Beyond a smoking ban.

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Coeloptera, May 20, 2008.

  1. Coeloptera

    Coeloptera G&G Newbie

    Smokers need not apply with the Sarasota County government | WFTS-TV | First in HD

    Now, we've all been a lil' riled up against each other in some threads this and last week. So here's something I'm pretty sure will unite us total outrage.

    "SARASOTA COUNTY, FL -- Smokers looking for work need not apply with the Sarasota County government.

    On Monday, a tobacco-free hiring policy went into affect for all new job applicants.

    The policy requires anyone applying for a job with the county to acknowledge that they have not smoked in the last 12 months.

    All applicants will also be screened for tobacco use during a new-hire physical exam."

    Okay, now I don't smoke. Hate the smell, hate what it does to my throat. But this? This is what happens when the prohibitionary mindset takes hold. First it was the War on Drugs, soon...the War on Tobacco.

    Insurance companies are to blame for this, I think, at the heart of it. They hate paying out...ever. So they start to put pressure on people to ban certain substances. Just watch, they're going to try and slip BMI into this soon. Then "Do you eat meat?" "Do you engage in premarital sex?" "Own any guns?" for one am just glad I'm living where I am, where Vice is king and Lady Luck is queen.

    Learn these words and fear them: "Potential risk factors."

    - Coeloptera
  2. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Alaska Airlines used to require this as well when you answered their application. Although I'm not a tobacco user, I thought it to be a foul. Even worse for a government run organization.

    It's a control thing, coel. How can we regulate your life in every way ? I'd worry more about government than the insurance companies, though. Or that terrible combination--government colluding with insurance companies. This is where universal health care could lead us. If the gov't picks up the tab for your health, it'd feel it could regulate your life in every way (how much and what kind of cheese you ate, when you could eat red meat, with whom and how much sex you get, how much you have to work out and how--maybe even have a "state run" workout machine that measured everything, sent the results to uncle sam, and fed electricity back into the grid--clever adults would get around this by having their kids work out for them--you name it). We need to stop the madness. This isn't OK.

  3. Grumpus

    Grumpus Curmudgeon Emeritus NRA Life Member

    The thing is, smoking is a legal activity. There is no federal ban on the possession, use or sale of tobacco products, except for smoking in federal buildings. Therefore, the Sarasota County folks have laid themselves bare for an appropriate lawsuit - which they will eventually lose.

    Until there is a legal federal ban on selling, using and possessing tobacco products, these folks have a tendency to jump in and dictate what they're going to do - without benefit of the electoral process - and some smoker will walk away with bunches of cash from the court settlement.
  4. CrazyIvan

    CrazyIvan G&G Enthusiast

    Employers have a right to set a health standard for their employees. You can't join the military if you have HIV, for example. (it's not against the law to have HIV) You can't go into active duty in the military unless you meet certain height/weight/body fat ratios. (it's not against the law to eat, sell or trade fattening foods either) You can't work for UPS if you can't lift 50 lbs due to some medical reason. (it's not against the law to have arthritis either)

    Smoking causes health problems. Health problems cause disruption in work schedules. Minimization in work schedule disruption is one of an employers' focus.

    Tobacco is a drug, and employers have the right to require their employees to be drug free. I don't care if they are public or private employers. In my opinion, it is their perogative, so long as they do not discriminate against race, sex, age or orientation.

    As free as you are to choose to smoke...they should be free to either hire you or not depending on the choice you make about drug use.
    Last edited: May 21, 2008
  5. Even though I smoke . I'm not against employers hireing non smockers.
    When I was an assistant manager of a discount chain I had to sneak around to smoke LOL !
    It took away from productiveity really and consider the health issues.
    I once heard about a man who owned a logging company years ago that wouldn't hire or tolerate his men smokeing while working for him.
    his reasoning was I hire you to use both your hands and if you smoke I'm only paying for one hand.
    Well thats pretty corny, but makes since.
    I've been smokeing since I was 15 years old, so that makes me an expert about smokeing.
    It's stupid ! It's stinks ! It's kill'in you and others ! It slows you down ! It exspensive to smoke and I wish they would take them off the market to make us not be able to buy them and smoke them !
    They've shortend my life and winded me and I probably am going to die a horrible death from smokeing.
    That's reason enough isn't it for employers not to hire a Tobacco Head ?
    Last edited: May 21, 2008
  6. I think so AH. But what do I know? I smoke too and it's a nasty habit and I wish I never did start.
  7. genwinters

    genwinters Guest

    i think there are certain tobacco products that shouldnt be allowed to be sold i.e. cigarettes. but i think cigars and pipes smell and taste pretty nice. so its a selective issue with me
  8. Grumpus

    Grumpus Curmudgeon Emeritus NRA Life Member

    ArkansasHunter, I'm not saying I don't agree. I'm a smoker for the last 45 years...

    I'm just saying that there are legal issues in unilateral pronouncements by government officials that can blow up in their faces. Private firms are free to do what they wish. It's when people make the law without the consent of the governed that they violate everything from union agreements to constitutional guarantees.

    Oh, Ivan? But the military must take you even if you smoke...
  9. Mooseman684

    Mooseman684 G&G Newbie

    So where is all the Tax Money(Billions) generated by Tobacco use going to come from if there is no Tobacco, or use allowed...???
  10. Coeloptera

    Coeloptera G&G Newbie

    Now there's a fascinating question, Moose. A very fascinating question.

    Who gains? That's a pretty big source of revenue they're looking to cut off if things keep going this way.

    - Coeloptera
  11. I dont see a problem with it. I personally think smoking should be banned its bad for you and people arround you. Washinton state passed a few ban and ive loved them. The first one was no smoking in restarunts and bars which was great since smoke bothers me. The passed a 2nd one after that where you cant smoke with in 25 feet of any door public or busines. I have really enjoyed these bands when I go out to eat im not getting a headache from people smoking like chimneys and its nice to walk around town with out seeing used butts and having to smell smoke everytime I go in or out of a shop.
  12. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor

    I don't like walking through clouds of smoke whether it be in a restaurant, bowling alley, or outside leaving from work. It's a person's own right to smoke, but I'm not totally upset that they require non smoking employees. It probably has to do with healthcare because smoking is one of the largest causes of preventable disease. It's right up there with obesity. They cause some of the same medical conditions. I see quite a few smoking related diseases on the wards.
  13. DWFan

    DWFan Handgunner Forum Contributor

    Oh please, anti-smoking "supporters" need to remember that driving their car for 15 minutes pumps more carcinogens and other toxic chemicals into the air than I can by chain smoking an entire carton of cigarettes. If you drive a diesel, it's worse. You don't think so, you sit in a running car in a closed garage all night and I'll sit in an enclosed garage and smoke cigarettes all night, and we'll see who walks out in the morning. What anti-smokers are saying every time they turn that ignition key is "You don't have the right to pollute my air, but I have the right to pollute yours." I don't like smoking; I believe it is a nasty, life-threatening addiction. Last time I checked though, driving a vehicle wasn't.
  14. TexasT

    TexasT Devil's Advocate >:) Forum Contributor

    We can't really "prevent" having to go to work or transporting goods. We can however prevent diseases caused by smoking. We have been waiting for our government to make cleaner, more efficient methods of transportation but they have failed us. My view on smoking is highly personal because second hand smoke affects my lungs more than pollution. And I can safely say that because I live in the Houston area. We go over our emissions more than we're allowed per year.
  15. I smoked and used tobbaco for twenty-eight [28] years I quite useing it in 1984 and haven't had a cigerette or any other tobacco product since.
    Today I cannot say that smoke doesn't bother me--- it does so does the stale smell of used tobbaco and old tobacco smoke. In point of fact I don't even enjoy the odor of wood smoke anymore and I used to look forward to sitting around the campfire with hunting buddies in the fall I still sit around the campfire and shoot the bull but I usually sit a little furthur away.
  16. Midas

    Midas Chief Troll B' Gone Forum Contributor

  17. that would be true if this was the private sector

    but what about women eh? should employees show preference in hiring for state position for a man over a women due to the woman possibly becoming pregnant and forcing them to pay for maternity leave and what not?

    my old boss (swaim and associates) didnt want to hire another woman because of children or the possibility of children, which he has every right to do as a private business owner, but the state? no thanks, its all or nothing, they cant pick and choose who they want to discriminate against
  18. Coeloptera

    Coeloptera G&G Newbie

    The problem with this almost defines "slipperly slope".

    One admittedly bad habit shot down. It's legal, but potentially bad for you.

    What is next?

    Alcohol consumption?

    Eating meat?

    Lack of exercise?

    Risky hobbies?

    Premarital sex?

    Just wait. See what they try to get through next. All of those things are potential risk factors that may effect your health.

    We'll see who's first to say "Exercise or you're fired." The response will likely be a raft of made-up "conditions" as to why someone can't. The legal frenzy will begin as lawyers choose up sides.

    - Coeloptera