Claiming lower health costs is nothing more than a cover up to we hate smokers and will not hire them. It is discrimination, no matter how you color it. Ugly discrimination and there should be no place for it. I really don't see this lasting for to long though, but it will take a few years while we wait for a job opening that can not be filled by a qualified nonsmoker. Once they see who the pool of perspective nonsmoking employees are, policies will change and smokers will once again be hired. Naturally, they will claim that they did not see a decline in health costs and will never admit that the experienced employee happens to be packing a Winston or Marlboro and that is who they need to get the job done properly without alot of crying and belly aching.
Just like claiming that illegal immigrants are here and protected because no American wants to do the work they are doing for the low wages they are paid, smokers will once again be hired and given protection to do the work that the anti's claims dirty's their hands.
This morning on the early news, there was a report on mother's bringing their children to work with them. They call it a win win as they get to work and still bond with their child and they do not have to pay for childcare. It was also said that the productivity of these mom's had dropped to 75 or 80%, but it was still a win for the employer as he did not have to worry about the mom being a no show at work. Now I might have a limited mind, but to my way of thinking, any mom worthy of having that title will be concentrating on the child more than on their work. Mistakes can and will be made and will need to be reworked. The cost to rework could be astronomical and if it became habitual many clients could redraw their contracts and go with a company who has a stricter workforce with no kids climbing mommy's legs. According to the news article, this working arrangement between mommy and kids are becoming quite normal. Now I have to wonder just who might end up costing more, the smoker with hypothetical higher insurance costs or the mommy reworking and possibly losing a contract?
Privacy rights are based in the more general right to "security of the person" which guarantee not only protections against unlawful detention and punishment but basic rights to guard against bigotry and depriving one of income and basic necessities of life including; Housing, Employment, food and water.
Generally the threat of violence and ostracisation is highly increased for smokers who have been forced to endure a planned and premeditated social ostracisation [*]by means of irresponsible fear mongering and slander, presented in paid news releases which incredibly are tested with focus groups to maximize the effect.
TC and all of it's more vocal disciples could be sued today for promoting a decreased social worth of an identifiable group they targeted within society, in it's wide berth descriptions of smokers in denormalization campaigns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sec...urity_of_person
"Security of person or security of the person is a human right guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also a right respected in the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution of South Africa and other laws around the world.
In general, the right to security of person is associated with liberty and includes a right to habeas corpus.[1] Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to security of person can guard against less lethal conduct, and can be used in regard to prisoners' rights"
[*]Ostracisation
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/
G...nDecisionMaking
Non-smokers are clearly in the majority, but this does not give license to snoop into the personal traits, or mandate the personal choices of the minority, nor of the business owners that prefer to cater to that group. Non-smokers Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties end precisely where these things begin for everyone else; when those Freedoms, Rights, and civil liberties infringe on and impact the well-being of others. This of course includes people that have made the personal choice to smoke, and more importantly the property owners that would allow that legal activity to occur on Private Property.
CHOICE is the first, and BEST option to avoid any exposure to Second Hand Smoke, but sadly it’s the one option that is routinely discounted, or generally ignored completely by Anti-tobacco extremists for fear that the citizens will see through the propaganda, weigh the facts and decide for themselves. Allowing the population to think for themselves is the last thing that Tobacco Control would ever want to see. There is no place on the socialist agenda for free will.
Other government entities have instituted such policies in the past, including the State's Attorney's Office of, I believe, Orange County (Orlando area). I do not know the current policy of that entity, but I am aware of a few others that very quietly withdrew the policy when faced with a shortage of qualified applicants for various positions.
No government entity which benefits from tax revenue should be allowed to discriminate against any taxpayer unless said entity is willing to give up the revenue generated from that particular source.
Someone posted this over at the Smokers' Club yesterday and I brought it over here. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Wasn't it just last year that another Florida town dropped their "smoker-free" hiring policy? It was a police department if I remember and they dropped it for 2 reasons. One being there were NOT enough GOOD and QUALIFIED candidates from the non-smoking majority (amazing isn't it?) and second that they had seen NO drop in healthcare costs since implementing that policy the year or so before.
What's amazing is how everyone is always appalled by discrimination....but applaud it when it is used against a minority that they just happen to dislike. It's two-faced and hypocritical. Not to mention downright nasty.
I'm all for choosing the right candidate for any job, and it should be the person most qualified, and someone who will fit in with the company. I'm all for an employer being allowed to set their own policy. However basing the job qualification on a person's private choices is discriminatory and the fact that Bill and his cohorts refuse to accept that fact is mind boggling.
More hilarious is that Bill will condone this county's right to make such policy, but would also be screaming discrimination IF another county declared it would ONLY hire smokers.
Bill wants it both ways, but ONLY his way (everything for non-smokers and forced submission OR nothing at all for smokers). At least the Doc is consistent in this regard....he calls it discrimination across the board. It's the one area he is truly consistent in.
WOW! TC must be feeling all warm and fuzzy today. It is no longer our government, it is theirs. No need to worry anymore over Phillip Morris negotiating with "their" govt, once "they" have control over tobacco. Just curious tho - since smokers are virtually all but wiped out, has anybodies health insurance gone down? Does anybody expect it to? Was this not all about the cost of our health insurance?
Public health professionals in the Netherlands did an extensive study on health care costs and lifestyles. Their findings were published earlier this year in the Public Library of Science Medicine. Among other things, it says:
"Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions."
The debate is over - there is no financial justification for employers banning smokers.
Callous Lynda F wrote:
"One being there were NOT enough GOOD and QUALIFIED candidates from the non-smoking majority (amazing isn't it?)"
I agree the policy of not hiring smokers has crossed the line of reason. But the above statement is just not believable. We all might think we are essential but reality is we are pretty much all replaceable.
But the above statement is just not believable.
It may not be believeable to you, however it is the truth of the matter and was admitted to by entities which had instituted the policies to begin with. I can think of 2 off the top of my head, and both of them were in Florida.
anti anon, then I suggest you review the archives here for the Doc is the one that posted THAT particular piece from the paper in Florida.
Amazing how you just assumed I made that up rather than do a little research on your own first, isn't it? And you call US lazy?
It's not believable no matter who posted it.
Yesterday, I made an uncalled for remark about Senator Kennedy and now wish I could eat my words. His siezures has been diagnosed as a malignant brain tumor and now must go under radiation and chemo treatments with no guarantee on the outcome of his illness. I pray for him and for his family and will keep them in my daily prayers. No one deserves a diagnosis such as that.
Still though, while he is recoverying, I hope that he, his family, friends and members of Congress takes the time to reflect and realize that no matter who you associate with, what you eat, drink, or subject yourself too, no matter what your environment is, everyone will at one time become ill, sometimes succumbing to the illness. While the wait out the final outcome, I hope they come to realize that even protecting yourself against the hated smoke, we have no guarantee as to what our fate holds for any of us. They all need to admit they were fighting the wrong battle. For now, my prayers and best wishes goes to the Kennedy family.
For anti anon's benefit: here is the link to the blog posting on the 2nd of the two towns to rescind bans.
Took me about 5 seconds(tobaccoanalysis smoker-free policy on google) to get it.
I can't generalize to the entire antismoking movement from anti anon's comment(s) above, though I would love to.
Andrew
It is possible however that the wrong conclusion was drawn. Perhaps its not that there are an insufficient number of non-smokers who are qualified but rather an insufficient number of qualified candidates who want to work for such an intrusive employer.
Michelle
Diane,years ago i remember Kennedy promoting NORAID,an organisation that sought funds for the IRA to purchase guns and bombs to kill people.I do not feel sorry,other than for the victims of the atrocities in Northern Ireland .
"It's not believable no matter who posted it.
anti anon | 05.20.08 - 4:11 pm " How many other shinning examples of TC CRAP can you come up with ? If commonsense can advise that it is not believable whoever said it,then are YOU doing anything at all about it ?
OOPS also forgot,Chappaquiddick.Another event people are apt to forget about.
Thanks Lynda for your kind words about my consistency on this particular issue. Coming from you, it does mean a lot to me.
As far as the statement about not being able to find enough qualified nonsmokers, to me the issue isn't whether there are enough qualified nonsmokers, but whether the pool of applicants includes the most qualified potential workers. By categorically excluding 20% of the workforce, you are basically guaranteeting that you are not going to be selecting from the most qualified pool of applicants.
SuperCallousSi,"How many other shining examples of TC Crap"? Less than hour ago I was assembling a new chair for a computer desk. I flipped it over and here it is! The caps are theirs not mine.
NOTICE!
THIS ARTICLE MEETS THE FLAMABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF HOME FURNISHINGS TECHNIACAL BULLETIN 17. CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED NEAR OPEN FLAME OR WITH BURNING CIGARETTE.
Denormalization in every possible venue, no stone unturned, and if this does not fit a NAZI type agenda what does? Doc, I am sure they have you eyed for a re-education camp. I can just imagine what they have planned for the smokers final solution.
SuperCallousSi,
Believe me when I say that I know all that Kennedy has done and the things he stands for. Still, this disease is something I wouldn't wish on anyone, even an evil enemy. Bill and the other anti's considers us smokers as murderers, rapist, child abuser, insensitive people. We know the opposite is true. I can not in good conscience wish any harm or illness to anyone, even when they have treated me badly or discriminated against me in anyway. That is not how I was raised and at my old age, I can't start now. Still, I believe that God works in mysterious ways and I have to wonder...
“While policies that deny employment to smokers are generally legal…”
They are not legal doctor, not here, in any sense of the word. These policies are a product of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars primarily used for the promotion of hate; like lowering the standards of otherwise highly qualified teachers who should be teaching our youth (12-18 year olds) about law, rather than green shs baby’s and a host of other complete and utter crap designed specifically, it seems, to refuel the hate machine presently barreling through Sarasota County Florida, and coming to a city near you.
“generally legal” . Stop greasing the wheels doctor. This policy’s roots are a product of fraud.
There’s no genuine bases here that while standing alone could have possibly been reasoned on its own merit. The policy is grounded in speculation to begin with. The policy illegally IMO claims that a person owes a debt, and publicly announces the same. Not that I would, but, if we were to depose every worker and find out who these “smokers” are, do you honestly believe Sarasota County could come up with a bill that could be attached to each separate individual, one that would pass muster in any court? Because I don’t believe they can. Whether they’ve examined this route or not is material now, strictly because its been avoided, deceitfully, by instead instituting a smokers need not apply policy in place of their failure to recognize people who smoke as individuals having rights, namely the right to face their accusers who continually cower at the notion of standing up and naming the accused which on its own could be considered a deceitful act as it can be easily argued ,especially here where government and “smoker” are clearly not at arms length and the supposed cost are not apparent.
Government has no more rights than do the people. If Sarasota County government claims that smokers cost more in healthcare (1), let them file a claim for the purported cost against the dead smokers estate. The burden of actual proof would then be placed were it rightfully belongs; on the cowards and hate mongers who believe they’re god.
One last thing doctor, you once asked (back in July of last), ‘what greater right can there be than the right to breathe’ (on that order). The answer to your question IMO is the right to first and foremost be identified and recognized as an ‘individual’.
(1)“The new policy will encourage county workers to have more healthy lifestyles and to keep the county from incurring higher insurance costs because of tobacco-related claims, the release says.”
In Canada special permission has to be granted in order to express an opposing opinion in the press.
Kevin,
I am advised that you would require permission from our head office. The contact is:
Julie Kirsh and she can be reached at 416-947-3123.
regards
Tom
On 20-May-08, at 11:46 AM, Kevin wrote:
> In response to;
>
To
tom.brodbeck@sunmedia.ca
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Mani...572156-
sun.html
> "Most smokers don't light up in cars when young kids are present. Only a small minority do. And the harm caused to those kids is far more important than the perceived right someone has to smoke with their kids in the back seat."
>
> "I think the kids win hands-down."
>
> Legislation is an admission society has failed to find inclusive resolutions to a problem, requiring a law enforced with the full police powers of society. Your belief there is a significant risk to children which requires government and society to intervene in the private relationships between parents and their children is misguided at best. To assume parents are not worthy of autonomy while accepting the same industries who promoted the anti smoker bandwagon, should be allowed self regulation is also misguided. Corporations who sell ineffective smoking cessation products and their competitors in the tobacco industry have done an excellent job of shifting the burden of responsibility from their products to the consumers who use them. Anti smoking has evolved to "anti smoker" with all the familiar caveats of bigotry and invasion of personal rights and freedoms which always accompany the media stereotype building industry. An industry toying with the meaning of "security of the person" while walking a thin line of human rights legality. Take a look at the value of Phillip Morris stock in reaction to the shift of health care to disease management over the past six years.
>
> The sight of a process called Social marketing at Health Canada is enough to make someone sick. The description seems to plagiarize the WIKI definition of propaganda.. Is this the new standard of "informed consent"? What ever happened to the media taking out the trash? They are now acting as full stakeholder partners; both in promoting hatred and poverty. Affecting primarily the highest number of smokers, the obese and the diseased; being those among the lowest of socioeconomic scale. And as life would have it, those least able to defend themselves against the billions spent promoting the ballooning health scare industry. A process which now increases taxes solely to purchase more promotions, to the point peoples lives are endangered by the re-routing of needed infrastructure and health care dollars. Money which should be used to treat illness is now being used primarily to establish blame for illnesses.
>
> Second hand smoke, in spite of what you may have heard is quite harmless and in comparison to sitting in a public transit bus or train station absolutely harmless by comparison.
>
> Isn't it time for a reality check? Paternalism which put Hitlers levels of protections to shame, is a line crossed in your smoking in cars promotions. Perhaps a refresher course of where it lead in 1930s Germany, is where your head should be focussed.. Industrial socialism was and is a mistake which will always lead to a greater health risk than the sum of irresponsible health scares being promoted today.
>
> IMHO; The kids loose hands down, in comparing the freedom we enjoyed 30 or more years ago, to the paternalist limits they face today.
>
> I am not impressed nor am I cheering along with the lemmings.
>
> Regards; Kevin
>
> Definitely not a shill to big tobacco or to their partners in big government.
> AKA the minority no one asked or considered; smokers.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"By categorically excluding 20% of the workforce..."
I think you're forgetting cigar smokers; 2.2% of the adult population.
Because they're measuring cotinine, the 2.3% of the population who use smokeless would be excluded also.
With pipe smokers that should be about 25% of the population.
Throw in those who lie about their tobacco use and it's probably up to 30%.
Add in passive smokers and your guess is as good as mine what that brings it to.
Diane, your comments today in regard to Sen. Kennedy are very touching, and I would like to echo them.
As far as his politics are concerned I have nothing but contempt for him, however, he is a human being and, like you, I would not wish such a diagnosis upon anyone. Such brain tumors run in women in my father's family. His sister was 16 when their mother died from such a tunor. My youngest cousin was 16 when her mother (that previously 16 yo sister) succumbed to the same type tumor. I will be about the same age as my aunt and grandmother (mid 50s) when my daughter turns 16 --- if you all don't think that heritage scares the crap out of me you're nuts.
My thoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy family.
"As far as the statement about not being able to find enough qualified nonsmokers, to me the issue isn't whether there are enough qualified nonsmokers, but whether the pool of applicants includes the most qualified potential workers. By categorically excluding 20% of the workforce, you are basically guaranteeting that you are not going to be selecting from the most qualified pool of applicants."
They used to call a similar strategy "affirmative action". It's aims were to promote token people of the "right description" into positions, regardless of qualifications in order to adjust perception numbers.
It appears the association with too many smokers is now detrimental to public image and product branding.
Should we we call that "de-firm-a-tive action"?
Smoking has never been allowed in the boys room.
Somehow it always made them a lot more appealing and the gist of many songs and folklore, retracing the glory days of our youth.
I wonder if TC can help to understand if this contributed to why many kids starting to smoke.
Either we have to ban washrooms in the schools or we have to make them designated smoking areas to remove the mystique. Which way would they go with this one?
Damned if you ban, damned if you don't
Hell lets do as the Islamic extremists did, and just cut off their hands, to eliminate the temptation. The most efficient route to a 100% smoker free existence.
The road to perfection of bodies and minds? A road scattered with the inconsequential peripheral damages.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/
n...g_cigarette.php
A WOMAN was ordered to pay £245 after dropping a cigarette in the town centre.
Ashley Cooper, aged 22, of Laurel Court, Halliwell, was walking past Brighthouse in Newport Street on January 18 when she dropped the butt.
She was spotted by an environmental enforcement officer and given a £50 fine, but did not pay.
Cooper, who is on incapacity benefits and has a five-year-old child, did not appear before Bolton magistrates today, but wrote a letter to the court saying she was very sorry for the offence and that it would not happen again.
She was ordered to pay a £100 fine with £130 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
Two things, and I'll try to google for sources:
In the early 90s, part of Miami-- something like North Miami?-- stopped hiring smokers for all municipal jobs and it was taken to court where a judge decided that workers had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
As for Mr. anonymous anti's skepticism, there was a whole segment on "60 Minutes" on this subject, I believe it was generated by the Weyco example. Spokesmen for companies (CNN among them) and communities said, on camera, that they'd rescinded the bans precisely because they couldn't find enough qualified applicants AND stated that their health care costs hadn't gone down.
Reality, kiddo, is stranger (or in this case, more believable) than anti-tobacco's fictions.
Of course, if you wanted to do more than shoot off your mouth, you could look this stuff up yourself.
:
Here's the link to the 60 Minutes segment where they state that they couldn't find enough qualified employees. Also mentions CNN. Got a (pretty good memory for an addled smoker, haven't I?)
http://www.workrights.org/
in_the...s60minutes.html
More links to follow
:
Florida law on the right to privacy:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/...1/
overfram.html
The crucial excerpt:
For example, in the City of North Miami v. Kurtz,[99] an individual claimed a constitutional right of privacy protecting her from disclosing whether she was a smoker on a government job application. The government entity involved had a smoke-free workplace and was a self-insurer providing one hundred percent health insurance coverage for its employees.[100] The court held that, under those circumstances, the job applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the individual's smoking habits, given that individuals divulge such information in almost every area of their lives, such as when renting a car or a motel room, or when being seated in a restaurant.[101]
This case was decided in 1995.
This does not just affect people who smoke! It affects people who chew gum too!
Because they're measuring cotinine
James pointed to Cigar smokers. Yet there maybe some people who use e-cigs or NRT. This is not 'smoking'. They could even never have smoked a tobacco cig in their life yet still enjoy nicorette and still test positive!
So it won't last. Why? No Profit for Big P.
west
---
The Rampton patients have lost their court case and have been refused an appeal.
The staff must be terrified, mind you neither judges nor politicians will have to face a 6ft deranged killer wearing a nicotine patch and demanding a cigarette, and not all of the patients have committed a crime.
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.u...&
pNodeId=133951
Strangely enough, this is how the German scientists studied withdrawal.
"Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942), for example, interviewed 165 women as part of a study of the physical and psychological effects of nicotine withdrawal. Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women's cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour"
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...nt/full/30/1/
31
west
Extensive Smoking Ban Expected To Boost Nrt Market In Turkey
Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) market is expected to grow dynamically in Turkey after the country introduced an extensive smoking ban in most enclosed areas such as taxis, ferries and shopping malls.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news...s.asp?
id=232411
We need to find a willing non smoking highdose niacin user and have them tested, but they need to be on the yeast based tablets.
I wish I could find that testing chart I had the other day, apparently there is a cut off level of cotinine, below it you are a non smoker, above it you are a smoker. Which seems a bit dicey to me if your job depends on it.
Almost all psychiatric patients oppose smoking ban on units, study claims
"Two years ago Kings Fund research found almost all mental health nurses do not want smoking banned in psychiatric wards, often because they fear that it would spark aggression from patients"
http://www.psychminded.co.uk/
new...ic_units003.htm
Knowing what we know now about nicotinic receptors and mental health this would seem exceptionally cruel.
And all to save staff from the "deadly toxin" of a baked potato.
Tobacco, tomato and potatoes all can catch the same disease, Tobacco mosaic virus, which is why you should never throw a cigarette end on the ground incase you infect someones vegetables - old gardening tip.
Here's an article from today on North Miami:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/art.../628566764/
1661
Smoke-free leader lets them light up
North Miami long ago scrapped a ban much like the one enacted in Sarasota
The city whose policy paved the way for Sarasota County to prohibit smokers from joining its work force this week no longer has the ban.
North Miami ended its prohibition on hiring smokers five years ago because the city desperately needed police officers, and applicants were turned off by the anti-smoking rule.
The health insurance savings that inspired the policy had also eroded, said North Miami spokeswoman Pam Solomon.
"It was really hampering our recruitment process and it no longer made a difference on our insurance," Solomon said. "Our insurance company said obesity was a bigger issue than smoking."
North Miami's policy led to a Florida Supreme Court ruling in 1995 upholding the ban, setting the precedent that others have followed. But its later experience could prove instructive for Sarasota County in other ways.
~snip~
Doctor, What say you about this article?
http://news-service.stanford.edu...cco-
052108.html
Tobacco companies compared to al-Qaida
~snip~
During a talk peppered with grim statistics and predictions about cancer rates that he warned will worsen unless more smokers stop lighting up, John Seffrin said tobacco companies "behave very much like terrorists and have been more successful than al-Qaida."
"Tobacco is the world's greatest weapon of mass destruction," Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said May 15. "It will kill more than 600 people alive today—half of them children."
~snip~
Rose from your link above we find the true history behind TC campaigns listing many of their claims and actions today.
The alternative would be to believe the many identical theories and efforts were a matter of random chance.
Perhaps Michal could do the numbers and let us know the probability that chance was at play. He has stated, he sees similarities, yet does not believe any link exists.
Blinders firmly in place?
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...nt/full/30/1/
31
"The Nazi government enacted numerous legal sanctions limiting tobacco use. Tobacco was banned in theatres and cinemas, and on buses and in many public buildings. Astel implemented the nation's first (modern) university tobacco ban, and smoking was barred in post offices, military hospitals, and all Nazi party offices.
Rationing was implemented at the outbreak of the campaign against Poland, making it hard even for Astel's institute to obtain tobacco for research purposes. In 1942, for example, Astel had to ask his anti-tobacco comrade, Reich Health Führer Leonardo Conti, for help in obtaining adequate supplies.
One reason tobacco was in short supply was that tobacco was used to finance the war. In September 1942 a war tax nearly doubled the price of cigarettes, which when coupled with agricultural shortages and the impoverishment late in the war caused a drastic drop in the number of cigarettes smoked in Germany. Per capita cigarette consumption fell by half from 1940 to 1950, whereas in the US, per capita consumption doubled over the same period."
I suspect Dr. Siegel dislikes policies like these to prevent smoker-only places of employment. No bans necessary there, eh?
His claims of a "free" society are contradicted when "health" laws trump the freedom to choose where to work, what policies to set in your place of business, and what legal activities you may permit your patrons to pursue, or what risks we can accept.
I have to say, I agree with Gabz about such policies in private organizations. Let them make all the boneheaded policies they wish.
The consequences of their actions may force them to change their thinking, especially after it costs them money.
Look at what's happening to the Boy Scouts of America due to their stubborn refusal to allow gays and atheists among their clean and moral ranks. The Supreme Court stated that the BSA has that right.
Over the last eight years, they've lost millions in corporate funding, support from religious groups and several large charities.
Also, their steadily declining membership took a sharp nosedive after all the negative attention.
They are now largely regarded not as a respected youth organization which reinforces positive values, but more like a kiddie version of the John Birch Society.
Let them have their policies. I will never donate a cent, and did not allow my son to join.
After reading the following you have to wonder what percentage of tax revenues cigarettes generate today. Oil is the new smoking tax however the moralist tax grab for what is described as addiction has to be right up there.
We also see the "Tobacco industry shill" paranoia has a foundation in the same era.
"Hitler in 1942 said that he regretted having given his soldiers tobacco at the start of the war. And though the decision was clearly a pragmatic one, the power of tobacco manufacturers at this time should not be underestimated.
The industry had strong friends in the ministries of economics and finance, both of which were clearly afraid of interrupting the steady flow of cash from tobacco taxes, which in 1941 accounted for one twelfth(!) of all revenues flowing into the national treasury.
Anti-tobacco activists often lamented the financial clout of the industry, as we can see from the following passage in a letter of 21 April 1941, from Fritz Lickint to Astel, celebrating the founding of the anti-tobacco institute:
Finally it will be possible to establish a true bulwark against efforts by the heretofore omnipotent ‘tobacco interests’ to monopolize tobacco research. Finally it will be possible to counter the impression, created by the industry's research institutes in Vienna and Forchheim, that they alone have the right to speak the truth about tobacco, and to shape or even dominate public opinion concerning matters of tobacco."
This statement; Could have been written [as the points made were certainly argued] in 2001 at tobacco control [RWJF financed], round table strategy discussions.
On a brighter note we finally have a venue to report people like Cathy and Stanton for investigation by authorities.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/20...?
ref=technology
From City of North Miami v. Kurtz (1995)that Walt cited above
In part, Citations omitted
“As previously indicated, the record reflects that each smoking employee costs the City as much as $ 4,611 per year in 1981 dollars over what it incurs for non-smoking employees; that, of smokers who have adhered to the one year cessation requirement, a high percentage are unlikely to resume smoking; and that the City is a self-insurer who pays 100% of its employees' medical expenses. We find that the elimination of these costs, when considered in combination with the other special circumstances of this case, validates a compelling interest in the City's policy of gradually eliminating smokers from its work force.”
From Gilster link Today regarding North Miami policy- "It was really hampering our recruitment process and it no longer made a difference on our insurance,"
Again from North Miami v. Kurtz
Citations omitted:
KOGAN, J., dissenting.
As the majority itself notes, job applicants are free to return to tobacco use once hired. I believe this concession reveals the anti-smoking policy to be rather more of a speculative pretense than a rational governmental policy. Therefore I would find it unconstitutional under the right of due process.
The privacy issue is more troublesome, to my mind. There is a "slippery-slope" problem here because, if governmental employers can inquire too extensively into off-job-site behavior, a point eventually will be reached at which the right of privacy under article I, section 23 clearly will be breached. An obvious example would be an inquiry into the lawful sexual behavior of job applicants in an effort to identify those with the "most desirable" lifestyles. Such an effort easily could become the pretext for a constitutional violation. The time has not yet fully passed, for example, when women job applicants have been questioned about their plans for procreation in an effort to eliminate those who may be absent on family leave. I cannot conceive that such an act is anything other than a violation of the right of privacy when done by a governmental unit.
Continued from above
Health-based concerns like those expressed by the City also present a definite slippery slope to the courts. The time is fast approaching, for example, when human beings can be genetically tested so thoroughly that susceptibility to particular diseases can be identified years in advance. To my mind, any governmental effort to identify those who might eventually suffer from cancer or heart disease, for instance, itself is a violation of bodily integrity guaranteed by article I, section 23. Moreover, I cannot help but note that any such effort comes perilously close to the discredited practice of eugenics.
The use of tobacco products is more troubling, however. While legal, tobacco use nevertheless is an activity increasingly regulated by the law. If the federal government, for instance, chose to regulate tobacco as a controlled substance, I have no trouble saying that this act alone does not undermine anyone's privacy right. However, regulation is not the issue here because tobacco use today remains legal. The sole question is whether the government may inquire into off-job-site behavior that is legal, however unhealthy it might be. In light of the inherently poor fit between the [**14] governmental objective and the ends actually achieved, I am more inclined to agree with the district court that the right of privacy has been violated here. I might reach a different result if the objective were better served by the means chosen.
SHAW, J., concurs.
Submission;
The proliferation of hatred as we saw in 1930s Germany is much more dangerous when it originates within Governments than from the mouths of easily identifiable personality types.
We have a moral responsibility to be vigilant of governments and their NGO stakeholders and lobby groups. Governments who endorse bigotry and target sectors of population groups with denormalization campaigns.
I hope the administrators will take this fact into consideration when sorting content.
Anti smoking anti fat and Green campaigns are inspired by like minded industrial socialist motivators. Modern Health scare reforms demanding disease management in place of treatment had a foundation in Fritz Lickint's Germany.
The art of protectionists redistributing wealth to ad campaigns and calling it healthcare while restricting treatments to patients who do not obey doctor’s orders, needs a much larger degree of scrutiny.
To be a smoker today is becoming a dangerous enterprise and that is not referring to the risk from a cigarette, as much as the risk placed on them by "societal adjustments" and Social Marketing. The consequence of dangerous products are now blamed on the users while manufacturers of tobacco and ineffective alternatives continue to increase their profits and their perceived corporate images.
People in general have much more to consider than just money in managing what should be private affairs and personal lifestyle choices. Self regulation if allowed for industry should be allowed for the individual first.
"Erosion of Civil Liberties is the genesis of Genocide."
Elizabeth Kirkley Best PHD; Et Al Author of the Shoa education project.
Of course, if you wanted to do more than shoot off your mouth, you could look this stuff up yourself.
-Walt
You are absolutely right, Walt. Unfortunately, facts don't matter to many people today. How one "feels" about an issue supersedes the truth. Logic or reason is irrelevant. If you accuse anyone of mendacity, you’re being insensitive or intolerant. If you prove someone is lying about a specific issue, they either just keep lying because honor and integrity are foreign concepts to them, or they totally change the issue so you can’t even follow what’s being said without your head spinning. If you ever wondered why there’s so much chaos in the world today, there’s one of the reasons.
Reading the comments here this morning I thought I'd give you all a link to a site where you can read/re-read George Orwell's "1984" online for free. I've printed it out for myself. It's NOT a pleasant read, not seeing what I'm seeing happening today.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html
I had never read the book before so this is a first read for me. One thing I've always noticed, anytime any book or movie is done about the "future" it has always depressed me for the book or film NEVER portrays a pretty, or even positive future. It's just more of the same to a greater extreme, with the majority suffering the most as usual.
Callous Lynda F--thanks for the link! I'd forgotten these works are in public domain since it is 50 years since the original publication. That's one less thing I'll need to check out of the library, and I won't have to check off on if I was missing a book or something.
I know I read 1984 later than I really needed to. For some reason I thought it would be too scary for me and was glad I missed in in English class. For anyone without the time to read 1984 through, I recommend Politics and the English Language. Reading it after looking around on here, I saw a lot of mistakes the anti-smoking movement makes, including some of the posters here.
The other dystopian "big one" is Brave New World & if you haven't read that, it is not too long either. It takes on enforced health more directly and is about the same size. But it has a bit more humor--not the slapstick type of course.
Books about the future can be pretty bleak--I mean, as a kid, you get lots of utopias but then as an adult you start asking questions and there are many good ones. But one guy had ideas how to prevent and fight against dystopias, and he's been mentioned here a lot, so here's a link to Winston Winston Churchill's speeches and quotations. He and I would be politically on the opposite side of the aisle, but I think I know we'd be on the same side of the discussions that go on here.
Thanks Andrew, and I'll look for "Brave New World" as soon as I'm done with this depressing 1984 book.
Here, money is a tool that operates adversely, disrupting, private affairs and personal lifestyle choices, by suggestion alone; speculative cost rather than dollars actually spent or in hand is but one driving force at play. Control is the goal. A primary objective in achieving this goal is striping individuals of identity “branding” them as smokers thus avoiding typical consequences otherwise involved. This IMO is the heart of TC.
I wonder if this true?
The Ghost Lobby
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/
...t_lobby_new.htm
It would explain why we have the most draconian ban in the world, debated for just 3 hours and no member of the public allowed to vote on the destruction of a centuries old British tradition.
Dr Siegel
"By categorically excluding 20% of the workforce, you are basically guaranteeing that you are not going to be selecting from the most qualified pool of applicants."
We can't forget that "denormalization" makes the smoker feel like a criminal, yet you really think there exactly (not about or even more) then 20% of the population smoking? Give me a break, that gov't generated stat is even close.
Prohibition through the back door, and denormalization will allow more smokers then ever to feel like they really belong by not feeling bad about contraband!
Hey right now they estimate that 70% of teen smokers smoke contraband. Can you really imagine that the adults don't have the same gumption to say they are no longer funding (through the taxes they pay) anti tobacco efforts.
Big Pharma at the Staten Island Ferry.
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/99394
"NEW YORK, NY May 20, 2008 —The number of New York City residents who smoke declined for the sixth straight year since a smoking ban was imposed."
Implying, of course, all due to the smoking ban. And no mention at all of the onerous increase of taxes during that period. Nor of the possibility of contraband butts falsifying the figures.
.
Harry that is strange! It's not like Canadian tobacco smokers now smoke contraband cigarettes (90% from NY) and Americans love anti tobacco so much they ignore this or anything now is it??
First Nations rights page
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4835
The Kahnawake Advantage Page 2
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4707
Walt-
Thanks for providing that important case. I would note, however, that the Kurtz case seems to involve a policy by which they simply asked applicants to reveal their smoking status. However, in the Scotts case, they actually required an intrusive bodily fluids test: a cotinine level determination. That is the key difference with Sarasota County. And that is precisely the element that I think could get into trouble.
In the Kurtz case, the Court ruled that no invasion of privacy occurred because asking someone if they smoke is commonly done in many other areas of life. However, in those examples listed by the Court, no one would be asked to submit bodily fluids for analysis. That is quite different, and arguably represents an undue invasion of privacy.
This is why I think these privacy invasion lawsuits have a fighting chance.
The issue of the Scott's company was raised in the article, let me share a dirty little secret about these guys.
A few days ago I ran into a friend at the karaoke bar, whom I hadn't seen for a while. I asked her what she'd been up to. She lights a cigarette (we can still smoke in Iowa for a few more weeks) and tells me she's working at Scott's in Fort Madison, Iowa.
Fearing for her livelyhood, I immediately asked her about their smoking policy. Her response is that she can smoke, since she's a seasonal temp, and that over 80% of their work force is seasonal-temporary.
While Scott's pays high wages for the area for unskilled labour - about $12/hr - workers work mandatory overtime shifts during their 9 month high production season, and are then shown the door.
Furthermore, these temp workers that make up 80% of their work force do not get health benefits, whether they smoke or not.
And remember, the cancer causing polonium 210 in your tobacco comes from Scott's brand fertilizer products. It's in your tomatoes too, but nobody mentions that.
Morgan, can I use what you just wrote about Scott's for another forum?
Here's a link to a letter from the H2-B Coalition. It is an association that promotes stable and reliable seasonal workforces. Scroll down and you'll see that Scott's is a member.
http://www.ahla.com/pdf/
H2B_Work...use_2007_11.pdf
Here's a link to to an advertisement for a part-time (seasonal?) job at Scott's. The link will take you to header page that lists a lot of other jobs too. You'll have to scroll a little to find it. The page that the ad itself is on can not be linked to.
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/job...al/l-
Layton,+UT
"Key Work Performed
Merchandise Scotts products including: seasonal resets, restocking shelves, racks, and displays; cleaning and facing product; repairing or removing damaged items; re-labeling grass seed, etc.
Install and maintain point of purchase materials.
Provide recommendations and product knowledge to both consumers and retail customer associates.
Assemble fixtures and displays in-store.
Provide consumer counseling sessions including lawn and garden educational clinics, promotional events and in-aisle consumer education as needed.
Complete all required reports in a timely and accurate manner. (i.e. time sheets, surveys etc.)
Utilize proper safety techniques and equipment and report incidents to Safety/Management in a timely fashion."
"E. General Requirements
Must be willing to submit to The Scotts Company background check policy which includes Motor Vehicle Request (MVR) check, drug test and background check.
Must have current, valid drivers license, auto insurance and reliable transportation.
Daily access to a computer with high-speed internet capabilities.
Must complete all required on-line training courses within appropriate time period. (i.e. policies, procedures, product knowledge etc.)
"This is a list of the major responsibilities, duties and physical demands required of this position and may not be all inclusive."
Nothing about nicotine.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Dr. S--
Just a non-professional opinion here, but while the privacy rights issue might (or not) apply to Sarasota (a gov't) were they to institute urine tests, I doubt it would apply to a private employer like Scott's since (I believe) it's only governments that have to consider constitutional rights.
Then, too, many if not most employers seem to demand as a condition of employment that employees have a complete physical, which usually entails taking blood and urine. Regardless of what they do with the urine (what tests they perform), the mandatory physical itself should constitute an invasion of privacy, but apparently it doesn't.
As to the original N. Miami case, I'd personally argue against the Judge's decision which he bases on the fact that people frequenly volunteer their smoking status to maitre d's and hotel clerks and therefore can't draw the line with employers.
It seems to me the essense of privacy is the right to control your private information, revealing it or not as you solely see fit, depending on context and depending on consequences. That I freely reveal my salary to my accountant, for example, doesn't compel me to reveal it to everyone in the world. Similarly, a woman might reveal to her gynecologist that she once in her youth had had an abortion (on the grounds it might help her get a proper diagnosis), but choose not to give the very same information to her priest or her children, let alone to her employer.
Smokenreader--
I strongly question the assertion that smokers were costing 4K more than nonsmokers in terms of annual health care. It could, however, be that it was costing them more in health insurance premiums, which has nothing to do with actual illnesses suffered by smokers, but simply to do with insurance company rate-scales, which are wrongly and exclusively weighted against smokers. The actual greatest health care costs to employers come from diabetics, from viral diseases that spread through the office, and also from pregnancies.
:
ladyteal: please feel free.
Thank you Morgan.
More on Scott's and fertilizers.
From a pro-marijuana site, but easily read with lots of references.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/n...m/news/tobacco/
In theology you need to legitimize your theories, Traditionally we look to time line and biological certainties. Modern health scare lobby campaigns confuse many, by simply cherry picking what agrees with what is being presented and attacking the nay sayers personally.
Proof is found by means of agreement and collusion while ignoring personal bias which could explain the original claim; as we see in most epidemiology reports supporting any risk in second hand smoke found under the heading citations.
The basis of unbiased "science" has a proof of reproducibility. In TC and public health their standards are somewhat less restrictive. "He said it so I can too".
The proof building process is hardly original and it dates back quite a few years.
"Religious dogmata, when properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith. Perhaps the pinnacle of organized exposition of theological dogma is the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, who proposed this relationship between faith and objection:
"If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith""
More; from a premature death victim of second hand smoke no doubt, who died before his 50th birthday.
"The Summa Theologica (or the Summa Theologiae or simply the Summa, written 1265–1274) is the most famous work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) although it was never finished. It was intended as a manual for beginners as a compilation of all of the main theological teachings of that time."
Walt, Thank You, The whole cost issue to me just seems to be sold to the public as individual debt with no real clarification.
I might be wrong here but wasn't the MSA settlement simply a negotiated agreement between anti-smokers and cigarette companies?
Each company got to protect its market share and the state got money for anti-smokers simply by agreeing to gouge smokers?
Michelle
You are absolutely correct, Michelle, and what is even worse in the entire MSA fiasco is the big 5 (particularly PM) have coerced states across the country to force smaller companies to pay into the same scheme.
The states as well, Gabz. PA (for one) has made it illegal to sell non-MSA brands. No one is allowed to gouge unless the states get their taste.
"In 1998, the federal government wanted money from Big Tobacco to pay for the sick smokers who'd already paid for themselves, and Big Tobacco and the Feds signed the Master Settlement Agreement. Basically they agreed to add a new 50-cent "tax" on cigarettes so smokers could pay for their healthcare a second time. Of course, smokers didn't get a vote on this; they were just the sheep the wolves were having for dinner.
So smokers paid for their healthcare twice, then watched that money be spent on wonderful things such as golf courses, road construction, and lots and lots of ads saying that smokers are smelly and dirty and are killing little children."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4913
Commenting by HaloScan
