RE: Second hand smoke

RE: Second hand smoke (Full Version)

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

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 8:35:07 AM)
quote: Snubbing Smokers At Work A European Commission ruling says that employers can sack workers who light up — even if only out of office hours. Is it the boss's business if you have a cigarette after dinner? After an Irish job ad stipulated that "smokers need not apply," that question was put to the European Commission, which decided that employers refusing to hire smokers do not breach European anti discrimination laws. Source: http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html Surrender one freedom and which one do you give up next? Sex can directly transmit diseases that will kill you. There is no doubt that "second hand sex" kills. Can you argue that the same logic used in the case of smokers isn't applicable to sex?

meatcleaver -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 8:39:26 AM)
The EU is run by a bunch of fascists as far as I am concerned and the reason the proposed European constitution was kicked out on its arse. Sex will be next and junk food etc. etc. Soon they'll pick on something that those rabid anti-smokers will take issue on and they'll find out the hard way that it is all about the power to impose ones will on someone else and nothing to do with health. I hate social work politicians as much as I hate social workers.

BrutalAntipathy -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 8:43:53 AM)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30418?issue=4227&special=1996

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 8:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Snubbing Smokers At Work A European Commission ruling says that employers can sack workers who light up — even if only out of office hours. Is it the boss's business if you have a cigarette after dinner? After an Irish job ad stipulated that "smokers need not apply," that question was put to the European Commission, which decided that employers refusing to hire smokers do not breach European anti discrimination laws. Source: http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html Surrender one freedom and which one do you give up next? Sex can directly transmit diseases that will kill you. There is no doubt that "second hand sex" kills. Can you argue that the same logic used in the case of smokers isn't applicable to sex? There are employers here that fire workers for smoking. I would wonder if you support this? I would also say that many employers perform drug screenings on their employees, is this wrong? I do not know how I feel about either issue, but there is something to be said about health insurance rates for private business going up because of smokers in the work force. I will also say for those of you that bitch because of fat people being as big of a health risk as smokers, the employer does not set the medical insurance rates, the insurance companies do. And fat people are often passed over for jobs even more than smokers are.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 9:20:26 AM)
quote: There are employers here that fire workers for smoking. I would wonder if you support this? I would also say that many employers perform drug screenings on their employees, is this wrong? I do not know how I feel about either issue, but there is something to be said about health insurance rates for private business going up because of smokers in the work force. julia, No, I would not fire workers for smoking. As a non smoking citizen I wouldn't vote for any candidate or support any referendum that removed any freedom from circulation, including one like smoking that I didn't partake. As an employer, I would take advantage of any insurance program that offered a discount for non-smokers, but I would not use any company that prohibited smokers from having insurance. If there was an appreciable difference I would disclose it to my employees, pay the amount that was at the "non-smoker" rating and advise the smokers they would be personally responsible for the difference. I would also, one time, pay for any quit-smoking program to give them the opportunity to qualify for the non-smoking rate.

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 10:48:42 AM)
That is all well and good that you have that attitude, but I have to ask, do you think that employers of private businesses have a right to demand that their employees be health conscious and be nonsmokers? I am not asking what you do personally as a business owner, I am asking if you think a boss should be able to fire people for smoking outside of work.

Termyn8or -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 6:19:44 PM)
I smoke at work. I used to smoke outside at my last job. At that job sometimes the owner would pull into the parking lot and ask "Do I pay you to smoke ?" to which I would reply "Handsomely". I never go to work drunk or high, it is a requirement that I have a working brain. What I do in my off time is my business, in fact I did some coke about three weeks ago. This is none of their business and I want all my money now. Stick your health insurance and your retirement plans up,,,, well just don't let them get a sunburn. BTW, you may ask what I would do if I got some nasty disease or something without health insurance ? The answer is that I would die if I didn't find a cure. That's all. T

MistressOfGa -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/13/2006 7:48:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Moga; It is common fucking sense that you don't smoke in hospitals or grocery stores. Those people were not too smart. Smoking or non, use the yellow pages. When a business is "Clean Air" compliant, there is more. Smoke from the kitchen must be exhausted, way up high, if the parking lot is to be non-smoking. Thirty feet would do. The restaurant furniture would be tested for outgassing, and nobody is allowed in if you can smell anything on them, including perfume. Violate, go to jail. I would actually agree to these terms, to be polite to non-smokers. But it does not seem to be enough. Nothing is ever enough for certain people. What I need to remind myself of is that this is a public place, and sociopaths and meglomaniacs are just as likely to be here as anyone else. The nice thing is that these nuts hear our words, something that would never have happened without these fora. When people start talking about me smoking in my car on the freway, that is too much. T I quit smoking 3 years ago. I smoked 4 packs a day when I quit. I smoked for 33 years. I have no problem with someone smoking in my car or around me, just do not blow it directly in my face. I will support smokers rights to have a choice as to bars/restaurants that they can smoke at. I will raise a picket sign against those who try to take personal choices away from anyone. If I go into a bar where there are smokers (I work in bars) THAT is MY choice to do so. If someone told me I couldn't go into that bar, because I don't smoke, I will fight it. If a group of people told me that I couldn't go to an all black school, because I am white, I would fight that too. In other words, I will not stand to have my choices taken away from me, for any reason.

Alpjumper -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/15/2006 7:30:52 PM)
So, I am a chemist and chemical engineer by trade... I LOVE THIS CONVO... >:) Ok I do smoke... I love to smoke... I fully understand why people don't want the smell etc... FINE.. While all you "RIGHT TO BREATH CLEAN AIR" people go after something that really matters? Here are some examples: Teflon Pans... SHOULD BE BANNED... Why? Well when you leave a pan on a burner, every one does this sometime, the Teflon coating over heats at 410 F. This does not sound like a big problem, well it is... There is a chemical released in the form of a gas its called "Poly-tetra-fluoroethylene" this is VERY toxic. if you have a small bird in the house, the house is 5,000 sq ft. and you burn a common 16" pan they will die. This is amount of the gas is called Half LD. or other wise known as half lethal dose for humans. .... Also this chemical in repeated doses causes catalytic destruction of the human systems. For this there is no cure or treatment.. In small doses this causes "Polymer Fever" which is NOT the most comphy thing to have :D.... I don’t know... HMMM SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THATS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN SMOKERS... but call me crazy :D Next Example: MTBE... Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether... Well this is in LOST of gasoline to help the environment... well folks that just is not the case.. This compound has not been tested as to its effects on Humans, plants and animals... Hmm.. BUT, we burn millions of gallons of this chemical (non combustible oxidizer) and it is killing ever green trees, has been found in harmful levels in drinking water, and is generally BAD for peoples breathing... HMMM I don't really know folks.. but this one looks like a BIGGER PROBLEM THAN SMOKERS... Diesel School buses... Hmm.. Now this is a great example.. Diesel fuel releases over 40 hazardous and/or cancer causing chemicals in vapor form. The particles from this exhaust toxic gas or other wise is small enough to damage lungs all by them selves. Children are more susceptible to damage than adults to most of these chemicals and small particles. But... our children across the nation ride a combine time of 50 million hours of exposure per year.. that’s allot. One child from K through High school Graduation will spend an average of 2340 hours in this high toxin environment... We wonder were all the lung problems come from.. The air quality levels inside a school bus are worse than smoking 3 packs of cigarettes per HOUR.... Hmm... I think that the man above might be right... every one can get cancer, smoking is not a common denominator... but SCHOOL BUSES MIGHT BE :D Just some food for thought. SO... all you anti-smokers... keep up the good fight to get BAD BAD smoke out of public places... AND LETS ALL KEEP THE KIDS ON DIESEL BUSES SO OUR TAXES STAY LOW!!!! :D

LadyJulieAnn -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/15/2006 8:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30418?issue=4227&special=1996 I love The Onion! [:)]

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/15/2006 8:44:23 PM)
I agree with everything in your post, but then again I am a leftist hippie pinko granola eating freak....

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 6:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpjumper Teflon Pans... SHOULD BE BANNED... Why? Well when you leave a pan on a burner, every one does this sometime, the Teflon coating over heats at 410 F. This does not sound like a big problem, well it is... There is a chemical released in the form of a gas its called "Poly-tetra-fluoroethylene" this is VERY toxic. if you have a small bird in the house, the house is 5,000 sq ft. and you burn a common 16" pan they will die. This is amount of the gas is called Half LD. or other wise known as half lethal dose for humans. .... Also this chemical in repeated doses causes catalytic destruction of the human systems. For this there is no cure or treatment.. In small doses this causes "Polymer Fever" which is NOT the most comphy thing to have :D.... I don’t know... HMMM SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THATS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN SMOKERS... but call me crazy :D You know, I've been talking about those pans for well over 20 years...since very shortly after they first hit the stores. They release those chemicals...not only when one leaves a pan on the stove...but at normal temperatures necessary for some types of cooking. People always looked at me like I was crazy. The funny thing is though...even when people are educated about the dangers of them, most of them still continue to use them because of their convenience. Yup...even the health concious non-smokers. They also continue to suck down sodas full of Nutra-Sweet, add Splenda to their coffee, spend hours in the sun or in tanning booths, fill their bodies full of Botox and pop every new wonder drug that comes on the market. Seems that some major health risks are worth taking if they are convenient enough or if they advertise that you won't get fat by using them or that they will make you look better. Of course that thin, unwrinkled, tanned "healthy" appearance is certainly worth what your vanity will cost you down the road.....right????

MistressLorelei -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 7:23:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Alpjumper Teflon Pans... SHOULD BE BANNED... Why? Well when you leave a pan on a burner, every one does this sometime, the Teflon coating over heats at 410 F. This does not sound like a big problem, well it is... There is a chemical released in the form of a gas its called "Poly-tetra-fluoroethylene" this is VERY toxic. if you have a small bird in the house, the house is 5,000 sq ft. and you burn a common 16" pan they will die. This is amount of the gas is called Half LD. or other wise known as half lethal dose for humans. .... Also this chemical in repeated doses causes catalytic destruction of the human systems. For this there is no cure or treatment.. In small doses this causes "Polymer Fever" which is NOT the most comphy thing to have :D.... I don’t know... HMMM SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THATS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN SMOKERS... but call me crazy :D You know, I've been talking about those pans for well over 20 years...since very shortly after they first hit the stores. They release those chemicals...not only when one leaves a pan on the stove...but at normal temperatures necessary for some types of cooking. People always looked at me like I was crazy. The funny thing is though...even when people are educated about the dangers of them, most of them still continue to use them because of their convenience. Yup...even the health concious non-smokers. They also continue to suck down sodas full of Nutra-Sweet, add Splenda to their coffee, spend hours in the sun or in tanning booths, fill their bodies full of Botox and pop every new wonder drug that comes on the market. Seems that some major health risks are worth taking if they are convenient enough or if they advertise that you won't get fat by using them or that they will make you look better. Of course that thin, unwrinkled, tanned "healthy" appearance is certainly worth what your vanity will cost you down the road.....right???? Not all non-smokers do these things... I have avoided teflon for years since I found out about the harm. The big difference is it is our individual choice to either harm our own body or not. Would it be okay if I forced you into a tanning booth, made you suck up the fumes to a teflon pan while walking through a public building, or if shoved nutrasweet or a drug of my choice down your throat. If the surgeon general, and a host of other professionals found teflon pans harmful to all, and people (rightly so) became collectively aware and feared for their safety as teflon was proven to be killing people regularly....and people began to not want exposure to its harm, it would likely not be used in public places either, but you would have the right to cook with one at home.

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 7:46:46 AM)
Nowhere did I say "all" non-smokers do these things. Once again you seem to continue to draw the same sentiments from every post and assume that all smokers are trying to force something upon you. NO ONE here has said that. If you read my posts on this thread I have never waivered from the postion that no one should be forcing or imposing the consequences of any of their personal choices onto another. It is about personal choices...and I am not trying to have non-stick pans banned. I am not trying to have Nutra-Sweet and Splenda pulled from the shelves. I am not trying to have tanning booths outlawed. I am not trying to introduce legislation against Botox or any other pharmaceutical compound. If people wish to consume or use any of those products it is their choice and their right. Just as if people wish to smoke....SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IMPOSING THAT CHOICE UPON YOU....it is also their choice and their right to do so and no one should be trying to have that right taken away through any legal channel. I'm not sure where the disconnect is exactly. This is the same sentiment that I have seen shared over and over and over again on this thread....so why you are still coming from the perspective of being "forced" and "violated" by others choices is really beyond me at this point.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 8:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Nowhere did I say "all" non-smokers do these things. Once again you seem to continue to draw the same sentiments from every post and assume that all smokers are trying to force something upon you. NO ONE here has said that. If you read my posts on this thread I have never waivered from the postion that no one should be forcing or imposing the consequences of any of their personal choices onto another. It is about personal choices...and I am not trying to have non-stick pans banned. I am not trying to have Nutra-Sweet and Splenda pulled from the shelves. I am not trying to have tanning booths outlawed. I am not trying to introduce legislation against Botox or any other pharmaceutical compound. If people wish to consume or use any of those products it is their choice and their right. Just as if people wish to smoke....SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IMPOSING THAT CHOICE UPON YOU....it is also their choice and their right to do so and no one should be trying to have that right taken away through any legal channel. I'm not sure where the disconnect is exactly. This is the same sentiment that I have seen shared over and over and over again on this thread....so why you are still coming from the perspective of being "forced" and "violated" by others choices is really beyond me at this point. "Forced" and "violated" because public places are for everyone. No one should have to walk into a public place and be exposed to carcinogens. No non-smoker (or smoker) should have to say, 'well, I can choose not to eat or shop or work in public (indoors) to avoid cancer causing agents ... or I can not go out in public. Public should be safe for everyone, not just for those who don't believe second hand smoke is harmful. When something has been determined to be harmful to the people in a public place, it's common to remove the harm. Ever been evacuated for a gas leak, a possible fire? Did you fight it? Why don't smokers and gun rights activists stand up for other things that are banned? Why not fight to bring back unsafe, recalled tires, the drug phen phen, lead paint? It's a person's right to take dangerous drugs, drive unsafe cars, etc., yet these things are banned, and as long as it's not your gun or your second hand smoke... it's fine, I guess.

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 8:15:18 AM)
I have never bought a teflon pan, I use cast iron.

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 8:15:35 AM)
I really wish that you would point out which post on this thread it was where anyone said that you should be forced to go into a public place that allowed smoking. It seems that you have an emotional response to smoking and gun issues. That is fine. Your choice....your right. But I would certainly hope that you would not expect anyone to adjust their life because you don't personally like something.

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 8:30:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I really wish that you would point out which post on this thread it was where anyone said that you should be forced to go into a public place that allowed smoking. It seems that you have an emotional response to smoking and gun issues. That is fine. Your choice....your right. But I would certainly hope that you would not expect anyone to adjust their life because you don't personally like something. I could go back and find people that said exactly that, but I have other things to do with my time and the question was directed at another... seriously, go back and read where I believe scootertrash stated he should be able to smoke in any restaurant he liked and screw us nonsmokers. Several said it, scootertrash was the only one that I specifically remember because I have enjoyed his other posts immensely.

mistoferin -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 8:41:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I really wish that you would point out which post on this thread it was where anyone said that you should be forced to go into a public place that allowed smoking. It seems that you have an emotional response to smoking and gun issues. That is fine. Your choice....your right. But I would certainly hope that you would not expect anyone to adjust their life because you don't personally like something. I could go back and find people that said exactly that, but I have other things to do with my time and the question was directed at another... seriously, go back and read where I believe scootertrash stated he should be able to smoke in any restaurant he liked and screw us nonsmokers. Several said it, scootertrash was the only one that I specifically remember because I have enjoyed his other posts immensely. Wow...Scootertrash said you should be forced to go there? I went back and re-read what he said and I didn't see that part. I did see where he said that he would not choose to give a restaurant that did not allow smoking his business. I believe it would be your choice also to not give a restaurant that allows smoking yours.

juliaoceania -> RE: Second hand smoke (8/16/2006 10:59:05 AM)
No, he said I should be excluded from going there if I do not want to breathe his smoke, which to me is the same thing as forcing me to breathe it. I have worked in restaurants, and basically I need to make a living and I am forced to breathe smoke in order to do so, that is just wrong.. I am being forced to do so if he smokes and I am working in the same space as him. I guess when I was a waitress I could have decided that I would rather not pay my bills and be homeless or breathe smoke though, but I guess many people would choose to breathe someone;s toxic bullshit rather than starve.. if you call that a choice (I don't)

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875