RE: Smokers ned not apply

RE: Smokers ned not apply (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 6:01:31 PM)
Multiple LE agencies adopted 'no tobacco use on or off the job' (And weight control, grooming standards, political activity restrictions, etc.) as a condition of employment long before Weyer. I The courts upheld these, not based solely on any special goverment need or privilege, but because of basic labor law principles that an employer has the right to select his or her workforce. Hollywood has long had contracts requiring their employees to abstain from perfectly legal behaviors (a 'no motorcycles' clause comes to mind). No fraternization off the job is another 'right' of employers. And IRC correctly, the Dr. Pepper company's policies on employee's personal behaviors off the job were upheld in the courts in the 1970s. Weyer may have been first in the US with the nicotine screenings, but not the first to ban tobacco use, or other behaviors.

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 6:59:31 PM)
LE and military are certainly exceptions.. Personally I'd rather not have the 400 pound smoker with radical political views and a penchance for small boys protecting my neighborhood...

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:02:35 PM)
You already do... it says 'Security' on his sleeve...[8D]

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You already do... it says 'Security' on his sleeve...[8D] Hrmm.. this neighborhood, all the patches say Police Department".. lol Doesn't matter.. I'm more heavily armed than the cops around here.. at elast while they are on duty.. LOL

Sinergy -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:27:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen What I view as hypocrisy is that our government is on the one hand berating us for smoking and costing the health system a fortune........ whilst on the other hand its relying on the equivalent of eight dollars per packet sold in taxes to provide health services..... E I dont smoke. Why the hell should I pay my taxes to support the medical outcome of somebody else's addiction? Cant afford the cost, quit the habit. Can afford the topic, light up. Sinergy p.s. On a related note, does the Government still subsidize tobacco farmers?

thornhappy -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Multiple LE agencies adopted 'no tobacco use on or off the job' (And weight control, grooming standards, political activity restrictions, etc.) as a condition of employment long before Weyer. I The courts upheld these, not based solely on any special goverment need or privilege, but because of basic labor law principles that an employer has the right to select his or her workforce. Hollywood has long had contracts requiring their employees to abstain from perfectly legal behaviors (a 'no motorcycles' clause comes to mind). No fraternization off the job is another 'right' of employers. And IRC correctly, the Dr. Pepper company's policies on employee's personal behaviors off the job were upheld in the courts in the 1970s. Weyer may have been first in the US with the nicotine screenings, but not the first to ban tobacco use, or other behaviors. I know there are companies that manufacture integrated circuits and they prohibit smoking for the people working in the fabrication plant. Few things shed particles like smokers, so they end up contaminating a clean room. Same with perfume and makeup. thornhappy

instynctive -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:49:11 PM)
And the sign said "long haired freaky people need not apply" So I tucked my hair up under my hat And I went in to ask him why He said "You look like a fine outstanding you man, I think you'll do!" So I took off my hat and said "Imagine that! Huh! Me, workin' for you..." I know the gov't isn't subsidizing the kudzu farmers any more...

angelic -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:57:37 PM)
i am a smoker. i am not proud of it and i am considering quiting because i have found a new addiction that i want to use my money on (no it is not drugs). i love how they use the cost of health care, etc. to punish smokers. The last time i went to a doctor was for my thumb (had nadda to do with smoking) before that, i honestly can't remember. So to all you non-smokers out there who claim i am costing you money... think again, you probably go to the doctor with more aches and pains than i ever will. :) my x-husband used to say 'the only people that we can legally discriminate against are smokers'.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 7:57:47 PM)
Not that I could find but then again the data is muddied because the money goes to coop's now and not made entirely public. It would appear the answer is no but a corn coop may have some tobacco growers within it that may qualify. A coop may plant a type of crop just to lose money on so they can collect on it from the government. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen What I view as hypocrisy is that our government is on the one hand berating us for smoking and costing the health system a fortune........ whilst on the other hand its relying on the equivalent of eight dollars per packet sold in taxes to provide health services..... E I dont smoke. Why the hell should I pay my taxes to support the medical outcome of somebody else's addiction? Cant afford the cost, quit the habit. Can afford the topic, light up. Sinergy p.s. On a related note, does the Government still subsidize tobacco farmers?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 8:00:42 PM)
Obesity may be next..... http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_healthy/htmlpages/costs.htm Orion

Alumbrado -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 8:10:06 PM)
A Japanese firm developed a toilet a few years back, that analyzed employee's urine for precursors to diseases, and, pregnancy, as well as ingested substances.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 8:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I dont smoke. Why the hell should I pay my taxes to support the medical outcome of somebody else's addiction? Cant afford the cost, quit the habit. Can afford the topic, light up. Sinergy p.s. On a related note, does the Government still subsidize tobacco farmers? Good point . So logically it follows: I don't use IV drugs, so why the hell should my tax dollars help subsize for AIDS treatment. Or for Hep C treatments. Or Hospice care when they become terminal. And I don't really drink much either. So why should my tax dollars go to subsidize the medical consequenses of that addiction ? Like liver transplants. Just sayin. mbmbn

popeye1250 -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 8:43:42 PM)
I smoke but if they want to outlaw it fine by me. But, they're going to have to do away with a lot of things that tobacco taxes pay for like "pre-school", and a whole long list of other things that $100B in taxes now pays for. Go right ahead!

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 8:53:09 PM)
YEA!!! More anti-smoking rules and people who have figured it out, allowing someone to commit slow sucide and murder is wrong. I worked with one company wher they tested for alcohol, nicotine and the 'normal' drugs at the pre-employment physical and randomly. One applicant got pissed adn said it was a violation of his rights, his rights nothing, the entire proprety was 'no smoking' not even in the parking lot; you had to go into the street since the sidewalk was private property. I love it, I could breathe and not have an asthma attack walking between the buildings. Honestly with all the proof that second hand smoke kills and that smoking will kill yuo, why on earth would anyone WANT to smoke, I know nicotine is addicting, but like every other addiction, you CAN get over it and beat it; you have to WANT too. Smokers get NO sympathy from me, I like breathing, and its hard enough in the valley. Smokers are basically commiting sucide and we have laws against that, as well as they are committing slow murder to those that are around them, and we have laws against murder.

slaveish -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/3/2007 9:01:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot It seems a new trend is being set. Pre employment drug screening for nicotene. I am almost speechless. And yet it is not illegal to smoke cigarettes. Ironic, ain't it?

ownedgirlie -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:00:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Mbmbn, I posted about this two years ago....everyone thought it was a joke. I also said at that time that there would come a day when you could be fired for getting caught eating french fries on your lunch hour. That was a joke too. Well, we're getting closer and closer to that reality. Wonder when people will no longer think it's funny? I made my friend order fries at lunch today and I picked at them off his plate....would that make me an accessory? Would I get probation, you think?

Mistressor -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:12:42 AM)
The government (in Australia, I don't know about everywhere else in the world) makes a fortune on tax on cigarettes. If anyone really gave a shit, they could simply ban smoking. Then all the non smokers will be bitching and whinging about paying more tax. I smoke, pay taxes and pay for private health insurance. No ones subsidising me, so get fucked, I'll smoke if I want to, while ever it's legal. I also sponsor a child (not MY fault Africa can't sterilise mothers to stop more babies being born), support Greenpeace (not MY fault animals are being killed to extinction) and Amnesty International (not MY fault that other countries kill and torture their own). Get off the pathetic "I shouldn't have to (insert whinge)" and look at the big picture.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:19:51 AM)
The problem started when people started taking political correctness seriously, it gave oxygen to the new age puritans. We have ended up with socialwork politicians like Blair taking us to war because he believed it was the right thing to do, not because it was the right thing to do or not, that didn't appear to concern him. We live in a fucked up society were decisions are made based on emotions and not the intellectual consideration of how to solve a problem, which is why we have the war on drugs rather than dealing with drugs in a rational way. As for cigarettes, what a nonsense, you are sanctioned for taking part in a legal activity where the government needs the taxes from the activity so it won't ban it but postures to placate the rabid cancerous puritans amongst us.

domiguy -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:26:59 AM)
We are talking about two seperate topics....Cigs are legal...They have been around forever...Are they good for you?...NO. I am an employer I have two prospects I might hire they are both equally suited for the job...One smokes the other does not....I'm hiring the non-smoker. Why would I hire the person who smokes?

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smokers ned not apply (7/4/2007 1:40:41 AM)
quote: Why would I hire the person who smokes? Why wouldn't you? It's not like that smoker is going to be sitting next to you blowing smoke up your nose as you work.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875