Enough already. This Chinese Water Torture, electro shock therapy, and waterboarding is unbearable. Enough torture.
You win Anti's!!!!!! OK? Are you happy now? Just admit that you're only goal is to make smokers lives so miserable that they bow to the Leviathan State and quit. You have more money than Bill Gates and more power than a King.**
The rest of you are stronger than me. I've broken. I'll tell you what you want to hear.
Just let me out of this cell and stop torturing me.
**I'm Saddam Hussein and I approved this message.
Are they also going to test for excessive alcohol consumption? Isn't THAT an UNhealthy thing to do also? What about dangerous hobbies? You know, like sky diving, race car driving, rock climbing. Hell, Christopher Reeves showed us how dangerous riding a horse can be also.
They are outright discriminating.
They think I cost too much money? They didn't refuse to hire gays when aids was thought to be a gays only disease, did they?
I see my doctor once a year ONLY for a renewal on my estrogen and thyroid medication, only because they hold it ransom to force me to get a damned mammogram every year too. Twice a year IF she's lucky. The woman hates me for being as healthy as I am AND smoking.
Well, when I'm fired for being a smoker and can't get another job because I smoke, I'll just go and let the taxpayers (all non-smokers by then) support me via welfare or disability, housing, food stamps, medicaid. Oh YES THAT makes sooooo much more sense. I'll get to relax at home and smoke (I live in single detached house with private walled off back yard too). Thank you Bill et al, an early retirement, how nice.
This is more than "unfair" and "unfortunate," as you say, it's downright dangerous. I know there's great resistance to Nazi analogies, though I suspect they're resisted on the grounds that they're too uncomfortably true.
In the course of my life I've known a lot of people who escaped from the Nazis-- the lucky ones, before or in the first year of the war. The others had numbers tatooed on their arms. At a fairly young age, I listened to their stories. I absorbed their stories. This is how it started. This is how it starts.
In college I wondered How could this happen? How could the German people who were, after all, just ordinary people, have so thoroughly been conditioned to shed their humanity in such a short time, turning into hounds who self-righteously betrayed, and then bayed after Jews, their not-so-very-long-ago neighbors and friends?
I studied the propaganda. The barrage of messages-- the posters, the films-- morphing Jews into rats, decrying them as sources of pestilence and disease, let alone as just plain undesirables, degenerates. (And it's almost irrelevant that Hitler said that only Jews and gypsies smoke; this is not about smoking, it's all about tribes--Tutsis and Hutus and the things tribes do.)
I also got insights from some of Freud's essays-- on narcissism, tribalism and group psychology (not blather about tunnels and trees in your dreams, but solid, blow-your-mind social psychology.)
What I took from the lot of this, from putting it all together, was an abiding, though not crippling, mistrust of my fellow man, who can't escape his tribal nature after all, and the lesson that, no matter how prosperous or comfortable or happy you may be or believe yourself to be, you should always keep a suitcase packed in the hall closet for the moment you have to run.
And so, here we are. It's not just the firings and defacto confiscation of our private property and personal free will. Hospitals routinely turned the sick into the snow; nursing homes prophylactically force the fragile elderly to forge across highways, just because they smoke. All sense of humanity and proportion have fled.
No, I don't think this will end in the ovens-- though the Kessler-Koop commission suggested something approximating forced "re-education," so I don't know where it will end. I only know it's going to get a lot worse--and muling, hand-wringing and blogging won't stop it. Even smokers won't stop it, as the Jews didn't stop it. They just went along-- accepted being fired, accepted eviction, accepted the armbands and the walking in the gutters, and the final solution.
The only question left is: what should I pack?
How degrading and humiliating for both smokers AND non-smokers! Imagine you have to present yourself for a job interview with a vial full of urine. No stop, you will actually have to fill it in the presence of the manager of HR, no cheating!
This is definitely an intrusion into the intimacy and privacy of every applicant. What's next? AIDS test, pregnancy test, alcohol test, HPV test, ...
Why do they insist in hiring human beings with all the risks involved?
"Medical Mutual estimates that it saves $625 annually in medical costs for every worker who quits smoking.
Numerous studies have shown that smokers are at substantially higher risk of a broad range of costly health problems.
The average cost per smoker includes $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenses, according to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Now I'd really like to know how they can justify these figures based on facts and if they are really caused by smoking or simply attributed to smokers.
According to a Swiss study on the cost of smoking, two thirds of the smokers die at ages beyond 65, nevertheless they count deaths as productivity losses.
"I think people have just accepted the fact that we're no longer hiring smokers, mainly due to the costs that are associated with them. If we save one cancer case or heart attack, you're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims and hospitalizations and loss of work. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/159...rintstory.jsp\"
You know what: no employees, no cost.
May I remind you that the WHO lost its director-general at the young age of 61.
At his funeral [E]xcerpts from a speech prepared by the Director-General were read out to the Assembly by Dr Bill Kean, Executive Director of the Director-General's Office. In this speech, Dr Lee [...] wrote [announcing another speaker], "This is a voice that must be heard. He speaks for [*] those living in the shadow of stigma."
Johnson Mwakazi spoke of his experience through a poem, "Underneath the Veil":
"This one thing has destroyed families,
This one thing has destroyed marriages,
This one thing has killed men.
It is not HIV
It is not AIDS
… It is stigmatisation.
I say STIGMATISATION."
[*] Was he talking about smokers? No, absolutely not, but he could have as well. He was in fact talking about HIV.
The original text is:
He speaks for the 40 million people living with HIV, those living in the shadow of stigma.
Any Senator or politician at whatever level who smokes should also be kicked out on their arse,after all ,isn't this the will of the people ? Let the US economy fall by refusing to employ smokers,those who may just be more qualified for the job.More important things are at stake here,like becoming the most tyrannical "democracy?" in the west or the 2008 presidential elections,everything must be put on hold for this.Pity no-one sees being the President of a country that will become the laughing joke of the west if it continues on its radical approach to a proportion of its inhabitants.My,my,even some of the Arab states may end up being more democratic.I just cannot believe it is doing this to itself willingly.I'm so glad i saw America and Canada the way they USED to be,before the rot set in.
One Question:
Where is the ACLU?
This is so discriminatory! We should add women in their child-bearing years to the list. Not only do they cost a lot more in medical expense (when they become pregnant), they also miss work more than single people when their children get sick (which seems to be often these days).
I worked with a woman who became pregnant a few months after she started working. She worked until she had her baby (taking various paid sick days along the way), took the six-week leave paid for by the company, and then on the day she came back from maternity leave, she gave her notice. She decided to be a stay at home mom.
Unless they refuse to hire the obese, people who don't exercise, women in their child-bearing years, etc., this is a discriminatory practice. It's funny (sad) how companies are required to accomodate people with disabilities, who may require more medical care...and the company even has to spend additional money for special equipment in some cases...yet, they can fire smokers for costing them too much.
I've been thinking for a long time now that it's about time we divorced employers from providing health insurance. It's the only thing that will keep them from trying to force a lifestyle on an employee.
I have to laugh at their numbers. I don't believe them.
The single greatest cost to any actual employer has got to be child-bearing women - not smokers - especially young smokers. I notice that the insurer is quoting CDC numbers. Why don't they open their books and examine their own numbers?
Let's see in black and white how much extra their actual smoking employees are costing them? I'm willing to bet their is no significant difference in usage or they'd be quoting their own expenses instead of the "estimated" costs of bogus studies.
If my employer ever pulls this shit that's the first thing I'll do. Have my lawyer subpeona their records to prove I'm costing them too much.
Since I don't believe in the allopathic paradigm anymore (even though I am employed in it), I rarely use their services. I just keep paying the damned premiums in case I break my leg or lose my appendix. Hell, I save my employer money.
How I long for the days when you could buy BC/BS "hospitalization" at a reasonable cost. I would gladly self-insure/ self-pay with a catastrophic policy. A system that fell by the wayside because people wouldn't pay out of pocket for useless and marginally beneficial shit when they did. It would put the whole industry in a deep recession and improve the health and well being of us all.
There's a reason why inspite of our outrageously expensive allopathic system we still spend billions out of pocket on CAM.
Another thought.
I remember reading that most bankruptcies cause by medical expenses happen to people that have/had medical insurance. Many lose their insurance when they lose their job due to their health. So for the sickest - the employer is off the hook after a fairly short period of time. Cobra is a joke - if you don't have a very hefty emergency fund - you can't afford it on umemployment.
On so many counts this "cost saving" by discriminating against smokers is pure unadulterated BS. It's purely theoretical based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
I hate to say it but they are correct, a woman in child-bearing years DOES cost more than anyone else unless they are very sick. And can potentially cost more, and affects their husbands. Especially if something goes wrong in the pregnancy. My husband had to take off 3 weeks when we had our last baby. The man that works with my husband has taken a total of 3 months off because his wife had a very hard pregnancy and delivery. A woman he works with took countless days off for doctor's appointments, testing, etc.
The whole thing is crap anyhow. Every insurance we looked into before my husband got our current asked if I was a smoker and the rates raised in accordance with that.
One Question:
Where is the ACLU?
I saw this question asked on another board over a year ago, and I believe the response that came back was that the ACLU is FOR the bans and TC, so they don't strain themselves.
Apparently the ACLU is no longer about civil liberties, but about going with what is PC.
That's the rumor, not sure how true it is, for I've not personally asked them.
You know Lynda, I kind of like your early retirment idea. Can you imagine all the panties in a twist the anti-smokers would have if smokers just said enough is enough?
http://www.paylessforlegal.com/C...om/
CivilLaw.asp
Legal Matter= discrimination
I believe businesses should have the right to hire or not whoever they want. If they don't want smokers, so be it.
I will just make sure they would never see a cent from me.
I know Gabz, just the thought excites me to no end. I wouldn't mind retiring at THEIR expense. How sweet would THAT be........hehehehehe
Harley,
On one hand I totally agree with you. However, to deliberately single out anyone who smokes on their own time, even though they are the most qualified for a position, IS discrimination. Just because "smokers" are not specifically spelled out in discrimination laws does not make it right. Any one with half a brain knows that.
Now, IF a medical institution attempting to have employees lead healthy lifestyles and portray that publically, THEN they also cannot hire obese people, people who drink (you can smell alcohol, and scotch seems to pour from the pores for 2 days), or anyone that engages in any hobby where there is a chance they MIGHT be injured. THEN you have a good argument.
BUT they are not doing that if they are ONLY eliminating smokers, therefore they are practicing discrimination.
First of all, I would like to say that in all the various jobs/employment that I have held over the years, I have never had to cover the work because a smoker was out sick. I have covered, more times than I dare count, people who are out on maternity leave and that includes the dads too. I have covered for people who needs time off to go to court, lawyers offices or the ones who were just hung over on a Monday morning. I also have stayed late and helped coworker catch up because she/he spent to much time on the phone with little Johnny who needed help with his homework or who was arguing and pleading to be allowed to go outside to play. I even worked with people who would play solitaire on company time and read the newspapers. Then there are the parents who needs to stay home because little Johnny is sick with what my parents always called "school bell fever." That is the disease where your stomach hurts, throat is sore, etc until the school bell rings, school is in session and you have that miraculous recovery. Then there are the annoying people who insists on looking over a petition knowing that everyone in the office wants to hear about how drunk they got on their weekend fishing trip. That is the trip which they had to leave early on Friday for. Yet, when a smoker gets fed up with listening to all this or can't concentrate with all the blabbering and steps outside for a quick smoke, in hopes that everyone will be back at their desk when they come in, they are the ones who are costing the company thousands in dollars for health coverage and basically any other benefit offered by said company. Hypocrites are disgusting and evil.
I am new to this post and I apologize for the rant, but with your blessings, I will be back with lots more.
Diane
How come it's ok for a person who smokes to have to find alternative employment because of a smoking policy and yet for a non-smoker it isn't? (All pubs must be smoke free otherwise that's not fair on non-smokers)
If a company had this policy years ago they would not have hired Einstein. In deed this is the bottom line, if you do not hire the best person for the job then you hand your competitor an advantage.
west
----
I would love to see some real statistics on how much smokers cost in terms of medical care compared to other groups of people. My personal observation has been that smokers do not use their medical insurance any more than non-smokers. In fact, I cannot remember ever working with someone who contracted a "smoking-related" illness and accumulated a lot of medical expenses.
I keep hearing how much smokers cost society, but I just don't see it. I've known one ex-smoker who contracted emphysema AFTER he retired and was paying for his own medical bills. I don't know anyone (personally) with lung cancer who was a smoker. I know many people who have had high blood pressure and/or heart attacks and most were non-smokers (kind of in line with the makeup of the general population - maybe 20% of the people were smokers...not statistically significant).
Anyway, does anyone know of some real statistics out there?
Julie,
My son works for a nationwide drug testing company in CT. This company actually takes care of the test results for the clients, reminds them when it is time for another test, etc. There is a long list of things the company offers and does for the client and the list is to long to go into here on this thread. Anyway, part of the company's requirements is to know every State's laws, clients rules and all the actual numbers to actual damage due to drugs and alcohol. While visiting him this past summer, we were discussing this very issue and he told me what the astrominical cost it was for drug and alcohol but said that there has NEVER been a study done as to what a smoker cost to a company really is. So, when they throw out these numbers, they are all hypotheical, just a guess as to what it might cost should they get sick and miss work. My son is a non-smoker but believes in a person's right to choose and has argued this very issue with the President of the company he works for. For now, no one has been fired for smoking or discriminated against and that is thanks for his adamant refusal to discriminate.
Diane
I personally have never seen someone who took more than their allotted breaks to smoke. I've held both professional and blue collar jobs. Now, I've known someone that had to do some work outside and thought, "Meh, I'll take a cigarette while I'm out there". But as for cigarette breaks in particular, in the state of Texas you must have 2 15 minute breaks per 8 hours worked and a 30 minute lunch. Many of us have spent our breaks outside having a smoke...
OH, as far as measuring cotinine levels, just two days ago I saw an article that stated that cotinine is a harmless thing found not only in cigarette smoke but many vegetables (tomatoes, eggplant, teas, potatoes)and that in the course of eating a normal serving of these things you can actually consume a significant amount of cotinine.
NOONE eat your veggies!
Mike wrote:
"And employers certainly have no business getting inside the body fluids of their employees, except, again, to ensure that they are not using illegal substances."
Once again, Mike exposes his hypocrisy by defending employment discrimination against those who use potentially less hazardous substances (e.g. marijuana) than against those who use the most addictive and deadliest substance (i.e. cigarettes).
The public health risks of a substance has little corrolation to the legality of a substance.
Also, the key reason why the most commonly used illegal substances (i.e. opium, cocaine, marijuana, heroin, crack) were criminalized by politicians was due to racial discrimination, and racial minorities are far more likely to be arrested and convicted of drug prohibition laws than are whites.
Thus, Mike is basically endorsing employment discrimination against many racial minorities while decrying employment discrimination against the drug addiction most common among whites.
Um, Bill. Marijuana (and the other drugs you mentioned) are illegal, for one (right or wrong, that's how it is). Also, it does alter your thinking a little, and could interfere with your work. There is a good argument for employers not wanting people to be high on the job.
Don't get me wrong...I agree that drug laws were first enacted because minorities (in particular, Mexicans) used them and they were being racially discriminated against. I don't believe there can be a victimless crime, and I don't agree with all the current drug laws...I don't like the drug testing because if you do something on your own time that does not interfere with your work, it should be nobody's business.
But, this is an entirely different argument which involves a legal product that does not alter a person's mind in any way. They are basing their argument on the high cost of health care for these individuals, when it looks to me like other groups of people (like child-bearing women, for example) are much more costly in terms of health care (not to mention time lost on the job).
Just trying to understand the preztel logic used by Mr Goodshall. Aren't smoking rates generally also higher in minority groups and among lower socio-economic groups? And in fact isn't that why smoking bans and employment policies like these are increasing? The truth is that like the "Temperence" movement previously this anti-smoking "crusade" is largely a white middle class obsession. When a behavior becomes associated predominantly with lower socio-economic groups it is either heavily regulated or banned. Based on this regulation fewer african-americans will be eligible for jobs with this company due to higher smoking rates and the discriminatory hiring policy.
I rest my case. With arguments like the one Bill advances above, it's pretty obvious that anti-smoking advocates are quite desperate in their attempts to defend discrimination against smokers. I guess when you really get down to it and force the advocates to actually confront the issues, you find out that the cupboard is completely bare.
My Godshall...[shakes head]...I have asked you many questions in a civil manner (if I do say so myself) yet received little if anything in the way of answers. I have also supported your contributions, yet this, as they say 'takes the biscuit'.
Thus, Mike is basically endorsing employment discrimination against many racial minorities while decrying employment discrimination against the drug addiction most common among whites.
Really did you seriously think about the issue? This comment is..[shakes head again]..totally uncalled for. Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it has come across, then perhaps I have misunderstood or maybe you could rephrase?
west
----
Once again, Mike exposes his hypocrisy by defending employment discrimination against those who use potentially less hazardous substances (e.g. marijuana) than against those who use the most addictive and deadliest substance (i.e. cigarettes).
Godshall, you're deranged. Like Lynda, I agree that there are some pretty assinine laws out there in regard to narcotics, most particularly marijuana. But with that said, there is good reason for employers to not wish their employees to be under the influence of a substance whether it be legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana) while on the job. Tobacco is no where near the equivalent of either in terms of functioning while "under the influence."
I can smoke a pack of cigarettes and safely operate a motor vehicle or other piece of equipment, but if I take even one OTC benedryl, someone else better be driving.
Cotinine is a biomarker of nicotine, but as someone else pointed out the biomarker will also show in those who eat certain fruits and vegetables. Based on my diet alone, I will always test positive for levels of cotinine. Tonight's dinner alone would put anyone, including you, into the running for a positive test for cotinine.
Be careful what you wish for, i can come back and bite you in the butt, and most likely will.
"Thus, Mike is basically endorsing employment discrimination against many racial minorities while decrying employment discrimination against the drug addiction most common among whites."
Bill;
Lets go down that road shall we.
It is indicative of the ethical malaise of TC, how smoking can be described as an addiction or a nasty habit, depending on what is convenient at the time.
I thank you for finally stating a TC definition of smoking as an addiction, revealing your true nature, and form of advocacy, in a public statement recorded herein.
According to international law if that is at all respected or even considered among “Health care advocates” who do claim to be speaking for a UN agency. Discrimination or torment of someone to force compliance solely in use or because of an addiction is a human rights abuse.
A form of torture. Your targeted demographic being discriminated against in not "helping" as stated, but attempting to make their lives difficult "forcing" them to quit demonstrates undue influence.
They are identifiable and unique from others in society proof is in the universal identification of a smoker with a single word.
TC is initiating a moralist crusade supporting segregation and hatred targeted against an identifiable group.
Admitted deceit in their dissertations, demonstrate actions taken of extortive and coercive means seeking public support in achieving their goals.
TC abdicates and participates in criminal behavior, in the "what ever works" game plan. Devoid of empathy or common respect for others, clearly the acts of bigotry.
You are demonstrative of a disgraceful example of the lowest form of human trash.
To your face Bill, and not following your example.
You should be made to apologize to those you abuse and offend on a daily basis.
I for one will be devoting positive efforts to seeing that happens.
Naughty Bill says: Once again, Mike exposes his hypocrisy by defending employment discrimination against those who use potentially less hazardous substances (e.g. marijuana) than against those who use the most addictive and deadliest substance (i.e. cigarettes).
Once again, Bill exposes his hypocrisy by twisting peoples words and attempting to imply something that wasn't said.
Once again, Bill makes broad and general claims that he cannot or will not back up with facts.
Bad monkey, no banana. Evidence please.
Where are the study links showing that marijuana is less hazardous than tobacco when used in comparable amounts and in the same fashion.
Please make sure you include at least one study that makes a comparison of accident rates for driving/working while stoned with such for tobacco.
And, no, lack of information does not constitute proof of "less hazardous".
Also, I would like to see the study links showing that tobacco is more addictive and "deadlier" than heroin, crystal meth (you forgot that one on your "commonly used" list), crack, and cocaine.
Please make sure that the evidence you provide includes the long term (say 10 or 20 year) recidivism rate for "quitting".....especially for heroin.
And please keep in mind when finding this so-called evidence that I do not consider methadone treatment as quitting.....as it isn't, it's simply replacement therapy.
Again, spouting off without the evidence (as the majority of TC groups do on this subject) is not evidence.....in other words I don't want to see quotes from other TC groups saying the same thing, I want to see real, quantifiable evidence.
Like the others here, I'm not holding my breath, as I have yet (not even once) to see you back up anything you say when requested.
Statements like this make me think you've never even met a heroin addict, let alone known one trying to quit....which means you have no right to be making such statements and belittling the extraordinary achievements made by the rare few who actually manage to.
Mike;
I think you are really going to enjoy this one.
A local TV network doctor, who gives medical advice on his show.
This of course was 2001 before the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation purchased a new opinion from our corrupt Lieberal Government of the day.
http://www.healthcentral.com/drd.../408/
56926.html
Does Smoking Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer?
Posting Date: 08/02/2001
Paul: I'm 60 and have been smoking marijuana for 35 years. I always thought that one joint was equivalent to three or four cigarettes, but I read an article that said one joint is equal to 100 cigarettes. What is your opinion on marijuana and lung cancer?
Dr. Dean: If you take raw marijuana, with the leaves and the stems, in other words, the way people smoke it, the cancer causing elements contained in marijuana is higher than in cigarettes. But we're not seeing lung cancer in marijuana smokers for some reason, which says maybe it's not the tobacco that's causing lung cancer. (Some think that it might be a type of radioactivity in the fertilizer used to grow tobacco.)
TC swears ventilation does not work consider the profs given permission to smoke pot in a ventilated enclosure.
http://www.healthcentral.com/drd.../408/
56926.html
The primary risk of smoking? Those carcinogens which are higher in Pot.
Who is being protected and who is being conned.?
BTW the radiation in the soil mentioned refer to miniscule doses of radon daughters produced in Phosphorus soil and fertilizer Regulation to limit them was abandoned with the no safe cigarette message making regulation pointless and allowing cheaper more dangerous products to flow in unregulated to compete with domestic regulated crops.
The results are obvious no safe level defeats no safer level and as we see here the difference in Cigarete products vary some hundreds of times higher in carcinogenic content
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
TC acomplished their goal reductions in use by killing thousands of smokers who do not have any way of knowing the content or origin of what they purchase.
Even Koop got into the sales pich selling unregulated addictive products to replace smoking.
http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html
Prosecutions are needed for these butchers and drug dealers in lab coats.
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/
ha...amitest603.html
One Question:
Where is the ACLU?
I was once a proud member of the ACLU, sending my $100 membership on a yearly basis. I no longer send them anything. When I do get solicitations from the ACLU, often with stamped envelopes to send them money, I happily send them back their stamped envelope with a little note inside stating I will no longer support their causes or send them money until they start to support smokers and smokers rights. I do hope I continue to receive these stamped envelopes so I can use their money (stamps) to make my statements.
Dr. Siegel,
Medical Mutual's new hiring policy is a good start. To suggest that because they are not addressing ALL the health issues that face new hires is a reason for them not to start is disingenious. More importantly though is your violation of the Standard of Care. A physician who condons unhealthy behavior, as you have, should be called before their state licensing board. You took an oath, but if your idea of social justice is now in conflict with that oath, you have a choice to make.
"Dr." (why don't I believe you are) Bob--
It is not the role of employers to address ANY health issues. It's the role of an employer to sell insurance, cameras, food, or to manufacture clothes, cars, weed killer, or boots. It's not the role of the doctor to condone or condemn behavior, and his oath is to "do no harm."
Dr. Bob :"You took an oath, but if your idea of social justice is now in conflict with that oath, you have a choice to make."
Social justice is an integral part of the oath.
From the Declaration of Geneva:
# I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
# I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
# I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
Dr. Bob wrote:
"A physician who condons unhealthy behavior, as you have, should be called before their state licensing board."
Would that include football team and boxing doctors?
What about Evil Knievel's doctor?
Then there's that famous orthopedic doctor at the Indy 500. Maybe if he didn't condone the drivers' unhealthy driving behavior they would slow down and not crash as often.
Dr. Bob wrote: You took an oath, but if your idea of social justice is now in conflict with that oath...
"social justice"... Where have I heard those words (and its attachment to "public health") before? Oh right! Bill used them just a short time ago.
Coincidence?
All of your comments are so wrong.
Medical Mutual pays almost all of the cost to have its employees insured, just like most other companies.
They're the one paying for it, they should be able to set the guidlines they wish.
All you complainers...pay for your own insurance...then you can bitch.
From the Declaration of Geneva:
# I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
# I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
# I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I guess Dr. *cough sputter gag* Bob, feels it is perfectly acceptable to take an oath and then totally ignore it, pushing his own personal beliefs, morals, ethics on his patients. Thank Goddess he's not my doctor.
I don't seek a doctor out for social engineering sessions, I seek a doctor to assist me in discovering what may be ailing me that I've not been able to fix on my own.
And THAT, Bob, is ALL a doctor is for most people. Not all people are such weaklings as to need YOUR guidance in how to live.
Live your life as you wish, leave me to live mine as I wish.
They're the one paying for it, they should be able to set the guidlines they wish.
All the more reason to not allow nationalized health care to come into being here.
Most companies offer health care insurance as a benefit, to lure employees and keep employees, in lieu of higher salaries. I see it as an exchange (you know, labor for money/goods/benefits), and not a license for them to TELL me how to live outside of the office.
So Dr Bob wants to be as selective with his Hippocratic Oath as his beloved TC want to be with the science?
Pick and choose the bits you like and discard the rest.
No surprise there then.
Kevin,
Many thanks, I haven't had a laugh like that in days....highly entertaining.
I especially liked the "A marijuana smoker might smoke a half a joint a day" comment.
Apparently, someone needs to spend more time here in Vancouver, where it is not unusual for a pot smoker to go through 1/8 or even 1/4 ounce a day.
On a side (and purely anecdotal) note, I know a guy that developed a sizable lump on his chest a while back.
When he went to the doctor, he couldn't figure out why he was being grilled about steroid use, as he doesn't use them.
Turns out he was inhaling fairly large quantities of steroids from the growth hormones in the plant food used to grow his pot.
Lyda,
here in the Uk we have "nationalized health ". We pay national insurance based on earnings and additionally the Chancellor has expressly stated that the tax from tobacco also subsidises the national health service. We smokers pay much more than others 10.5 billion per annum in tax alone. Cost to NHS 1.7 billion. Therefore we also subsidise others treatment.
On a personal note, not counting a long term sick caused by catching a serious infection in Hospital afetr a minor operation I have had 4 days sick in 14 years.
I manage 150 Design Engineers and Draughtsmen and I am also responsible for their time and attendance etc. I have no evidence at all of the people that smoke having more time off.
GreatScot
A show of hands, please: With fewer and fewer people smoking, and fewer and fewer places where one is exposed to ETS, and more and more money being extorted from smokers via the MSA, taxes, etc., has anyone seen their health insurance premiums go down? Anyone?
Mike wrote:
"With arguments like the one Bill advances above, it's pretty obvious that anti-smoking advocates are quite desperate in their attempts to defend discrimination against smokers."
Its telling that Mike did not address any of the substantive issues I raised, but rather he subjectively responded by insinuating that I and other public health advocates are "quite desperate".
According to Mike's previously stated rationale that its perfectly acceptable for all employers to discriminate against those who use a prohibited substance, the simple enactment of cigarette prohibition would eliminate all of his opposition to smokefree employment policies.
In reality, each employer establishes employment policies that it considers beneficial to the employer. Besides, employment discrimination laws, not drug prohibition laws, govern employment policies.
But Mike conveniently obfuscates about these facts in order to portray his subjective opinions as the gospel that all employers should comply with.
While I wouldn't implement many employment policies that exist at many workplaces, I (unlike Mike) respect the autonomy of each employer to establish whatever policy it chooses (as long as the policy is in compliance with relevent laws).
"(as long as the policy is in compliance with relevent laws)."
As long as you and your friends can "force" the implementation of laws through fraudulent claims and propaganda, you will always win, won't you?
Its telling that Mike did not address any of the substantive issues I raised, but rather he subjectively responded by insinuating that I and other public health advocates are "quite desperate".
ROFLMAO THIS is just tooooo funny Bill. You are complaining about someone doing the exact thing YOU do constantly?
Pot.....kettle.....black
All you do is ignore legitmate questions, spew garbage, throw out insulting remarks, and never address any the issues we bring up. Hell, you're not even willing to listen to us, whereas we at least listen to Dr. Siegel and question him on what he says, and maturely, debate the issues. You on the other hand constantly resort to schoolyard bullying.
Get over yourself, Bill..........the world does not revolve around you and your personal agendas.
Start giving and you might start getting. Right now you are just getting you have given.
(as long as the policy is in compliance with relevent laws)
Uh Bill.........discrimination is NOT in compliance with revelent laws. Just because the law does not specifically spell out that employers can't discriminate against someone using a legal product on their own time, doesn't make it any more right. And don't even think of giving me the argument about the laws protecting those who cannot change what they are (skin color, sexuality [though the religious right say you choose sexuality]); the law also states religion which is NOT a condition we have no choice or control over.
LeanderJ asks: A show of hands, please: With fewer and fewer people smoking, and fewer and fewer places where one is exposed to ETS, and more and more money being extorted from smokers via the MSA, taxes, etc., has anyone seen their health insurance premiums go down? Anyone?
In a word: No.
From http://www.moneycentral.msn.com/...lth/
P100291.asp
"New CDC figures assert that smokers cost the economy nearly $94 billion yearly in lost productivity. An additional $89 billion is estimated spent on public and private healthcare combined. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Taxpayers says each American household spends $596 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking.
"Some of these numbers are disputed, however, by the Bureau of National Affairs which says 95% of companies banning smoking report no financial savings and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which finds no connection between smoking and absenteeism."
From the abstract on a study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...0&
dopt=Abstract
"Does smoking increase medical care expenditure?
Leu RE, Schaub T.
"The impact of smoking on medical care expenditure is analyzed, challenging the widespread belief that smoking imposes a large cost burden on health services systems. The results imply that lifetime expenditure is higher for nonsmokers than for smokers because smokers' higher annual utilization rates are overcompensated for by nonsmokers' higher life expectancy. Population simulation, taking into account the effects of past smoking on present population size and composition, suggests that 1976 expenditure would have been the same if no male born since 1876 had ever smoked. The male population would have been larger, particularly at older ages, increasing medical care expenditure, but this increase would have been offset by lower annual medical care utilization rates. Thus the results imply that smoking does not increase medical care expenditure and, therefore, reducing smoking is unlikely to decrease it."
From Dr. Siegel's own blog:
St. Cloud (Florida) Rescinds Smoker-Free Hiring Policy Due to Lack of Qualified Police Officers
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....moker-
free.html
"St. Cloud now becomes the second city in Florida to rescind a smoker-free hiring policy. The city of North Miami revoked its ban on smokers in 2003 after also failing to observe any health insurance savings and being hampered in its ability to recruit qualified applicants for city jobs.
"According to the article: "What seemed to many like a good idea several years ago has gone up in smoke. St. Cloud's ban on hiring employees who use tobacco, which was enacted in 2002, has been revoked by the City Council. 'Number one, it never did do what it was supposed to do -- help on insurance,' City Manager Tom Hurt said. 'And, it put a cramp on hiring.' With more jobs to fill as the city grows, there was a shrinking pool of workers to fill the jobs. Osceola's unemployment rate for the 12 months ending in April was 2.6 percent, substantially lower than the national average of 4.5 percent. 'We had certified operators that wanted to work for us, and then they found out they had to be a nonsmoker for a year,' said Robert MacKichan, public works director. His department employees about 100 workers and has 12 to 15 vacancies, he said. At one point the city loosened its policy by agreeing to hire smokers if they promised to stop. 'No one wants to take a job on the pretense they will be able to stop, not knowing if they will. In a year, if they're not smoke-free, they're [fired].'"
According to Mike's previously stated rationale that its perfectly acceptable for all employers to discriminate against those who use a prohibited substance, the simple enactment of cigarette prohibition would eliminate all of his opposition to smokefree employment policies.
Nice try, Mr. Bill. It's acceptable for at least some employers to bar the use of mind-blurring, reflex-slowing substances by employees whose work is involved with public safety, or vital mental work. And that would hold true whether or not the substances were legally "prohibited." Something along those lines (relating to the effects on performance of those drugs) appeared to be Mike's point. NOT the irrelevant question of legality. But of course you knew that.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather fly with a pilot who toked 4 days ago than a pilot who's now drunk or using a cold pill. And I'd definitely rather fly with a smoking pilot who's smoking-- since study after study shows his reflexes are sharper and so is his concentration. And not only sharper because he's a smoker smoking (instead of being deprived) but sharper than that of equivalent never-smokers.
Thank you, Tnsmoker. Happy Thanksgiving!
You did some homework there. But, ultimately, we most likely didn't need citations to realize that the cost of health care/insurance never, ever goes down, despite pie-in-the-sky rhetoric and "if onlys".
I can't remember a time when it even stabilized for a bit. No matter what individuals or large segments of the population do, it just goes up and up. What a fraud!
"I can't remember a time when it even stabilized for a bit. No matter what individuals or large segments of the population do, it just goes up and up."
It has to go up for two basic reasons:
- the fact that people live longer increases the probability of illness
- the advances in medical science will eliminate formerly fatal illnesses but expose people with lesser resistance to more severe, non-treatable or expensive-to-treat illnesses. Remember, just about two generations ago, there was no cure for cancer, any cancer. Nowadays, many cancers can be treated - at a cost - some cannot be treated - but there is still cost involved.
Just don't blame it on smokers ...
You're welcome, LeanderJ. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving, too!
I've been bookmarking a lot of links scavenged from blogs, forums, and websites. I've started grouping them by subject, so I didn't have to dig too hard. 
My doc dropped Medical Mutual years ago. Had nothing good to say about them.
I find it interesting that this cotine thing they are looking for doesn't show in non-smokers.
Kind of blows the second hand smoke theories out of the water.
Now...doesn't tomatoes give you a read on this.....?
I thought I had heard that. Kind of like the poor chap that has to retest because they like poppy seed bread and it shows up as an opiate.
"Now...doesn't tomatoes give you a read on this.....?" It does, but unless you eat a lot of tomatoes and potatoes before the test, it will probably show a level comparable to a lightly exposed non-smoker. I don't have the study at hand.
Commenting by HaloScan
