The greatest current threat to our personal freedoms is the use of the intrusive powers of private employers to enforce government health policies. Smoking and drugs are just the thin edge of the wedge. Right now I am much more worried about my children's freedom than their health.
This ETS filtration system has an air flow of up to 1100 CFM and is up to 99.8% efficient. (ASHRAE 52.2) How many such units would it take to make the air of a bar that allows smoking safe for the bartender?
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/x-11q.php
I could not help but notice that on the HOMAC web site the careers section. The picure of what apears to be a group of HOMAC employees standing in front of a sign that states. "We support our troops" but troops coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan need not apply if they use tobacco.
Also according to the article the troops that wish to become a fireman or firewoman in Florida. Those troops service points are worthless if they use tobacco.
Talk about fighting the wrong Taliban in the wrong country! Zealotry and fundamentalism knows no boundries and has proven through history to be the greatest absolute risk (not RR ) to all!
This brings to mind as an employer I suggested on another blog, small business owners who smoke would be further ahead to hire only smokers, which allows in some situations the bans to be ignored.
If no non smokers are present no one could be harmed or need anyone fear being harmed and no one is likely to complain, if I decide to smoke in my own office.
I was immediately attacked for such a suggestion accused of discrimination, of killing my employees and even racism if you can believe it. It occurred to me, how much fun I could have, posting an employment ad proclaiming;
"smokers only need apply".
Question: Are there any laws the prevent employers from refusing to hire diabetics? people with high blood pressure? a history of migraines? A family history of heart disease or cancer? How about fertile Catholics who refuse to use birth control?
:
Walt;
I remembver reading In Las Vegas I believe it was, because of a court case by a fellow in a wheelchair who wished to service HVAC equipment as a trade, they had to make the rooftops wheelchair accessible.
If smoking is believed to be an addiction, it should also be recognized as a disability, and the same rules should apply. I have to expect it is only a matter of time before a smoker somewhere expresses that logic in a court of law.
I would have to guess they could be successful, unless smoking is judged to be not an addiction, in which case the tobacco companies could be empowered to ask for compensation for all the things done to them over the years.
Great idea, Kev! Of course, I wouldn't want you to stoop, though it would be fun to witness the hypocritical backlash from the other side!
Oh, and a quick question.. As this discrimination against smokers becomes more prevelent, can we expect smokers to get disability or unemployment benefits if they are unable to quit smoking that they may secure employment?
OT but interesting as an omen of increasingly arrogant government and supine citizens. Our friends in the UK might be interested in signing up for the protest.
Gist of it: The Brit political class wants to ratify the same EU "constitution" that, when last voted on, went down in impressively scorching flames. As written, it sacrifices national sovereignty to a Belgian bureaucracy and Katy bar the door. Instead of amending it to make it acceptable (if that could ever be done) they've decided instead to not put it to a vote.
The comments at the end of the article are instructive. The feeling of impotence. The note of futility.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...9/02/
dl0201.xml
Backtalk;
They tell me smoking is more addictive than crack and heroine. A compasionate community could not help but agree; smokers should be allowed some sort of concessions, due to the severity of the addiction and the personal barriers that creates, living in a community so fearful of second hand smoke.
Certainly if someone was unemployable they should receive a disability pension at least. When most of the tens of millions who smoke would have started smoking, no one was aware of the harms being decried as associated with second hand smoke.
The development of harms to others being realized, making smoking unacceptable in the workplace was not the fault of smokers. As we see it; just an act beyond anyone's control.
Perhaps insurance companies could be made to pay up for the situation, as it developed leaving many unemployable and on the street.
Considering the lifetime disability assessed of so many insurers could be encouraged to find a way to employ these millions of people or improve the situation in other ways. I guess we will just have to wait for that one smoker to set precedent in court, the day all the TC hatred and all the enthusiasm driving it will just go away.
I wonder what that judgment would cost the TC enamored community? or the insurers, if it were expressed as a successful class action?
Doc,
what did you expect to happen when TC devised the tactic of denormalisation?
Unable to achieve your goals by further attacks on the manufacturers you decided it was fair game to switch focus onto the users.
Smokers are being targeted for all sorts of discrimination, for their own good of course. Smokers are being vilified as selfish addicts that are killing non-smokers and children. We are now a hated underclass of sub-humans and do not deserve parity with "normal" people. Congratulations!
Your call for TC to condemn this discrimination is, to be blunt, woefully inadequate. TC Gods Bhanzaf and Glantz openly support any level of denormalisation, their hatred of smokers has blinded them and stripped them of their humanity.
The WHO leads by example in employment discrimination and demonstrate through their FCTC contract with 150 sovereign nations their goal of eliminating smoking by denormalising users.
Simply Doc, it is an obscene tactic.
If science has proven beyond doubt that smoking and ETS is as deadly and costly to society as TC claim, then lobby for prohibition. Shut down production. That would be the honest thing to do.
GreatScot
GreatScot;
"Shut down production. That would be the honest thing to do. "
The idea is to do just that, and they will, as soon as the demographic numbers no longer represent a political obstacle.
I believe the number they are shooting for is 15% prevalence, with others so opposed to smoking; Those who smoke, can not muster any substantial political danger. I have been planning to put a sign or possibly a bumper sticker on all of my vehicles stating "I smoke and I vote" to hopefully raise some discussion prior to the pending Ontario government election. It would not hurt for others to do the same while we still represent that political threat.
They don't call it a smoke free campaign for nothing. Prohibition is in the game plan. The organized crime groups are likely salivating while waiting for the legislation.
Kevin,
Instant prohibition gets my vote.
Driving down smoking prevalence, by persecuting smokers, until the Tobacco industry is inviable is a long winded, self serving tactic. If it is truly about health and not wealth, shut it down now. Persecution is not healthy for anyone.
No market for NRT or stop smoking drugs. Everybody will just have to go cold turkey. Government projects that rely on Tobacco tax will shut down or non-smokers have to fund them. TC are redundant overnight. Business in bars etc will pick up again.
GreatScot
Bill Hannegan
'I am much more worried about my children's freedom than their health.'
In 1952, I was born into a free country, in 1971 & 1972 my daughters were born into a free country.
I will die in a less free country; that breaks my heart.
What the country will be like by the time my daughters pass is indeed frightening to me.
.
From the article:
Brandon Hensler , spokesman for the Florida ACLU, agreed.
"If the stated rationale is to reduce insurance costs and improve productivity, what's to stop the city from zeroing in on other unhealthy activities such as eating fatty foods, which leads to obesity," Hensler said. "Such policies potentially open the door to all sorts of discrimination. It's a slippery slope to an employer testing for other, more sensitive healthy conditions such as HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that are simply none of the employer's business and would be illegal for them to do," he said in an e-mail"
The ACLU has stood on the sidelines as this and other discrimination against smokers has spread. I guess that was because it met their political agenda.
It will be interesting to see what they do with this.
.
Sunz,
Most of the world has stood on the sidelines watching the bully in the playground. The discrimination is systematic. Death by a thousand cuts.
Remember how this all started? "We just want flights under two hours to be smoke free. It's not too much to ask, is it?"
Look where we are now:
-Cant have jobs
-Cant keep our kids
-Cant smoke at home
-Cant smoke at work
-Cant smoke after work
-Cant smoke on trains
-Cant smoke at the movies
-Cant smoke in a bar
-Cant smoke in a restaurant
-Cant smoke in a plane
-Cant smoke in a taxi
-Cant smoke on a beach
-Cant smoke in a park
If there was any doubt, in anyones minds, that doubt should now be gone.
We are dealing with some very sick and twisted individuals and organisations.
Colin---'Most of the world has stood on the sidelines watching the bully in the playground.'
You are so right Colin---they cheered as this all happened. That they cannot see beyond their sensitive noses, is amazing.
Colin, a few additions to your list.
can't smoke in your car
can't smoke on patios
can't smoke within 25 / 50 / 100 feet of doors or humans.
can't adopt
can't foster
denied life changing operations
GreatScot
Thanks GS. I had forgotten those.
Bunch of stupid cants, arent they?
Zero logic, surrounded by ignorance, wrapped up in a fraud, and the whole thing smothered in hatred.
So much for understanding, tolerance, and the milk of human kindness.....
Slightly off topic but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...e#StartComments
is worth a look if you're interested in the flagrent discrimination against smokers. It also gives you an indication of which insurance company I won't be touching with a very long pole any more.
It's a very sad story of a widower who's wife was killed by something clearly not smoking-related (someone crashed into her car). Her life insurance supplier wouldn't pay out because when she took out the policy (just after the birth of her daughter) she answered the question "Have you used any tobacco products in the last 12 months?", no as she had given up while pregnant.
He smoked, she didn't .But because the weasels at the insurance company found a form from her maternity papers with the smoker box ticked, they decided that she was withholding information and refused the claim.
After six months of bitter wrangling they settled out of court for half of the amount of the policy.
Needless to say, the one policy that I have with these land pirates will not be renewed. Just as I won't do business with anyone who I know discriminates against any minority (regardless of what it is)
Kevin,
I made a similar suggestion right here a couple of months ago. I mentioned opening a "smoking restaurant/bar". Mr. Bill himself, Mr. "the employer has the right to hire whomever he wishes and set their own rules" told me it was discrimination to eliminate non-smokers from applying. I was also told it was discrimination on another board to open a place for smokers only.
The thing they all missed was that I never once said that non-smokers would not be allowed to apply or considered, but any non-smoker would be signing a waiver that they knew there was smoking on the premises and they had no problem with that.
Amazing how it's NOT discrimination when it's smokers being discriminated against, isn't it?
When I first heard about the Cleveland Clinics' hiring policy I was outraged at this invasion of privacy. I could not believe that in America a person could not be involved in a legal activity on their own time. I called my US Senator and spoke to a staff lawyer. I was informed that if you are hired "at will" you can be disqualified for any reason except one of the protected classes (sex, national origin, race, disabled...).
So, there is no right to privacy in the US. It is something that we have taken for granted. People have had the good sense and tolerance to not impose themselves in others private matters.
This means that if someone only wants to hire smokers they can. As there is no law protecting smokers, there is no law protecting non-smokers from discrimination.
Lastly, under the Americans with Disablilities Act, drug addiction and alcoholism are not covered.
It is a sad event in America when elitist begin to try and control our private lives. Everyone should be very afraid. You are a fool if you believe these people will stop at tobacco use. It's time for tobacco users to band together. There is power in numbers.
It appears that the major parties are both involved in this erosion of rights. From what I've read of both we will get more of the same. I think we should give the Libertarian Party a fresh look. If we all vote in a block we can effect this election.
"they are automatically precluding from potential employment about 20% of the population, which undoubtedly includes some of the most qualified candidates for such a job."
As I understand it, that figure represents only the admitted cigarette smokers. You could add another 5% or so for the pipe and cigar smokers (and then there's the non-admitted smokers...). So we're talking about excluding at least 25%, probably much more.
That said, I don't object to this policy, as long as businesses are also free to hire only smokers, and sane non-smokers, and create smoking-friendly employment environments.
In fact, putting my money where (etc..) I'd think it a smarter move to invest in a smoke-friendly business then in a smoke-hating one.
The tobacco control movement's insistence on treating smoking as a "disease" that must always be treated with pharmaceutical therapy may come back to haunt it. It is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before a smoker is able to successfully use the Americans with Disabilities Act to argue that refusal to hire smokers represents a violation of the ADA because smoking is a disability under the law, since it represents a DSM diagnosis - nicotine dependence.
With Insurance companies they assess their own obligations according to universal risk assessment values at the time. Smoking was always part and parcel with that risk along with a million other reasons they would have to pay out on an insurance claim.
They can't possibly assess how much they will be affected in a total risk which the effect of death is one per person, And the time leading up to that death reflecting for some disability over many years, the only things left to chance; is when death will occur and the liability amounts for medical costs prior to that death.
By singling out individual risks for special treatment; they not only take unearned premiums, they also allow themselves an excuse to renege on the deal entirely.
When TC created the fallacy of special costs associated with smoking by assuming all related diseases were caused by smoking alone, they afforded the insurance companies a huge bonus, which allowed them increased charges associated with smoking, when they actually were not afforded one cent extra in cost over what they had always experienced. They did the same thing with drunk driving charges and in a number of other areas they could avoid contractual compensation.
Did they ever lower anyone else's premiums to reflect the savings?
They are now getting away with double billing their clients, the employers hoping to save money seem to have no objection to that.
The smoker abusive policies were expanded on in other areas, such as after 911 many policies added acts of terrorism to their policies exclusions in most cases mid policy by notices they sent out which now is also their right expressed in the fine print, many added floods in areas where floods would be likely, they added software problems after the Y2K swindle and they will continue to add other exclusions as they see fit, without warning or compensation to their clients who should share in the reduced liability risk each of which results in an increase of tens of millions to their bottom lines. Reducing coverages for stable total risks they cover under their shrinking umbrella affords them millions in savings. Inflation was always a part of the risk assessment they did so the increasing medical costs or more expensive auto repairs are just a convenient excuse. The majority are paying for the risks of smoking whether they like it or not, the insurers are simply now being allowed to not pay out, while still collecting the same premium rates.
The misconception being promoted that smokers cost insured companies more is only protecting the insurers who have increased their policy prices with no valid reason to do so.
Why Do People Do Evil?
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Decent people have sought to identify the roots of evil since the first indecent person inflicted cruelty on an innocent person. And people have come up with one or more of nine explanations, most of which are indeed valid.
1. The Devil (or whatever name the devil goes by in any given culture). I do not believe in a devil, but when one observes the seemingly inexplicable cruelty engaged in by some people, it is understandable that people have attributed it to some evil being that has taken over that person.
2. Genes. The contemporary term for devil is "genes." Just as with the devil, when we observe a person engaging in evil behavior for which we have no rational explanation, we speak of it as coming from the person's genes.
3. Parents. After genes, parents have become another popular explanation for much evil. "How was he raised?" we wonder when we read about evildoers, especially those who deliberately hurt children. There is no question that parental upbringing has both good and ill effects on children. But there are too many bad people raised in homes that did not abuse them, and too many good people who were raised in awful homes to allow us to make parents the primary explanation for evil.
4. Religion. Religion is a popular culprit these days. And it is undeniable that religion can be a source of evil -- it certainly is in the case of the true believing Islamic terrorist. And it was in the wars over theology that racked Europe for centuries. But two facts mitigate against regarding religion as the primary explanation for evil. One is that religion itself was often developed precisely in order to reduce human evil. Whatever evil individual Christians may have ever engaged in, it is hard to find advocacy of evil within Christian Scriptures. The other is that secular ideologies and regimes -- Nazism and Communism, for example -- have murdered and tortured far more people than any religion has.
5. Money. Money and greed are so widely regarded as causes of evil that the phrase "Money is the root of all evil" has become a cliche. And there is no doubt that people seeking what money can buy -- luxury, status, women and excitement, to name but a few things -- have engaged in much evil. But flawed human nature and a lack of self-control, not money per se, are the causes of evil in these instances.
6. Power. Like money, many who seek power will do anything, no matter how evil, to attain power. However, it is a relatively small number of people that seeks such power and commits evil in its pursuit.
7. Pursuit of the good. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. One should never underestimate the amount of evil caused by people thinking they were doing good. Far more evil has been perpetrated by idealistic people than by cynical criminals.
8. Sadism. There are people who simply enjoy seeing others in pain and inflicting it on them. But sadism accounts for few, if any, large-scale evils. It accounts for many individual acts of cruelty.
9. Boredom. Boredom is widely underrated as a source of evil. Yet, it most certainly is. Lack of purpose, not a lack of things to do, is the source of nearly all boredom. People need meaning in their lives. And if they don't, they will pursue visceral excitement instead of meaning or seek meaning in evil causes.
I believe there is a tenth explanation that is greater than all the others and is particularly widespread today.
10. Victimhood. A lifelong study of good and evil has led to me conclude that the greatest single cause of evil is people perceiving of themselves or their group as victims. Nazism arose from Germans' sense of victimhood -- as a result of the Versailles Treaty, of the "stab in the back" that led to Germany's loss in World War I and of a world Jewish conspiracy. Communism was predicated on workers regarding themselves as victims of the bourgeoisie. Much of Islamic evil today emanates from a belief that the Muslim world has been victimized by Christians and Jews. Many prisoners, including those imprisoned for horrible crimes, regard themselves as victims of society or of their upbringing. The list of those attributing their evil acts to their being victims is as long as the list of evildoers.
This is also true in the micro realm. Family members whose primary identity is that of victim usually feel entirely free to hurt others in the family. That is why psychotherapists who regularly reinforce the victim status of their patients do the patient and society great harm.
If my belief is even partially correct, the preoccupation of much of America with telling whole groups that they are victims -- of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and classism, among other American sins -- can only increase cruelty and evil in America.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
Michael;
"The tobacco control movement's insistence on treating smoking as a "disease" that must always be treated with pharmaceutical therapy may come back to haunt it."
Many institutions are now also claiming an extreme risk from the off gases from a smoker's clothes or as we witnessed in a Government commercial lately children's toys exposed to tobacco smoke could also constitute and extreme health risk.[Undefined]
If a smoker who is advised an ability to allow quiting is almost a miraculous event. For someone compliant with what is being dispensed in the media, who wishes to protect others; employment could not be an option.
The Health relevant information available today, makes them unemployable, because as you stated an addiction is now considered a disease. Ignoring the risk to others may put other at risk and the smoker liable for their damages.
So we have hit the wall; do smokers deserve compensation for the situation they are now in, or does community find a way to express compassion and find a way back to a time when smokers were a valuable and contributing part of communities?
It seems shutting down production is the only other option left when you think about it, the prolonged torturing of those "being helped to quit" will be replaced with a torturing [with no supply available] which is much more temporary.
In that perspective the compensation for how that situation occurred will have eventual limits although if you think about it income taxes were originally to pay for war debts and the taxes are still with us.
If a woman can be compensated so much for spilling her own coffee, how much will smokers be owed?
Candidate John Edwards would force preventive care
Junkfood Science
September 03, 2007
Freedom from choice
Yikes. This post isn’t about politics, as candidates on all sides are throwing out very similar ideas, but this news story illustrates better than some what these ideas mean when taken to their logical conclusions. When we let our health become the responsibility of the government, then, of course, the government calls the shots about what we can and cannot do if it believes it is for our own good.
As the Associated Press reported:
Edwards backs mandatory preventive care
...John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care. “It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor ... [for example,] women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem."...
URL: http://tinyurl.com/26w7vx
What could be more "preventive" than forbidding "unhealthy" lifestyle/behavior as defined by the government?
Edwards does not spell out the penalties for failure to obey.
Doc,
Please clarify; If they can say alcoholism or alcohol use or illegal drug addiction or use is not covered, how can tobacco addiction be covered?
Point me where it can be covered.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html
Title I of the ADA also covers:
Medical Examinations and Inquiries
Employers may not ask job applicants about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. Applicants may be asked about their ability to perform specific job functions. A job offer may be conditioned on the results of a medical examination, but only if the examination is required for all entering employees in similar jobs. Medical examinations of employees must be job related and
consistent with the employer's business needs.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Employees and applicants currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs are not covered by the ADA when an employer acts on the basis of such use. Tests for illegal drugs are not subject to the ADA's restrictions on medical examinations. Employers may hold illegal drug users and alcoholics to the same performance standards as other employees.
Thanks
I have a question for Dave K or anyone else versed in chemistry. The production of dioxins is Dependant on low temperature burning of organic matter, Fire safe cigarette paper lowers the temperature deliberately, is the temperature decrease consistent with increasing the production of dioxins and particulate matter?
I know fire safe cigarettes produce a lot more tar sediment, is it possible the use of the new paper unnecessarily increases the risks of smoking as defined?
We know the additions of chemicals to a mixture the medical community can not clearly define as a risk by composition alone, is medical experimentation with the results yet unknown, hence the "no safe level" apparently justifies that action.
In real terms if the use has a direct and evidential risk in itself, would the deliberate increased risk of smokers and by extension increased risk to non smokers, to promote a paper patent, not also be promotion of an unsafe product by careless legislative means?
rrgabe23;
The ADA omissions discuss illegal drugs smoking is legal. The performance standards which apply to alcoholics are understandable because drinking on the job would have predictable results.
In the case of smokers who do not expose others to smoke, there is no justification for employment exclusions.
If the costs of insurance are the problem; smokers could be opted out, or pay a premium as a choice.
Employment barriers which restrict someone from making a living in their chosen field for which they would otherwise qualify, simply because they smoke, is absolutely without justification. Especially evident, when we view smoking as a disease vector requiring medical treatment; A disability.
"The tobacco control movement's insistence on treating smoking as a "disease" that must always be treated with pharmaceutical therapy may come back to haunt it."
Of course. Just one more instance of the pharma-profit induced medicalization of society. But it's either that Michael, or recognize that people CHOOSE to smoke.
For more of the nightmare, see today's stories on bipolar kids
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...Xg0be0wjrO9j7AB
or ADHD kids
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/
2007...fuskidshaveadhd
Doc said; "It is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before a smoker is able to successfully use the Americans with Disabilities Act to argue that refusal to hire smokers represents a violation of the ADA because smoking is a disability under the law, since it represents a DSM diagnosis - nicotine dependence."
I sincerely hope your wrong.
This would only play into the hands of those that already think smokers are somehow less than non-smokers in every aspect of their lives simply because they enjoy the activity of smoking.
This scenario plays into the same "victimhood" mindset of the Anti's themselves.
(Anti's believing they are "victims" of ETS)
Playing the part of victim in order to have constitutionally guaranteed rights restored that were illegally stripped away from you in the first place is to me personally, ....appalling.
Sorry, but I'm not a victim.
Not of smoking, not of upbringing, not of society or a victim of anything other than the personal choices I have made for myself, both Good and Bad.
YES, it is absolutely possible to be a victim of Good choices, just as clearly and easily as it is to be a victim of equally, sometimes horrendously bad choices.
What makes me not a victim?, the understanding, the grown up adult knowledge that I made those choices and am more than willing to accept the personal responsibility, consequences, or bennefit for ALL of them. I have no one to blame but myself, just as I have no one to thank but me. Get the idea?
If anyone considers themselves a victim of smoking, it is by choice, and I do not count myself among them.
This is the difference between a smoker that has simply had enough of the TC bashing, is now "adequately informed" enough that they are "finally" convinced that they are sick and are ready to giveup their personal decision making RIGHTs, as well as a part of their personal identity and a smoker that still believes that it's nobodies business but their own.
I will NEVER play the role of victim when it comes to a decision I make.
Being the victim of someone elses choice, especially if it's the collective choice of a narrow-minded majority is something else altogether. In this regard, all smokers are now generally victims, but not because of any addiction of their own. They are victims of the Anti addiction to hate simply because they refuse to conform to the religion of health. I've never been all that pious, so I don't really hold myself as being a victim in this group either.
What I am, is pissed.
What I am not, is a victim.
I'm an adversary.
What I am is TC's worst nightmare, a smoker that flatly refuses to surrender my civil liberty simply because according to the propaganda, it will be in the "interest of public health", "for my own good", or the incredibly, wildly popular, "for the sake of the children"
Surrendering civil liberty is one of those decisions I'll reserve to be made by me, not a self-important, moralizing, government funded crusade of victims.
Am I addicted to nicotine, NO.
Am I addicted to maintaining the spirit and freedom guaranteed to me as an American with 1st class citizenship ...oh yes, absolutely.
What's the cure for that particular addiction?
"What I am, is pissed.
What I am not, is a victim.
I'm an adversary."
and...
"Am I addicted to maintaining the spirit and freedom guaranteed to me as an American with 1st class citizenship ...oh yes, absolutely."
Yes! What LB said. Worth repeating, I thought.
What's the cure for that particular addiction?
We don't want a cure for that addiction, LightningBoy --- we need MORE people with such an addiction.
I know of several people in supervisory positions at my company who will not hire smokers, and we do not have a formal policy against it. Very few people who work at my company take smoking breaks, or will be seen smoking at work; however, there are more closet-smokers than people realize. Whether or not there are formal policies, discrimination is prevalent in today's corporate world. I believe the reason for it is the constant anti-smoking brainwashing that has been occurring. Anything and everything is caused by smoking or second-hand smoke. For example, look at the last sentence of this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/
2007...fuskidshaveadhd
So, SHS causes ADHD now..???
" If anyone considers themselves a victim of smoking, it is by choice, and I do not count myself among them."
Although I agree with you entirely, the facetious use of ETS as a hazard was used in manipulation of a system with no safeguards in place to defend against the increased power of a conspired partnership lobbying to profit the stakeholders[HIA]through a controlled media.
The same use of the rhetoric which made it all possible, is only one solution to the problem. If they are able to provoke hatred and fear in support of their partners profits and if those profits are endangered by simply insisting on consistency with community values and taking them to a logical conclusion, the community values they make use of, to make their play, could be used in the same manner following their own logic with the resulting dangers impending, to the profits of the stakeholders, how long will the partnership survive?
LightningBoy - Surrendering civil liberty is one of those decisions I'll reserve to be made by me, not a self-important, moralizing, government funded crusade of victims.
Am I addicted to nicotine, NO.
Am I addicted to maintaining the spirit and freedom guaranteed to me as an American with 1st class citizenship ...oh yes, absolutely.
What's the cure for that particular addiction?
...............
LightningBoy,
I totally agree. In an earlier post, I said that though I am a patriot, I would not support any law that banned the burning of the American flag - an expression of freedom of speech.
I should not have used the phrase "would not support." I should have said "Would actively oppose."
It is not enough to remain silent. An attack on one individual's right(s), is an attack on everyone's rights.
Others have said it much better than I can:
Classic quotes:
Reverend Martin Niemoeller:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist..."
Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Thomas Paine:
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
I do not know who originally said the following, but it is true:
"If you are not paying a price (it may not be money) for having principles, then you do not have any."
That brings to mind another Voltaire quote:
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
Gabz,
To TC, it's a disease that must be treated. Any diplay of individuality, of resistence to the collective mindset of "by health authority, for health authority, and of the health authority" simply won't be tollerated.
Dissent is patriotic.
TC is the equivalent of a mob of torch carrying villagers on their way to destroy the monster. Incited to riot and destroy what they clearly fear based on a lack of full disclosure by the "victims" of that monster.
They're too afraid to not do something, but not smart enough to understand what it is they're doing.
This mob, once whippped into frenzy won't stop until something, or someone is made the sacrafice so they can all feel better about themselves and dowse their torches until the next monster is revealed by the latest victims of the newest threat.
"Whether one smokes or not, or uses smokeless tobacco or not, has no relevance to one's qualifications for a job making and selling quality electrical connectors and accessories."
But it has relevance to the employer's health care insurance costs, and to the amount of sick time the employer can expect to shell out for.
Very amusing how smokers' rights folks always talk about freedom of choice, then would deny employers the freedom to choose their workers. After all, we're talking about a chronic drug habit here.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
above was posted by
Nice to see that Cathy agrees that business's can discriminate against non-smokers and employ only smokers, one small step on the road to employing smokers and catering for smokers exclusively. No reason for bans then. Right Cathy?
Apartheid is alive, well and living in Canada.
GreatScot
Very amusing how smokers' rights folks always talk about freedom of choice, then would deny employers the freedom to choose their workers.
Actually, picture this:
Nonsmoking company A has a manager Mr X. Mr X hits it off really well with Mr Y, a prospective applicant. It is discovered Mr Y is a closet smoker in background checks--two cigars a month. Mr Y was considered a prospective replacement for Mr Z, who was fired for unacceptable behavior during an office party at a smoke free bar(ie he had too much to drink.) But Mr X cannot hire Mr Y.
Mr W is the other applicant for the job and seems more like Mr Z, but Mr X has to go with Mr Z.
In this case Mr X cannot choose the person he is more likely to get along with.
So, on a local level, freedom of choice is restricted. The key here is you are arguing a corporation's right to maximize certain returns from their employees in a way that is impractical and in fact saying it is right to do so, in the ways you like.
In other words you are arguing for gross corporate meddling and dictation of their employees' habits off the job. Kind of makes your website name ironic doesn't it?
That would be true if that were the conversation, but we're not talking about employers simply choosing their employees. We're talking about active, deliberate discrimination based on personal lifestyle choices.
Whether or not an individual smokes at home, or off the company property has nothing to do with how well that individual may perfom the job they hired to do.
Citing higher healthscare costs is a cop out, and nothing more than company policy handed down to the HR manager to carry out. It's biggoted personal preference to inflate the egos of company executive TC advocates.
So by your logic, the "Smokers Only Need Apply" sign at the employment office would be ok?
tobaccoscamalysis (Cathy Bell) - Very amusing how smokers' rights folks always talk about freedom of choice, then would deny employers the freedom to choose their workers. After all, we're talking about a chronic drug habit here.
....
So Cathy, what else should employers be able to ban and/or check in order to save money on employee's costs?
You have a bad habit of ignoring what we are saying...it's not just smokers we are defending - it's everyone - you included - even if you happen to have genetic defects that the employer deems may cost more money.
"But it has relevance to the employer's health care insurance costs, and to the amount of sick time the employer can expect to shell out for"
Well there you go again. People incur above-average health care costs for all sorts of reasons, including poor dietary habits, failure to exercise and hereditary factors and it would set a dangerous precedent to single out smokers as any different. What about people who go to the dentist or to a childs play. Is this an extra cost to society?
This is another example of comparing smokers and non-smokers and not considering other factors.
Also, the amount of taxes that smokers pay is never factored into this equation.
Obese people beware, they can utilize this data to discriminate against you.
rrgabe23-
You are right that the ADA has a specific "exemption" for alcohol and drug use. However, I am not aware of a specific exemption for tobacco use. Now up until this point, courts have NOT ruled that smoking can be considered a disability under the ADA. What I am suggesting is that this may change, especially with the recent obsession among tobacco control groups of treating smoking as a medical condition that requires pharmaceutical therapy. I think that a smoker somewhere will be able to one day make a convincing argument that based on the way smoking cessation is being treated (i.e., a condition for which drugs are mandatory), nicotine dependence does meet the definition of a disability under the ADA.
Cathy-
Would you then agree that it is perfectly acceptable for an employer - such as a major manufacturing company in a town which employs thousands - to decide only to hire smokers?
Very amusing how smokers' rights folks always talk about freedom of choice, then would deny employers the freedom to choose their workers. -Cathy
Very amusing how TC folks are willing to deny employers the freedom to choose their client base.
GreatScot
Doc said; "I think that a smoker somewhere will be able to one day make a convincing argument that based on the way smoking cessation is being treated (i.e., a condition for which drugs are mandatory), nicotine dependence does meet the definition of a disability under the ADA."
Once again, I can't tell you how much I sincerely hope you are wrong.
Petitioning the courts to be specifically recognized as something less than a fully functioning adult to be pittied, and in doing so be labeled as "sick" or "addicted" in order to RETAIN, or even REGAIN their civil liberty is a prospect so disgusting and repugnant to me personally, that the thought of anyone taking this route simply and specifically to do so makes me ill.
I don't buy into the "A little freedom is better than No Freedom at all" mindset of capitulation.
Your'e either free, or you're not.
TC is and continues to be pure, nasty, petty, spoiled, vindictive, double-crossing, backstabbing evil.
It has proven over and over that it simply can not be trusted.
Being labeled an "addict" by the courts, or any other government agency is an evil victory and will ensure only that it's now official, and the unofficial excuses for not hiring you are legal.
It wasn't very long ago when I mentioned smoking to be a protected class under the "American disability Act" and it didn't go over well with a few of your posters Doctor. I certainly am not clairvoyant, but I knew it would someday come to this. Anyone else want your fortune told? I got a good one for Cathy so I hope she wants to know what is in store for her very soon!
Diane
My arguments against smoking bans in bars are based on the property rights of bar owners. Since they are free to only hire smokers there is no need to protect smoking workers against themselves. It seems that Cathy should support this contention.
OT: Smokers More Likely to Develop Dementia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7090400554.html
Who wants to bet that soon there will be a study that shows this is also the case for those exposed to SHS. The first question that comes to mind is that if dementia is a late in life disease should more non-smokers get it as smokers would die prematurely before dementia can take it toll?
I am much prefer the company of smokers to non-smokers. Why do I want to feel uncomfortable every time I light up because I might be offending someone? If I had a business where I was required to work with employees, It would suit me just fine to make it point to ONLY hire smokers. So why not? I'm starting to feel that maybe two wrongs could demonstrate what is RIGHT.
A Critical Shortage of Nurses
By MOIRA HERBST
Low pay for a grueling job keeps many Americans out of the field -- and that spells trouble as baby boomers age.
The U.S. is facing a severe nursing shortage. Already, an estimated 8.5 percent of the nursing positions in the U.S. are unfilled -- and some expect that number to triple by 2020 as 80 million baby boomers retire and expand the ranks of those needing care. Hospital administrators and nurses' advocates have declared a staffing crisis as the nursing shortage hits its 10th year, the longest stretch in 50 years.
So why aren't nurses paid more? Wages for registered nurses rose just 1.34 percent from 2006 to 2007, trailing well behind inflation. The answer is complicated, influenced by factors from hospital cost controls to insurance company reimbursement policies. But another factor is often overlooked: Huge numbers of nurses are brought into the U.S. from abroad every year. In recent years nearly a third of the RNs joining the U.S. workforce were born in other countries.
Critics say this is a short-term solution that could create long-term problems. The influx of non-U.S. nurses allows hospitals to fill positions at the low salaries they prefer to pay. But it prevents the sharp wage hike that would encourage Americans to enter the field, which could solve the nursing shortage in the years ahead. "Nurses' wages need to be higher," says Peter Buerhaus, a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University and an expert on the U.S. nursing workforce. "Better pay would signify to society that nursing is a promising career. It's a critical factor in building the workforce of the future."
The Effects of Globalization
The market for nurses in the U.S. is a reflection of how labor markets can change with globalization. With new technology and the increasing movement of workers, labor markets are no longer local or even national. Supply and demand don't work quite as they did in the past. Shortages in one market aren't corrected with higher prices if supply comes from another.
These labor shortages can happen in fields as diverse as medicine, construction, farming and technology. One of the most contentious debates over the labor market is playing out in the technology industry. As U.S. tech companies hire more programmers and developers from overseas, American workers complain of the impact on their compensation. Meanwhile, companies such as Microsoft (MSFT), IBM (IBM), Google (GOOG), Oracle (ORCL) and Motorola (MOT) have been arguing that the U.S. should let in even more skilled workers from abroad, both on a temporary and permanent basis. But computer scientists and software developers say such moves would discourage American workers from pursuing these specialties and hurt U.S. competitiveness in the long term (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/8/07, 'Work Visas May Work Against the U.S.,' and 3/27/07, 'Immigration Reform: Americans First?').
Several Factors at Play
In nursing, pay isn't the only issue. Difficult working conditions and understaffing also deter qualified people from pursuing the profession (see BusinessWeek.com, 8/21/07, 'Labor Shortages: Myth and Reality'). But average annual wages for registered nurses (one of the most highly trained categories) is now just under $58,000 a year, compared with a $36,300 average for U.S. workers overall. And it's clear that qualified American nurses see that as not enough: There are 500,000 registered nurses who are not practicing their profession -- fully one-fifth of the current RN workforce of 2.5 million and enough to fill current vacancies twice over.
Hospitals insist the U.S. shortage is too severe to address simply with money. Carl Shusterman, an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, says he has 100 hospital clients that have 100 vacancies apiece. With two- to three-year waiting lists to get into nurse-training programs in the U.S., pressure to import nurses won't abate, he says. "Even if we could train more nurses and pay them more, we'd still need to import them," says Shusterman. "It's ridiculous to claim that any foreign nurse is taking a job away from an American."
Undeniable Results
Raising pay has successfully attracted nurses in the past, however. To remedy a shortage that developed in the late 1990s, hospitals started hiking wages in 2001 -- and added 186,500 nurses from 2001 to 2003. Some advocates draw a direct link between wages and recruiting. A 2006 study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, 'Solving the Nursing Shortage Through Higher Wages,' concluded that "increasing pay for nurses is the most direct way to draw both currently qualified and aspiring nurses to hospital employment."
While nurses' advocates say better pay is critical, they also argue that working conditions must improve if the U.S. is to cultivate an enduring nursing workforce. Future projections of staffing troubles are ominous. The current 8.5 percent shortage is expected to surge to 29 percent -- or more than 810,000 nurses -- by 2020, according to the U.S. Health & Human Services Dept. "You will draw in some people with a good pay raise, but you won't necessarily get them to stay," says Cheryl Johnson, a registered nurse and president of the United Association of Nurses, the largest nurses' union in the U.S. "Almost every nurse will tell you that staffing is a critical problem. The workload is so great that there's not time to see how [patients are] breathing, give them water, or turn them to prevent bedsores. The guilt can be unbearable."
Whatever mix of better wages, better working conditions, and foreign workers hospitals employ, solving the nursing shortage in the long run will require solutions on a number of fronts. "Nurses are getting more organized, but major change isn't going to happen overnight," says Suzanne Martin, a spokeswoman for the United Association of Nurses, which represents 115,000 RNs. "There are other interests and lobbies that would prefer to keep things as they are."
Herbst is a reporter for BusinessWeek.com in New York.
And the CLEVELAND CLINIC will not hire nurses that smoke~DUH!! An RN that will call it quits as soon as she can.
But it has relevance to the employer's health care insurance costs, and to the amount of sick time the employer can expect to shell out for.
I’d love to see the real figures for this. In all my working years (about 37 years) I’ve noticed it is the NON-smokers who seem to always call in “sick”. Understand, calling in sick means you call the office without warning that you won’t be coming in to work because you are “sick”. I’ve taken sick days….usually for extra time off, and it was always planned that way and the bosses knew it. In the last 12 years, I’ve called in sick ONLY 2 times, and both times I really was sick and it was nothing to do with smoking, but more to do with running a fever and worshipping the porcelain God (being polite here).
I’d love to see the real figures for who calls in suddenly sick. I’d bet it is non-smokers the most. And of them, the largest figure will be the mothers with sick kids at home.
"I’d love to see the real figures for who calls in suddenly sick." Utter BS. In almost 40 years of professional activity, I accumulated approx. 10 days of sick leave. My father saw his MD maybe twice during his entire adult life time, for common colds.
Hello everybody. How have you been, Doctor? Haven't been here in a while. Just noticed the above post passing through about the insurance company versus lying on your application as follows --
"It's a very sad story of a widower who's wife was killed by something clearly not smoking-related (someone crashed into her car). Her life insurance supplier wouldn't pay out because when she took out the policy (just after the birth of her daughter) she answered the question "Have you used any tobacco products in the last 12 months?", no as she had given up while pregnant.
He smoked, she didn't .But because the weasels at the insurance company found a form from her maternity papers with the smoker box ticked, they decided that she was withholding information and refused the claim.
After six months of bitter wrangling they settled out of court for half of the amount of the policy."
Just passing this on -- as far as I always understood it, if the lie was not related to the nature of the claim, the insurance company cannot withhold payouts, at least that's the way it is in my state. Each state should have an insurance commission where a simple rule like this can be checked out. Wonder if the insurer in this instance took advantage of antismoking climate to get away with settling for half. Oh, well, maybe things have changed in insurance too.
I like the idea best (Ms. Cathy) that employers can refuse to hire smokers if and only if other employers could refuse to hire nonsmokers equally as well. Nice. Then what would your basis be for insisting ALL restaurants be non-smoking. Smoking restaurants could just hire smoking employees. You wouldn't mind, I trust, as you are all for the rights of private business people?
Richlady, your story explains a lot. Perhaps many "nonsmokers" stricken with lung cancer lie about their true smoking histories to those conducting ETS studies out of fear their insurance companies might find out and deny their claims.
Add me to the list of people that LightningBoy speaks for. In each and every way he looks at and explains it.
While it's true it's possible the conditions might one day be ripe for a smoker to win the ADA case in court I would despise them for doing so as much as I despise any smoker that sues the tobacco company -- which followed the same long road before conditions became ripe for success.
All any of that does is fulfill the assertions of the anti-smokers which is the signal to turn ourselves over to their demands and control.
Nobody is responsible for me but me. (No, you windbags, no one covers my healthcare costs -- of which I've had none of any significance. If anything, I cover YOURS).
*
Here's a nice scare:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....rom-
choice.html
...John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care. “It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor ... [for example,] women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem."...
JustThefacts wrote: Add me to the list of people that LightningBoy speaks for. In each and every way he looks at and explains it.
While it's true it's possible the conditions might one day be ripe for a smoker to win the ADA case in court I would despise them for doing so as much as I despise any smoker that sues the tobacco company -- which followed the same long road before conditions became ripe for success.
All any of that does is fulfill the assertions of the anti-smokers which is the signal to turn ourselves over to their demands and control.
Nobody is responsible for me but me. (No, you windbags, no one covers my healthcare costs -- of which I've had none of any significance. If anything, I cover YOURS).
Add me too, just like LB and JTF said!
Add me to the list too JTF. Also like your "no one covers my healthcare costs -- of which I've had none of any significance" Add me to that list too: just last fall I finally reached a total lifetime of healthcare costs equal to the average person's for just one year.
Lightening Boy said:
"What I am is TC's worst nightmare, a smoker that flatly refuses to surrender my civil liberty simply because according to the propaganda, it will be in the "interest of public health", "for my own good", or the incredibly, wildly popular, "for the sake of the children"
Surrendering civil liberty is one of those decisions I'll reserve to be made by me, not a self-important, moralizing, government funded crusade of victims."
"Your'e either free, or you're not."
Thanks for that post. It said something for me.
The encouragement is much appreciated.
Jalestra-
Yes, it is scary to think that people's health care coverage is going to be tied to their health behaviors. This is exactly the system that is now in place in West Virginia with its Medicaid program. You can be denied benefits if you don't engage in the prescribed health behaviors. Which - by the way - include taking your medicine.
Well Gee Michael, are you saying it's a good idea for people to preserve their right to make their own choices about their own health?
Would that include employees...?
cause, ya know, if it did, workers, like say... bartenders, could choose employment environments that were suited to their own preferences. Like, some workers who smoke or don't care about smoke, might choose to work in environments that were smoke-friendly and some, who prefer not to experience even a whiff of smoke, might choose employment in working environments that were smoke-free.
I do sincerely wish that some principled employer would in fact place a want ad for "smokers only." If it stands, for once smokers would finally have an edge. If it doesn't it would possibly make for the kind of case that could overturn the opposite. If you know some employers, urge them to give it a try.
I hope it's obvious I agree with LB. Tho on the face of the ADA law as somebody quoted it, it seems that there might be another way around.
Law says: Medical examinations of employees must be job related and
consistent with the employer's business needs.
Off the job smoking is not "job related" so a cotinine test would, be illegal, per se. Or any other test to determine "smoking status." Therefore: lie. Let them try to catch you out through your piss if they dare, and then sue them for (quite illegally) catching you out. Perhaps another wicked precedent-setting case.
I'm presuming, of course, that you wouldn't want to work for such an idiotic fascist but would simply want to entrap him.
The trouble is getting these to recognize that our world, our government especially, does not deal well with generalities. It's very easy to come up against something like smoking and, even without intention, not realize that you have opened a much bigger can of worms than you meant. Unfortunately, one ALSO has to recognize that, yes, you will have to back down from your position in order to undo the damage. Even if your position seems like the right one. Thus the necessity for clear science BEFORE you start interfering with an individual's rights. The anti-smoking thing was not thought out well from the get go. Now the rock is rolling downhill and all you can do is either stand there, maintaining your position or start fixing the problem.
The smoking thing DID start out reasonable, but it became less and less so, as anyone who recognizes our world would have told you back then. The problem is, people see people like me as pessimists and doom sayers, but we're not. We're realists. We see how the world works and of COURSE we are going to see the most extreme view of how badly it will turn out. My mother says one of these days people will disappointment me and my response to her applies across the board "They haven't yet". They always do EXACTLY what I think they will. What idiot could possibly look at history and NOT see how far this would have gone???? At least with DEFINITE, SCIENTIFIC proof, you at least have grounds that keep the worst at bay. If the smoking thing would have had DEFINITE, SCIENTIFIC proof then I don't think we'd see the "Lifestyle War" we have today. It would follow a precedent that you must PROVE, without a doubt, a problem before interfering with individual rights. We are now fighting a rear guard action, and you don't really win those. Our best bet at this point is to tear their wall out from under them. Yes, we'd have to sacrifice smoking, but we will have shown that while you may take it away from us, you cannot continue manipulating and controlling us. Because we can, and will, take it further. Either way we win. Right now, they get our money, get to torture us, AND deny us what we want. They are not only winning, but winning with benefits. My way does lose the battle, but very well may win the war.
It's really sad that it's come to this, but when the enemy is routing you, do you stand and die or burn the fields and abandon the village, leaving them empty smoking ruins? You can always gather behind the NEXT village and together you have the means to overcome. Smoking is our village, let's leave them some empty, smoking (hehe) ruins and go get behind the other village (obesity). There are a lot more fat people than smokers, and we will only add to their numbers. Our voices can, and will be heard. And we can bolster our obese friends to stand against the enemy. The anti's refuse to listen to reason, so they won't back down. Even the doc is not going to back down, no matter how bad it is obviously turning out. Is smoking really such a big sacrifice? Is our smoking any more important than anyone else's right to live their life as they please? You don't even have to like fat people, just believe that they have the same right to exist without harassment as you do.
At some point you have to back off and look at the way things are going and ask yourself, with no emotional investment, what is the best thing for the end result.
I know this is long, but really, look at the bigger problem this has led to. I mean, two of the big presidential hopefuls have made it clear that with their election, your body will belong to the state. We are at the point where they feel it's ok to say that and they actually BELIEVE they will still get elected! All because of smoking. This isn't the best answer, it really isn't. I'm afraid the best answer would call for REAL violence, not figurative war analogies. We gave up too much already to win from this vantage point. Freedom has NEVER been free, but if everyone is so very determined to ignore the fact that freedom from tyranny has ALWAYS had to be FOUGHT, then we'll have to do it this way.
I promise I'm not war hungry, I'm really not. I'm a realist. I HATE guns, I only like fighting when it's sparring and the other person is good enough that neither of us gets hurt, I'm a wienie when it comes to pain. I have 4 kids with another on the way and I'd really rather NOT raise them in a war zone, literally or figuratively. However, history has shown, time and again, freedom from tyranny has always been found from the end of a gun (or a sword). It's disgusting that we cannot overcome this, it's disgusting that we haven't managed to have a government that we don't control enough to keep this from happening. It's pathetic and disgusting people are so quick to give their liberty to the government. Apparently we, as humans, can't live without some kind of war every 100 years or so. If any of you know a country that is smart enough to pull that off, let me know. I'd like to move there and leave the rest of the world to the idiots.
I;m not exactly sure what you're saying, Jaelestra, but I yield no ground. You sure as hell don't win a war by conceding. And certainly not by conceding to a bully and conceding to a wrong. Or at least you don't do that and look yourself in the eye. It's moral cowardice. Not to mention, bad strategy. (Let's concede to Hitler and concentrate on Tojo? Let's let them have the Jews, but we'll fight for the blacks? No, I don't think so.)
Far from conceding, it's way past time for principled boycotts (no more excuses) and civil disobedience.
Israel but a worrying evolution.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...ges/
900370.html
Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court recently ruled that any owner of a public establishment is obligated to prevent his employees, customers, and guests from smoking on the premises, and to take the necessary reasonable steps toward that end ? even if it results in financial losses for the establishment.
The court ruled last Thursday that restaurant owners must tell customers who refuse to stop smoking to leave, and likewise make it clear to employees that they will be fired for smoking. According to the court, failure to take such action constitutes a violation of civil law, and would require the restaurant to pay compensation.
In addition, the court ruled that smoking in a restaurant in a manner that harms other diners is assault and negligence according to civil law. This is a significant change in the courts' approach to violations of the smoking law, which in the past had treated the cases as the lesser transgression of "violating a legal obligation."
The new ruling could result in increased compensation for those harmed by second-hand smoke.
The ruling was issued regarding a lawsuit filed by Guy Ophir against the owners of Tel Aviv's Marta restaurant. Ophir dined in the restaurant roughly two and a half months ago, and was exposed to second-hand smoke. He was awarded NIS 3,000 in damages plus NIS 500 in legal fees.
GreatScot
"In addition, the court ruled that smoking in a restaurant in a manner that harms other diners is assault and negligence according to civil law."
If smokers in restaurants were treated like individual welding stations, who would be harmed?
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/w...com/
welding.php
You're thinking, Walt, in terms of people, I'm not. It's not a matter of giving up the people, but every good tactician has to admit that sometimes losing ground GAINS in the end. No one said give up the smokers, what I said is back off of this GROUND, and go to another, where we can get the support we need. Smoking is nothing more than ground..we lose ground here and could gain it elsewhere. Would we have beaten Hitler if every nation ONLY fought when it's personal pet peeves were those targeted? Of course not, we had to band together, to protect all people. Well, we need to give a bit of ground and go get some reinforcements. Fat people are being told they are contagious...really, how hard would it be to go abandon the solely smoking issue to go to the "fat forums" (for lack of a better term) to draw the parallels? It would sure be more effective than standing here arguing with the doc here, who has made it clear he won't budge.
In the village analogy, understand, ground can be reclaimed, crops regrown, houses rebuilt..but your freedom lost is a damn sight harder to regain. So you give up the ground, you go to the next village, you band together, fortify your positions, and dig in. I suppose we could let every village fend for itself, but rarely is that EVER effective. The village that stands alone, dies alone. Now break that down to subject, the Smoking Village, the Fat Village, etc. What we have then is a smoking battle, a fat battle, etc. No one wins that way. But, if we band together in a cohesive unit, intent upon one thing (the right to life without harassment), we actually stand a chance of knocking them down. I don't see that as moral cowardice, I call that choosing your battles with intelligence, as opposed to choosing ONLY the battle you're interested in. As smokers, we've already seen the battle ground, why don't we go show our worth to the next victims and help steer their efforts? A battle won for them is a battle won for us.
Civil disobedience isn't even a possibility now. We're too many villages spread too far apart. They will just come in, torch the village, kill the villagers and "let that be a lesson to the rest of you". Again I suppose you could stand in their path, but I personally do not see it as very brave to die alone in the hopes of stopping an army, each individual in the middle of their section of road. Pool your knowledge, pool your resources, pool your abilities, gather the little groups into a large one.
We are not SMOKERS, that doesn't define who we are. We are people, who happen to smoke, who happen to be fat, who happen to LIKE trans fats. We are people who wish to be free. Is our label as SMOKERS more important? It's just a label, it's only a part of what we are. Important to us yes, but is it really so important we win the lifestyle wars as smokers, or just important that we win?
You will note in my post above that the Gentleman was awarded damages for being exposed to ETS some 2 1/2 months previous.
No proof of harm required. Was he held in that restaurant against his will? Did people deliberately target him with ETS? Does he never encounter ETS while walking down the street?
"the court ruled that smoking in a restaurant in a manner that harms other diners is assault"
WTF does that mean?
"The new ruling could result in increased compensation for those harmed by second-hand smoke.
"
Who do you suit? The last place you encountered ETS?, the first? Individual smokers? Big T? The Government? Do you even have to prove that the "Harm" suffered is 100% due to ETS?
Sorry but this episode reeks of ratcheting up the denormalisation process. Even the courts are toeing the party line.
GreatScot
I disagree with it, but it is their choice to employ who they wish. I personally avoid buying products and services from people who think scum.
Walt;
"I do sincerely wish that some principled employer would in fact place a want ad for "smokers only."
If I were hiring I would do it without hesitation. There is no reason someone couldn't. I am simply offering a leveling of the playing field to allow smokers an opportunity others would deny them. In the housing market it is quite common to see non smokers only in the description, similarly ads seeking companions ask for non smokers while others state smokers are OK.
Many of the self important, will object however an employer advertising a smokers only rule as company policy are standing firmly on moral and legal high ground. Unless non smoking restrictions are found to be illegal in kind, smokers only is for the time being perfectly acceptable.
Now if we could only get a major employer to make a similar stand, the public discussions of self serving health scare hypocrites and that of governments encouraging the unrestricted hatred of smokers, could finally proceed.
I'm with Jalestra on this...not to abandon the smokers rights but to expand it to other people that are being harmed. These are people that will understand what will happen to them.
The level of harm foisted on them now is great compared to the past - it's Tobacco control in motion- it's socialism in motion.
The obese will understand and fight, perfume manufacturers will fight, people who use outdoor wood boilers, fireplaces and wood stoves that are being regulated right now - will understand and fight.
All of us will be effected by taxes and regulations of unprecedented levels if the man-made global warming movement [PETA-lite] get any sort of grounding in the government.
The NRA fight every day against regulation.
This is not just about smoking
Never was.
Make room for me in your corner LB……like the others, I am the one responsible for my own decisions, and the decision to smoke WAS and IS MY decision. As a free thinking adult over the age of 50, I certainly am NOT in the need of a nanny of any ilk. And the day I can no longer make my own decisions, is the day I will wish to die.
Richlady: I like the idea best (Ms. Cathy) that employers can refuse to hire smokers if and only if other employers could refuse to hire nonsmokers equally as well. Nice. Then what would your basis be for insisting ALL restaurants be non-smoking. Smoking restaurants could just hire smoking employees. You wouldn't mind, I trust, as you are all for the rights of private business people?
Richlady248
Ahhh Richlady, I agree with you on this, however, I should point out to you that the good Doc himself has told us that NO ONE should have to make the decision to accept such a risk, and if they do agree, then all the more reason to protect them for they are obviously NOT informed enough to make the decision, therefore bans are necessary to protect ALL workers.
TC is only all for the rights of private business people when it comes down to outright discrimination only to smokers. Even Mr. Bill who is a huge fan of an employers right to discriminate against smokers, will come unglued IF that employer extends that right to including the use of his favorite drug of choice “smokeless tobacco”.
Hypocrisy and lunacy is at an all time high and we can only pray our immune systems are strong enough to ward off any contamination of our mental capacities.
GDF: cause, ya know, if it did, workers, like say... bartenders, could choose employment environments that were suited to their own preferences. Like, some workers who smoke or don't care about smoke, might choose to work in environments that were smoke-friendly and some, who prefer not to experience even a whiff of smoke, might choose employment in working environments that were smoke-free.
Now GDF, you know that the Doc has stated that anyone who would choose to work in a smoking environment is NOT well informed and MUST be protected. But then when it comes to parental autonomy, children who have NO choice and are exposed for longer periods over a longer period of time, don’t need the same protection….because, well, the SHS just suddenly isn’t a “severe health hazard” and only qualifies as a “slight increase in risk”. Didn’t you get the memo?
Gilster: I'm with Jalestra on this...not to abandon the smokers rights but to expand it to other people that are being harmed. These are people that will understand what will happen to them.
I agree Gilster. I’m also with Jalestra here, however I disagree that those others WILL understand the similarity. It will take hard work on our part to get them to see the connection. Anytime it’s mentioned now, they all claim there is NO connection because being fat does NOT harm others. They still agree with smoking bans and the denormalization of smokers, and see the “war against obesity” as a totally different and separate issue. Their brainwashing is complete and we have to UNbrainwash them. Will we have the time, that is the question?
" The court ruled last Thursday that restaurant owners must tell customers who refuse to stop smoking to leave, and likewise make it clear to employees that they will be fired for smoking. According to the court, failure to take such action constitutes a violation of civil law, and would require the restaurant to pay compensation.
In addition, the court ruled that smoking in a restaurant in a manner that harms other diners is assault and negligence according to civil law. This is a significant change in the courts' approach to violations of the smoking law, which in the past had treated the cases as the lesser transgression of "violating a legal obligation."
What this would confirm first and foremost is the citizenry are slaves to the state. The business employees without compensation by the state are under an obligation to the civil authority to enforce the law. Irrespective of the dangers that may bring upon themselves, with no training to guide their actions and protect the safety of themselves or other patrons present. While forced to impose the demands of the state whether they believe the law is justified or not. All in spite of the fact the risks of patrons casually exposed to cigarette smoke are not proven in science or are they even credible. Certainly no one casually exposed could ever prove a linkage to [immediately or many years later] physical harm.
Recent discussions of endothelial dysfunction amoung non smokers as the only argument presented, after the fact. Endothelial dysfunction as a risk, among non smokers actually demands another thought; if Endothelial dysfunction is a hazard among non smokers increased exposure mitigates the risk.
No one is more exposed than a smoker to ETS and by the numbers; less than half of smokers will die from the total of all smoking related diseases combined.
By smoking related percentages a number much lower than half is observed when concentrating on the causal effects of endothelial dysfunction alone, it would appear smokers risk is not elevated substantially if at all above the population norms, despite the fact the much larger majority is exposed to much lower dosages. From a previous link .0001 cigarettes an hour or .0008 per 8 hour day compared to an average of 20 cigarettes per day an elevation close to 20,000 times the dosage.
With physical observation noting endothelial dysfunction is not seen to be a chronic symptom among smokers or even a majority of them, we have to conclude; increased exposures to ETS would have to reduce or eliminate the risks of endothelial dysfunction among non smokers.
Similarly In research such as the Helena study; the belief would be the effects of smoking are long term effects taking many years to develop. If smoking bans are demonstrating reduced heart ailments short term, smoking could not possibly be the cause of those ailments.
Further investigation of what else occurs when smoking bans are put in place needs to be considered in order to find the actual cause.
Otherwise the "long term" understanding held so confidently by the medical community for so many decades, would have to be seen as a mistake, and other assessments to adjust for that mistake would also have to be made.
Those re-assessments would make epidemiology into a much larger industrial enterprise, as the majority of smoking related research is readjusted to find a new integrity of the research and the so called experts.
What is deliberately avoided in discussions of the endothelial function or dysfunction, goes well beyond Michael's description of the deadly effects of a Big Mac.
If we were to succumb to the logic being presented by the Public health conspiracy we would also have to agree, in realizing the functions of endothelia;
only non smokers not exposed to ETS would suffer from smelly socks and arm pits.
All non smokers would likely die prematurely from the effects of any foreign exposures, Bruises or cuts.
Smokers would all collapse in shock when entering or leaving an air conditioned building.
Eating anything would constitute a severe coronary risk.
Breathing anything [pure oxygen or contaminated air] would equally constitute a severe health risk. With more immediate effects seen from clean air.
The long term coronary effects of any smoke or particulate matter inhaled including the puffers of asthmatics would have us all dying prematurely whether we smoke or not, as our blood would clot within our bodies our hearts would not regulate to compensate for required higher respiration and blood flow in effect of exercise, or we would simply bleed to death from the effects of every pin prick long before we saw any coronary effects of the risk derived of sticky platelets.
Jalestra--
I didn't say you shouldn't also do what you suggest; just that it neither entails or requires ceding your own ground or your own interest. No reason you can't do both. What the Ministry of Health is doing right now is dividing society and picking off the elements one by one. "When they came for the gypsies..." is exactly the pattern. And it's likely to succeed for exactly the same reasons. And if you win for the fat folks, even the fat folks will still hate the smokers. It's quite unlikely you'll be retrospectively freed-- and certainly not if you've politely surrendered.
But that's beside the point. The point is you don't give up when you're right. You don't just shrug and let them have Czechoslovakia and say you'll fight for Poland. Yes, it's the same "enemy" and the very same principle, so you don't give them Prague. Either.
Civil disobedience and economic boycotts are still good weapons. And it's not too late. Homosexuals took crap for nearly a century. In 1969, in New York City, the finally rioted and overturned the bans on their meeting in "public places." What do you think would happen if all the smoking nurses at Hospital X went on a slow-down? Or all of the workers at Company Y smoked in the office? What do you think would happen if smokers in large numbers boycotted their city's restaurants and bars? And refused to buy products made by Company Z-- and wrote them and told them why?
:
Walt, how do you propose getting people to CARE enough to boycott? To not go into work one day? To risk their jobs by smoking at work one day? It's easy for folks to get on here and talk the talk, but most folks will back down when it's time to walk the walk. They can't afford a missed day, they can't afford to lose their job (not necessarily true in every case, but you'll hear it alot). Quite frankly, many smokers got their chance to stand on several instances. When the hospital demanded only non-smoking employees, there could have been a mass walkout...why wasn't there? Same thing, need the job, need the money. Even the nurses, WITH A NURSING SHORTAGE, are afraid of losing their job. If those that are almost guarenteed employment elsewhere (due to shortages) won't walk out, why would Joe Blow from Lowe's?
I admit, Walt, I do not have any faith in the general populous. Not to mention, I don't know how to drive people, especially those unwilling to sacrifice to save their own butts. Well, not in a peaceful sense anyhow. I suppose I could whip them into a violent frenzy, but somehow I don't see that turning out as well as one could hope. Bah, I should really leave the people part up to you guys that get along better with them. I might know strategy and tactics, but I don't know the villagers.
Yes, and if they only want to hire cocaine addicts that would be fine too. However I don't see it as a successful business model.
Scammer, don't come back too soon, we're still hounding you for proof...better run before one of the others notice and start asking questions you can't answer again.
As a medical doctor I believe Michael Siegel should advise his followers to be careful they don't choke to death on their own rancor.
I'm sure your advice, minus the years of medical school, will be oh so greatly appreciated.
This from the Tobacco Scam;
" As a medical doctor I believe Michael Siegel should advise his followers to be careful they don't choke to death on their own rancor."
Now considering the source;
Michael should feel entirely confident and proud of the ethical conduct and reasonable attitudes found on this blog, compared to the socio pathetic rants found elsewhere.
In example; At admitted "scamer's" blogs which by comparison, can't accept any discussion which does not match the parroted and quite likely slanderous tripe presented.
Cathy once said her work was done; well your dog did it again Cathy, clean it up, like the obedient and obviously well trained sheep you emulate.
Sorry if most of us are not willing to be assimilated so easily.
You bent over so easily this time out, you will be much easier to bend over next time obedience is required.
tobaccoscamalysis >>
Yes, and if they only want to hire cocaine addicts that would be fine too.
Well, maybe with the exception that cocaine is ILLEGAL.
But then again if they are essentially the same thing as you infer, maybe we need to legalize it and base our health care system's funding on it. Hows that?
Actually, if they want to hire only coke heads, they have a right to. Their business will stand or fall on that. It's not illegal to hire coke heads, to just have coke.
So yes, scammer, let them hire coke addicts! I believe in freedom. If they want to waste their money, doesn't bother me. Hell, they might surprise me!
Doh, that above me was....forgot I cleaned out my cookies.
Rancor?
Um. Dictionary Thesaurus: rancor: spite, hate, hatred, resentment, malice, ill will, malevolence, animosity, antipathy, enmity, hostility, acrimony, venom, vitriol.
Don't think that describes us, dearie.
:
It seems clear that words are no longer enough - I suggest mass distribution of a sample ballot with a "no" box checked in front of every anti-tobacco candidate's name and a "yes" box checked for every candidate who at least has an open enough mind to remember what America was all about.
An Anti Story.
There is a restaurant I have eaten at for about 15 years.I have a personality quality similar to the character Michael Clarke Duncan played in The Green Mile.I have over the years displayed this ability a few times to talk people through some very intense situations like an asthma attack in this case.I call it a form of empathy.I cant cure a disease but I can help a person through an emergency and send them for help to the right place.
One of the owners of this establishment is an anti.One of his waitresses was having an asthma attack.She stood in front of me and asked for help.I told her take my hand.She did so.I very gently talked to her holding her hand for about 15 minutes and successfully talked her through the attack.She had to go home afterward.
What proceeded to happen afterward seriously bothers me.She was fired and I never saw or heard from her again.I was asked not to talk to his waitresses too much.This all happened this way because this owner discriminates against smokers and has done so in various situations over a number of years.This post should be seen by every employer who discriminates against anyone in any way.Your movement has no shred of morality or decency left in it.I would also take this post and ask everyone in your movement if they support how this situation was handled by this owner?I already know the answer.By participating in this movement they are supporting this.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
