and firing policies would become perfectly acceptable (even desirable) if U.S. Congress or a state legislature enacted cigarette prohibition.
Bill go away and smoke your marijuana,you're always in nevernever land anyway.And by the way,if you want to change the law on smoking illegal drugs,stop trying to confuse the issue with tobacco,there IS NO COMPARISON,EXCEPT IN YOUR TINY LITTLE MIND.
CJ wrote:
"Bill G., once and for all MANY people here are also opposed to discriminating against workers who smoke marijuana. I'm sure that, if you put forth a serious effort to fight against this, you may find some allies here."
Thousands of postings on this blog have denounced smokefree hiring and firing policies, but it seems that I'm the only poster who has compared these policies to other drugfree hiring and firing policies, which have impacted hundreds of times more Americans.
During the past 30 years, I've actively opposed drug prohbibion laws, and have repeatedly urged members of Congress and State Legislators to decriminalize many different drug prohibition laws.
Similarly, I've always opposed cigarette or tobacco prohibition.
But my postings on this blog regarding drug policies and laws have (as expected) resulted in false personal accusations (which aren't deserving of a reply).
For the past twenty years, I've also been consistent in my views on drugfree hiring and firing employment policies.
While I've vigorously defended the rights of employers to adopt and implement virtually any drugfree hiring or firing policy they desire (including smokefree hiring and firing policies), when consulting with hundreds of employers I've encouraged them to focus on the drugs that are the most harmful and/or that cost employers lots of money. To do otherwise is a waste of the employer's financial resources.
"...to focus on the drugs that are the most harmful and/or that cost employers lots of money. To do otherwise is a waste of the employer's financial resources."
Bill, there are several problems with your statement.
Drugs: what are drugs? Cigarettes, coffee, aspirine, wine, Prozac?
Most harmful: to whom? To the public or the individual health? Isn't there always a "most harmful" drug, ones you have eliminated the most harmful one?
Employer's financial resources: If that's the ultimate measure, the emplyoer should be able to smoke a big cigar while refusing jobs to smokers "because it costs the company".
In all above cases, it is somebody else who decides what is deemed good for the individual (in the views of the decision maker, not in the views of the individual).
"Thousands of postings on this blog have denounced smokefree hiring and firing policies, but it seems that I'm the only poster who has compared these policies to other drugfree hiring and firing policies, which have impacted hundreds of times more Americans."
Thousands of postings on this blog have denounced employer rights to dictate personal legal behavior in their time off the clock, to which Godshall defends. Godshall defends those that want to take away our rights to privacy and unreasonable search.
"During the past 30 years, I've actively opposed drug prohbibion laws, and have repeatedly urged members of Congress and State Legislators to decriminalize many different drug prohibition laws.
Similarly, I've always opposed cigarette or tobacco prohibition."
Instead Godshall has focused on making the use of cigarettes illegal. Illegal in your car, illegal in your home, Illegal in a park, on a beach, there seems to be no bounds to where his prohibitionist mindset leads. Godshall dances around the definition of prohibition, but the results are clearly the same, the use of legal force to coerce people into abstention.
"take away our rights to privacy and unreasonable search."
should read
"take away our rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search."
Also, Bill is comparing the intent to fight against excluding a specific group(smokers--and Bill's argument seems to indicate that such a policy should be widespread) to the intent to exclude a specific group(racial minorities) by comparing anti-nonsmoker hiring policies to Jim Crow.
I find that to be shifting the goalposts to tug at emotional heartstrings...to express it diplomatically. I've read/heard a lot of smokefree advocates compare themselves to much more heroic movements than their own and it's getting a bit old.
And according to Dr. Siegel's logic(as I understand it,) yes, discriminatory policies would logically become legal if abolition were effected. It would be legal and a very bad policy, showing(in my opinion) up an abolitionist law for how faulty it is.
I don't think passage of a law to enact workplace policy would change a person's ideas of whether it should, morally, be legal vs logically legal if the law rationalizing it is bunkum.
According to Bill's logic, employers should have the rights to discriminate against single mothers, working parents, racial lines, religious beliefs, as all these classes of workers show a statistical higher cost for benifits, and thus as Bill put it "improve an employer's ability to thrive or even survive in a competitive labor market".
Laws have been enacted to make these forms of discrimination illegal as they are a violation of our civil rights. Our right to privacy is also a basic civil right. What one does unrelated to their employment (provided it is legal) is nobody elses business.
It is time for further protections be enacted which protect employees from abusive and tyrannical employers which seek to intrude into their private lives of their employees.
Further, drug testing (legal or illicit) is another violation of a persons right to privacy. Law enforcement is not allowed to drug test an individual without their permission, without a court ordered writ, and a probably cause in the commission of a crime. Godshall's defence of a business rights to discriminate and the use of invasive tests, are in a direct conflict of the rights of the individual.
Bill,
Are you involved at all in getting rid of the stranglehold doctors have on prescription painkillers? IOW, trying to make them OTC?
Bill wrote: "when consulting with hundreds of employers I've encouraged them to focus on the drugs that are the most harmful and/or that cost employers lots of money. To do otherwise is a waste of the employer's financial resources."
You only push them to focus on the most harmful and costly? Oh, that's right, according to you, CIGARETTES are the deadliest thing on earth.
Yet you still oppose their prohibition, but have no problem with labeling and accusing smokers of being child abusers, no problem pushing for laws that push smokers away from everyone else, no problem dictating what people can and cannot do in their own car or home. And then you wonder why we call you an anti-smokeR? And Bill, don't even try to claim I'm twisting your words because I'll go through this entire blog and pull them out for you.
But you're not pushing for prohibiition..........that mighty big of you there bill.
Godshall likes to use hyperbolic terms such as "if employers apply the same policy to the deadliest drug addiction?"
Considering that meth users have an average lifespan while actively using this drug measured in months, versus years for smokers, clearly Godshall is failing to consider prevalence into account when making such misleading statements.
Anslinger [head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics] immediately drew upon the themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. Some of his quotes regarding marijuana...
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Typical editorial comment by the anti-hemp croud read into federal hearings.
The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.
The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.
The cry of prohibitionists sound remarably the same, only the "cause" is changed.
Bill,why do you spout so much bullshit to hide your hatred of smokers ?Have you REALY focused on the drug that costs employers lots of money ?It's called ALCOHOL and leads to more ill health and time off work than any other drug.But no you call it tobacco because you want employers to think the same as you.Alcohol causes violence outside and in the home,wrecks marriages,scars children,leads to drunk driving,possibly killing other road users,damaging your own body to the point it will kill you,BUT NOT AFTER 30 YEARS.YOU ARE A TIMEWASTER BILL CAUGHT UP IN YOUR OWN LITTLE VINDICTIVE BATTLE AGAINST SMOKERS.Stop hiding behind the injured party ploy,you have blatently lied and decived right here on this blog.Sorry Bill it is a fact that you cannot excuse yourself from,however hard you try to deceive everyone.If you can't argue your position it isn't because of excuse ab or c it's because you can't argue against the evidence.Try it Bill and let's see what you can come up with.Is it going to be excuse a.b or c ?
The point Mike and other posters on this blog continue missing is that the goals of employment policies are to improve an employer's ability to thrive or even survive in a competitive labor market
Hitching onto Walt H's comment, it would also make sense to discriminate against anyone with any kind of medical "pre-existing condition," tricky genetic history, and all kinds of "risky" hobbies.
And beyond single mothers, try all fertile women and the husbands of fertile women (think of the medical costs-- pre-natal care and delivery-- the costs of maternity leave-- not merely reckoned in money but in lost productivity. And also-- what if the children are born congenitally diseased? and even if they're not, it's an extra toll on insurance.) Barring a policy of banning and canning the fertile, employers could simply fire folks who screw on their own time.
But then if your employers really want bang for the buck (pun not intended; at least when the sentence began) they should ban/can Americans. A pack-a-day Pakistani would cover the job for less, and w/o any benefits-- like health insurance.
Smokers, otoh, even if they succomb to one of those allegedly smoking-related ills, rarely get them till post-retirement.
:
I think there are quite a few marijuana legalization advocates out there who are making the same mistake as Bill. I remember that the thinking used to be: marijuana isn't really any more harmful than tobacco so I should be able to smoke pot in a public place like tobacco smokers. Now the thinking seems to have become: marijuana isn't really any more harmful than tobacco so if I can't smoke in a public place then neither should tobacco smokers be able to.
I have to admit I can understand the appeal of the thinking. I enjoy tobacco but I rarely drink alcohol. When I am in a place where tobacco is banned in bars, it's very tempting for me to say, well ALCOHOL is just as dangerous as pot or tobacco, so if I can't smoke, why should THEY be able to drink THEIR addictive deadly drug? And when I see heavy drinkers saying they are happy with all the smokers being kicked out because second hand smoke is SOOO deadly, and then they go staggering drunk into their cars and driving home, that hypocracy makes it tempting to say, HEY, maybe a little dose of alcohol prohibition is just what the doctor ordered to smarten you up.
But if you go down that road you end up making things worse for everybody, including yourself. 3 wrongs don't make a right, they just make 60-70% of the population into criminals.
Bill writes:
During the past 30 years, I've actively opposed drug prohbibion laws...
Then he writes:
...I've vigorously defended the rights of employers to adopt and implement virtually any drugfree hiring or firing policy they desire (including smokefree hiring and firing policies) ...
Bill, I just want to understand your position. Are you saying that you feel drug prohibition laws are unjust and should be repealed, but at the same time it is right and just for corporations to enforce a de-facto prohibition by threatening drug users with the loss of their livlihood?
"During the past 30 years, I've actively opposed drug prohbibion laws, and have repeatedly urged members of Congress and State Legislators to decriminalize many different drug prohibition laws."
Excellent! Good-on-ya, mate!
I really didn't believe you were a mindless prohibitionist, Bill.
I'm puzzled, however, by your dismissiveness regarding my hypothesis regarding the potential for prohibitionist measures (which tax increases are) to stimulate greater substance use.
Clearly, to hold the stand you have for 30 years, you must understand that prohibitions themselves cause the very problems associated with the prohibited substance(s) - yes? Come a little further, Bill. Open your mind to this reality - the reason it has been 'necessary' to have a "war on drugs" for 100 years, is that there has been a war on drugs for 100 years. It is the attempt to prevent substance users accessing supply that causes use of that substance to spread. Tobacco use is no different.
Texas Dave says ”But if you go down that road you end up making things worse for everybody, including yourself. 3 wrongs don't make a right, they just make 60-70% of the population into criminals.”
Intolerance only breeds more of the same. I believe some of this is deliberate from the standpoint of the health fascists, in a means to divide and conquer. Businesses are more than willing accomplishes, as the workforce is divided, and benefits are reduced with each health risk having to either pony up additional funds, or risk total exclusion. Smokers today say what about the BMI folk, drinkers, and cholesterol abusers. They’ve already been thrown under the bus, and the others haven’t seen the writing on the walls. Imagine the deer in the headlights look that we’ll soon see. The coming denormalization efforts are being stepped up against the obese, with supported by the same type of junk statistics and fallacious economic cost models, to show that society as a whole is being victimized by those unable to control their diet and what they eat. Already the legal arm is seeking to secure funding through lawsuits directed at the manufacturers. CSPI and their junk food tax is waiting on another state like California to earmark taxes to be given to dietary advocates.
The pharmaceutical interests are pouring huge sums of money into cost studies to support the PR campaigns, which will create a need for weight loss drugs and remedies.
Public health is now all about how do we create Public Relation campaigns to pit society against a subset of itself. Instead of a degree in science, biology, or medicine what is needed is public relations and effective propaganda technique. Science is being outsourced to Madison Avenue.
Fortunately for the obese (for the near term), the Stan Glantz’s of the tobacco movement cried foul and made a big enough stink, because it was cutting into their gravy train, but don’t count on this to hold for long as many within tobacco control are looking at greener pastures. Take the Banzhaf, Daynard et al contingent for example.
Walt said: "Public health is now all about how do we create Public Relation campaigns to pit society against a subset of itself. Instead of a degree in science, biology, or medicine what is needed is public relations and effective propaganda technique. Science is being outsourced to Madison Avenue."
Hear, hear! Well said, Walt.
and let's not forget that splendid convergence of prohibitions: first against drugs (1906?) and then against booze (1919), which not only spawned the bigtime bootlegging of whiskey and the consequent prosperity and influence of Mobs, but, while they were up -- and with the hand over fist profits-- got the mobs into coke and smack, causing an explosion in the use of "illegal" drugs.
Interesting, too, that on the other side of "Repeal," we almost instantly caught the fever of a new prohibition, this time "reefer," so the mobs didn't miss a either a beat or a buck.
This time around, the profiteers of prohibition appear-- increasingly-- to be the Islamo fascists. Salivating, I guess, at the number of bombs they can buy and martyrs they can reward with the profits from tax-free Kools.
Santayana had it wrong. Those who refuse to learn from history and doomed to be blown up.
Walt wrote:
"According to Bill's logic, employers should have the rights to discriminate against single mothers, working parents, racial lines, religious beliefs, as all these classes of workers show a statistical higher cost for benifits, and thus as Bill put it "improve an employer's ability to thrive or even survive in a competitive labor market".
Laws have been enacted to make these forms of discrimination illegal as they are a violation of our civil rights. Our right to privacy is also a basic civil right. What one does unrelated to their employment (provided it is legal) is nobody elses business."
Contrary to Walt's assertion, I've never supported nor encouraged employment policies that violate anti discrimination laws.
Walt's interpretation of employment law is also incorrect, as except for unlawful forms of employment discrimination (e.g. race, creed, sex, religion, disability, etc.), employers remain free to discriminate based upon virtually any other criteria.
From 1989-1995 the cigarette industry sponsored smoker's bills of rights legislation in all 50 states to include smoking status as a form of illegal employment discrimination.
While the cigarette companies succeeded in getting some forms of these laws enacted in about half of the states, most of those laws exempted many or most employers.
When consulting with employers on smoking policies, I suggest that smokefree employment policies apply to new job applicants, that nonsmoking employees recieve health insurance discounts, and that the employer provide (free of charge) tobacco cessation programs and NRT products to addicted employees who desire to quit.
And while I don't urge employers to require that all smoking employees quit smoking, I think that employers should have the right to implement those types of policies if they choose to do so (similar to other drug free employment policies and drug testing).
Bill said: "Our right to privacy is also a basic civil right. What one does unrelated to their employment (provided it is legal) is nobody elses business."
Well apparently not, if Bill supports policies by which employers refuse to hire someone who smokes in the privacy of their own home. With such policies, what one does in one's own home (smoke), which is legal and unrelated to their employment, IS specifically the business of their employer.
Bill is certainly entitled to argue that employers should be free to hire or refuse to hire anyone they want to, but one cannot make that argument and at the same time state that our right to privacy is a basic civil right and that what we do (legally) in the privacy of our own homes is nobody else's business. According to Bill's own argument, it's the business of our employers.
Dr. Siegel,
In all fairness to Bill, he was quoting Walt when he cited the following quote:
"Our right to privacy is also a basic civil right. What one does unrelated to their employment (provided it is legal) is nobody elses business."
So, Bill is not contradicting himself in his post. From what I can tell, Bill does not feel that the right to privacy should be covered under employer anti-discrimination law. He is technicaly right in most cases as most employment is "at will" unless an emplyee is working under a contract (and you rarely see that much any more these days). So, from a narrow legalistic perspective, it is perfectly OK for an employer to demand that employees behave in a certain way OFF THE JOB.
I would venture to say that a lot of posters here, including you and me, feel that just because something is legal does make it right or just. And, I completely agree with Walt's quote.
So, once again Bill is comparing the legal use of tobacco to the illicit use of non-legal substances. Way to go Bill.
As to Bill's contention that the smoking status legislation of the late 80s and early 90s exempted many or most employers - I beg to differ based upon the ones I had dealings with. In Delaware the exemptions were for the anti-smoker cartel so they cuold continue their help wanted ads that stated "Smokrs Need Not Apply," health care facilities were given the option, and religious organizations also had the option. the measure failed and so only state government workers in Delaware are protected from bigots such as Bill Godshall and his merry band of thieves.
cj wrote:
"I would venture to say that a lot of posters here, including you and me, feel that just because something is legal does make it right or just. And, I completely agree with Walt's quote."
It appears that if Mike, cj and Walt had their way, alcoholism treatment centers would be forced by law to hire alcoholics who applied for jobs as counselors, smoking cessation treatment centers would be forced by law to hire smokers who apply for jobs as counselors, anti pornography groups would be required by law to hire porn stars who applied for jobs, and the Pittsburgh Steelers would be prohibited from including a "no helmetless motorcycle riding" clause in its employment contract with quarterback Ben Rothlisburger.
Sounds like cj, Walt and Mike are far more interested in controlling the personnel policies of every employer
forcing all empoyers their social engineering views
Bill, I don't hear it being argued that it should be illegal for employers not to hire smokers (or drinkers or motorcyclists, etc.). I hear it being argued that it is morally wrong, and unjustified to ban employment of a group based on such factors. If Ben Rothlisburger were to declare "I'm going to continue riding my bike without a helmet", or if a smoker were to declare "I'm going to take a break every 10 minutes to smoke a cigarette", then it makes sense from an individual perspective not to hire that person. But to make a blanket decision not to hire a group based on behavior that is unlikely to affect job performance seems unreasonable.
Joel wrote:
"I hear it being argued that it is morally wrong, and unjustified to ban employment of a group based on such factors."
Some folks also claim that premarital sex, condoms, abortions, homosexuality, pornography, different religions, athiesm, etc. are immoral. In contrast, I and most other rational and tolerant individuals don't find any of those things immoral.
I'm not intereted in moralizing, but rather I'm interested in sound and consistent public health and safety policies, especially drug policies.
Joel also wrote:
"But to make a blanket decision not to hire a group based on behavior that is unlikely to affect job performance seems unreasonable."
While I tend to agree, the key issue is that each employer has the autonomy to determine its own job performance criteria.
As such, if Joel doesn't think cigarette smoking affects job performance, I suggest that Joel hire smokers.
But if other employers think that cigarette smoking negatively affects job performance, then they should be free to implement those policies.
"But if other employers think that cigarette smoking negatively affects job performance ..."
Care to give an example?
But I think you missed the point Joel was making when he stated: "[it is] .. unjustified to ban employment of a group based on such factors."
US employment law sucks !If an employer can do as he pleases without the safeguard of REASONABLE employer/employee ground rules is it any wonder that job commitment,job satisfaction,productivity are all blamed as causing the next major health problems to emerge,namely mental health.Do you all fancy being kicked out because you didn't want to work a 25 hour day or wear makeup to make you look more presentable.Management by diktat never works.Quality employers know how to deal with people,and do not rely on cheap tactics.The wild west went out of fashion,does everyone have to act like John Wayne ?Remove your import tariffs and every other element of unfair competion and see how long some of your employment practices last.
“Contrary to Walt's assertion, I've never supported nor encouraged employment policies that violate anti discrimination laws.”
Wrong Bill that is not what was asserted.
You stated “The point Mike and other posters on this blog continue missing is that the goals of employment policies are to improve an employer's ability to thrive or even survive in a competitive labor market, not to discriminate against those who might violate laws that were enacted largely due to racial and cultural discrimination.” Clearly this seems to say that civil rights take a back seat to employers rights to “survive and thrive”. Therefore following in your logic, employers should be allowed to discriminate against those groups in order to “thrive and survive“.
We have however seen that when discrimination becomes rampant, laws have been enacted offering protection to these groups from discrimination.
Furthermore, a person has a right to privacy. Drug testing is an invasion of privacy and unreasonable search. The government is not permitted to drug test individuals without probable cause of the commission of a crime and without a court ordered writ. This is an abuse of power, and employers must in order to enforce off-duty smoking prohibitions must institute nicotine testing. There has been no crime committed with off-the-clock smoking so there can be no cause. Further, there is no court order enabling such. Clearly if executed by the government would be a clear constitutional violation. Why should employers have such invasive rights, when we don’t permit our government such?
Walt's interpretation of employment law is also incorrect, as except for unlawful forms of employment discrimination (e.g. race, creed, sex, religion, disability, etc.), employers remain free to discriminate based upon virtually any other criteria.
Bill’s interpretation of what I wrote is either incorrect, or he is engaging in a straw man argument. What specifically is it that he takes exception to?
Prejudice means to prejudge an individual based on the prevailing attributes of a group. The individual isn’t given a fair chance, as only the group is judged. This is what makes discrimination wrong but in nearly all cases, there are not laws in place to make these prejudices illegal. There should be.
I would like to see laws enacted which prevent employers from discriminatory practices for legal behavior unrelated to the job.
“But if other employers think that cigarette smoking negatively affects job performance, then they should be free to implement those policies.
So again I ask, Bill finds nothing wrong with discrimination based on ones beliefs, then why does he believe there should be any protections from employment discrimination?
Clearly ones belief in a god is not something someone can’t change. Nor is it something someone is born with. Yet society has felt to judge someone on their theological beliefs is wrong, and subsequently the laws have been amended to a prohibit this form of discrimination.
Bill also went on to say I'm not intereted in moralizing, but rather I'm interested in sound and consistent public health and safety policies, especially drug policies.
It would seem that he is in fact interested in moralizing which is exactly what drug policy is all about.
As for a consistent public health policy, fascism and coercion are about the only thing consistent with the public health policy today. How does he believe public health is served by employment policy which discriminate against smokers.
How is public health served by studies funded by pharmaceutical interests which purport smokers to be less productive than non-smokers?
How are drug policies consistent when tobacco control groups promote smoker discrimination, and ignore alcohol?
How is our basic human rights to privacy served when public health encourages invasive drug testing by employers.
There is a single and consistent answer to all these questions.
“To coerce smokers to quit”. This is what is consistent with the methods and tactics being employed today in tobacco control. This assumes the smoker does not have the right to their own body, they must be coerced. This is consistent with the smoking bans in Calabasas county, this is consistent with the proposed NJ law to prohibit smoking while driving. This is consistent with the beach and park smoking bans, where there is no safety issue. This is being done directly and indirectly through manipulation of public opinion.
This equally applies to the coercive techniques being applied to the obese. Coerce them into a healthy diet.
This is being driven and funded by the pharmaceutical industry to promote their cessation devices, cures, diet pills and such. A cooperative between business and government to use their coercive powers to stimulate sales. Fascism.
When public health precluded the right of the individual to be free from coercion, they stepped over the line. Way over the line into tyranny.
Public Health is about the practice of medicine. One of the underlying ethos in medicine is to not use coercion. To recognize the right of the individual. Not discriminate against the group.
"As such, if Joel doesn't think cigarette smoking affects job performance, I suggest that Joel hire smokers."
Fine.
But then isn't it also fair that if Alice doesn't smoke and doesn't want to be around smoke, she can seek employment at a place other than Joel's company?
Bill's argument fails because the same exact argument could be used to argue that employers should be free not to hire African-Americans (or any other racial or religious group):
"As such, if Joel doesn't think being African-American affects job performance, I suggest that Joel hire African-Americans.
But if other employers think that being African-American negatively affects job performance, then they should be free to implement those policies."
Put in those terms, one can see how absurd an arguement it is, and also, how callous, insensitive, and dangerous it is.
Clearly, that argument is not going to carry the day. What Bill is going to have to face is the fact that the only argument that could possibly carry the day is that smoking DOES directly and inevitably affect job performance. And so far, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that is the case.
Bill wrote:
"But if other employers think that cigarette smoking negatively affects job performance, then they should be free to implement those policies.
The operative word here is think. That is not a proof. I would also say that most people's thinking on the issue is systematically mis-informed by the official anti-smoker propaganda spouting forth from both governmental and corporate interests.
In any case, many employers may think the same way about marijuana use. Bill, since you seem sympathetic to the marijuana-user community and the unjust treatment they receive, you should understand that your arguments just serve to embolden employers to continue this unjust treatment.
By the way, I never argued in favor of any sort of legislation that would force alcoholism treatment centers to hire alcoholics, etc. What I am saying is that if something the individual does on his own time does NOT affect job performance, it is none of the employer's damn business. For instance, i feel if someone shows up on the job stoned on pot, that affects job performance. If someone smokes pot on his own time, but shows up on the job sober and ready to work, that is none of the employer's business.
When I am at work, I agree to give my employer my best ability to complete my work on the company's time. I agree to the terms of employment, for the time that I am being paid, in exchange for a wage. This has been the implicit understanding between employer and employee. When I am on vacation, or off the company clock, I am not being paid by the employer and at that point any decisions about how I spend my time are no longer the employer's concern.
My employer does not OWN me. You should think long and hard about the dangers of policies that would lead the employer/employee relationship to morph into something resembling indentured servitude or chattel slavery.
Bill wrote: "As such, if Joel doesn't think cigarette smoking affects job performance, I suggest that Joel hire smokers."
Bill, do you honestly believe cigarette smoking affects job performance? Let me tell you a story then. My last job in NYC was in an accounting office, I worked as an administrative assistant in the audit department and was assigned to cover 4 partners (and any managers, staff, etc, working on any of their clients). They all knew I smoked, and they were all non-smokers who constantly tried to berate me for my habit. I left NYC to move to Phoenix 2 years ago, I was temping at my current job only a month when they decided to hire me permanent, and buy out the rest of my temp contract in order to do so right away. After acccepting their offer, my current boss jokingly asked me what it had cost me in dollars to get those four partners back in NYC to say what they did about me. I asked him what he was talking about. He told me that when each was asked "would you hire Lynda back if she were to return to NYC" all four, said without hesitation "in a heartbeat". My boss was impressed that all four would feel exactly the same way (actually so was I, as I knew one or two felt that way, but not all four). THAT is how UNproductive and INeffectual I am at my job.
I am currently the only smoker in my office, and while a couple of them have their fun with my being a smoker, they all still gave such great reviews to my boss at review time about me that he got me a $4500/yr raise last year. Again, THAT is how UNproductive and INeffectual I am at my job.
This idea you all have that smokers are unproductive or that their smoking somehow impairs their ability to do their job is really ridiculous.
Ed wrote: "But then isn't it also fair that if Alice doesn't smoke and doesn't want to be around smoke, she can seek employment at a place other than Joel's company?"
Awwww Ed, don't know that poor Alice shouldn't have to make such a choice, nor is she required to? Her employer is responsible for having to change his policies to accommodate her. She has no choice about work, therefore he has to cater to her preferences of working environment.
Amazing the double standard the anti's have, isn't it?
Yes, a very interesting set of points you make Lynda F.
The current canard in the UK being used to stop smoking at work is that smokers take extra breaks.
They don't, not where I work anway, and this is because, if I take myself as an example, I don't stop thinking because I'm smoking.
Like many people who post on this blog I have an intellectually complex job, and certain matters require intense mental application. Subsequently, it makes no difference in terms of time whether I walk around outside smoking or sit at my desk as on both counts I continue to deliberate.
Moreover, in nearly every workplace people take "extra" breaks of one kind or another, whether it be to talk to each other, do a bit of personal surfing for bargains or simply to read a newspaper article or whatever. Why then, shouldn't someone just as easily nip outside for 5 minutes for a cigarette?
Lastly, a lot of jobs are target orientated, in that, the empolyer's first concern is meeting targets as required and keeping customers happy. If these factors are met, then equally, most employers are very pleased. On the other hand, if these targets are not met, then the employee will rightly have something to answer for. In my view this is the sensible way both in terms of keeping the workforce happy and in assisting people to develop their sense of personal responsibility.
Bill wrote: "I'm not intereted in moralizing, but rather I'm interested in sound and consistent public health and safety policies". Bill, I think you're missing a major thrust of Dr. Siegel's stance, i.e., that moral standing is imperative for public health to be effective. If a public health (or any health) practitioner does not have moral standing, it inevitably undermines his authority. I refuse to accept gifts or even to own stock in pharmaceutical companies, lest anyone believe I am making patient care decisions that are influenced by factors other than my patients' health. Likewise, if I were to be arrested for soliciting prostitution or possessing drugs, it would clearly reduce my effectiveness.
Frankly, it's not clear to me how the decision whether or not to hire smokers is a public health matter at all. However, by taking a moral stand against such discrimination, public health practitioners have an opportunity to reinforce their standing as interested in public health and not punishment. I have hired smokers in the past, and would hire them again. I don't particularly like the smell of smoke on a person, but it is so hard to find good help these days, it seems foolhardy to make a decision based on such an insignificant factor.
But that does bring up an important point. We do have laws barring discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc., all of which are quite appropriate, but don't we need to draw a line somewhere? Do we need laws preventing discrimination based on smoking status? What about coffee drinkers? Or nose-ring wearers? Or those who dye their hair? Or motorcycle riders? My point is: it's morally wrong and foolish not to hire smokers, but should it be illegal? At some level employers need to have a right to hire who they wish.
Mike wrote:
"Bill's argument fails because the same exact argument could be used to argue that employers should be free not to hire African-Americans (or any other racial or religious group):"
And yet, I previously wrote:
"Contrary to Walt's assertion, I've never supported nor encouraged employment policies that violate anti discrimination laws."
It's a shame that Mike and many other posters on this blog resort to false personal attacks instead of engaging in rationale and civil discourse.
Instead of self rightous ad nauseum moralizing and insulting dissenters, those who oppose smokefree hiring policies should grow up and start advocate legislation to outlaw those employment practices.
As one who has successfully mobilized campaings to reject "right to smoke" bills in dozens of state legislatures
more than a decade ago, I say bring it on (as I look forward to once again collaborating with chambers of commerce and Republican caucuses).
Bill is missing my point. I'm not accusing him of opposing anti-discrimination laws. I'm simply demonstrating that his argument fails. The same argument he is making would indeed justify discrimination against African-Americans or any other racial or religious group.
Clearly, a better argument is needed to justify as a policy the refusal to hire smokers. And I'm suggesting that the only possible argument that would work is the argument that smoking directly and inevitably affects job performance or directly interferes with or is in opposition to a company's mission.
So far, I've seen no evidence that this is the case. It's interesting that proponents of these policies are unable to provide such evidence, despite all the rhetoric. To me, that's quite telling.
Finally, I want to emphasize again that I am not trying to entertain a discussion of the legality of these policies. This discussion is about their justification as policy. I acknowledge that in most states, these policies are perfectly legal and that it is problematic to have to write into law an anti-discrimination clause specifically for smokers or all the other types of discrimination that could occur. But that doesn't make it RIGHT to discriminate. And as anti-smoking organizations and advocates, I think we do have a moral duty to oppose what we think is WRONG, even if it happens to be LEGAL.
Being dense is a characteristic of anti-smokers. Bill is a fine example.
Joel, I don't disagree with you that laws should be enacted as minimally as possible. But for discussion purposes at least, let's ask ourselves why there are laws that protect race, gender, age and are considered "appropriate." Could it be because each of those "classes" experienced such widespread forms of discrimination that government had to step in to end it?
Are motorcycle riders or coffee drinkers experiencing any widespread forms and acts of discriminatory practices?
Are people who choose to smoke beginning to experience what the protected classes had faced?
Those two questions should help improve the vision on how to "draw the line."
And when coffee drinkers are prohibited from "using their drug" (caffeine) in front of others or at home if they want to stay employed then yes, we might need to include them on that side of the line too.
It's not WHAT it is, it's HOW it's being reacted to.
JTF, I agree with you that discrimination is discrimination, and it's wrong no matter what its stripes. However, I think the dividing line from a legal perspective is that discrimination based on appearance or inherent traits is more apt to be outlawed than discrimination based on behavior.