Smokers and Democrats

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by AV8R, May 5, 2005.

Loading...
  1. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

  2. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Well, despite what politicians have been trying to stuff down our throats for the last 100 or so years, tobacco and alcohol is a drug just like pot and others. (and don't get me started -- tobacco is just as bad as pot when it comes to health problems, accidents on the job, as well as affecting the lives of other people).

    If we can ban MJ just "because", then banning tobacco shouldn't be that big of a deal.

    Personally, I think tobacco, pot, alcohol, as well as other "life altering" substances are a personal issue unless it affects the well-being of others (and I am not talking about affecting your sensibilities). Should you choose to use these substances, then you alone should reep the consequences.

    I can say from a personal point of view, I cannot even be around a smoker. I refuse to sit in an closed office with my boss as he reeks of smoke and I cannot take it. (HR concurred with me on this one). I like the fact that I can go in a restaurant or bar. and not have to taste someone else's smoke in my meal. If you choose to kill yourself by smoking or drinking excessively, then be my guest (one less idiot in the world). Just don't do it to me.
     
  3. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I am sorry to see it. I encourage ALL Republican politicians to develop a two-pack-a-day habit without delay! No, come to think of it, WITH Delay!

    Actually, it's interesting. There is really NO doubt that smoking is a MAJOR, if not THE major, public health issue in America today. Smokers DO claim a disproportionate share of health services. (You don't think so? Go check out the various public health sites, like the American Cancer Society, the U.S. Surgeon General, and of course the American Heart Association.)

    Buit this employer doesn't give his employees an obvious choice; work here and smoke at home but be therefore ineligible for our health insurance.

    It should.
     
  4. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    I agree with the employers stance. I work in a dangerous semiconductor fab. We have random drug tests as a mistake might, and in other fabs, has caused grave injury and death to other employees. If I choose to do drugs, then I choose to accept the consequences. This employer is simply stating a fact that tobacco use increases there health costs. Yes, he will help you out to stop your habit. But if you are unwilling, then find another job. Smoking is not a right - nor is it a disablity. Certainly no employer has to pay the bill for your habits.

    (BTW: I don't smoke, do any drugs except perhaps massive caffine infusions and usually only drink when it is up in the Napa Wine country with a nice glass of Merlot)
     
  5. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Don´t let them fool you. Tobacco consumption is a slow, deliberate suicide. It has claimed the lifes of hundreds of thousands across the world. I am the living proof that nomatter how addicted one is, it is possible to quit it almost effortlessly (I used to smoke about two boxes of Marlboro a day, and if I did it anyone can). With all the money I have saved (and will potentially save) I can enroll in basically any program I wish (provided I were accepted, of course). I encourage anyone with a smoking habit to seek help. It was so easy (terrible at brief moments, BTW) that I am sooooo pissed I didn´t do it earlier. There is a best seller book by Allen Carr, a clever British guy who rationalizes the whole thing behind this tabacco addiction, that some may find helpful.


    Regards
     
  6. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    (1) If you choose to go into a saloon with a bunch of morons who are there to kill their brain cells and their liver cells (most of whom like to set their lungs on fire, too), I can hardly sympathize with your complaints about dealing with all the smokers there too.

    (2) My parents' old 1958 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an idiot as "a person afflicted with idiocy. Idiots are incapable of connected speech or of avoiding the common dangers of life." Since I did once score a 165 on an IQ test, I think I'm capable of avoiding the common dangers of life. And I assure you that I am capable of connected speech. By the way, as to the common dangers of life, I am capable of avoiding death from lung cancer. I just choose not to.
     
  7. Mel

    Mel New Member

    Health care costs only account for part of the extra costs associated with smokers - according to the article it costs an extra $2000 on average to hire a smoker because of lost productivity, dur to the smoking breaks and more illness.

    This employer has a right to set terms in his contracts. Nobody is forcing his employees to work there, and he did what he could to help those who were already working for him. As for those who refused a nicotine test, he had the right to fire them too, if the test was a condition of employment. I suppose some of them might have moved onto smokeless tobacco, so would fail the test, but that stuff is just as dangerous.
     
  8. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    And what's next? By grand imperial decree, perhaps, health services should be denied to sick people? Maybe?
     
  9. spmoran

    spmoran Member

    The company I am contracting to right now, Alaska Airlines, simply will not hire anyone who used nicotine in any form. Even patches. At first I thought it was discrimination, but I guess that since it's a company wide, across the board policy that applies to all potential applicants it's within their rights.
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Wait a minute! Is that "used"? Or "is currently using"? In other words, Alaska Airlines wouldn't even hire someone who quit smoking two decades ago and doesn't have cancer or emphysema (sp?) or any other dread disease? Shouldn't we also discriminate against entire classes of individuals who are at risk for AIDS, cirrhosis of the liver, heart attacks, and whatever else? C'mon, man, we've all got to die sometime! Or maybe this is more about the death of common sense, which really isn't so common as was once commonly supposed.
     
  11. spmoran

    spmoran Member

    Forgive me, but I mis-spoke. It is "using or have used within the last six months". I think that part of the rationale is that many airline employees work on flights, which are non-smoking. So in order not to discriminate against a single class of employees, they apply the policy across the board.
     
  12. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Well, I'm just a little bit too afraid to figure out how much $2.00/pack x 2 packs/day x 365.25 days/year x 18 years is. Because then I could divide by roughly $10 per used book and figure out how many more used history books I could have bought. On top of the 5,000 I already have.
     
  13. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Wow, that´s quite some library, Ted. Impressive.

    Well, sorry, but if you had invested that money in books, your library would be about 50% larger. :(
     
  14. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    In other words, are you telling me that I could have bought copies of Sir Arthur Evans' _The Palace of Minos at Knossos_ and _The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies and Navies in the War of the Rebellion_ and still had enough to pay cash on the barrellhead for the first year's tuition on a Union doc? Sheesh! Expensive habit! Well, as Fred Flintstone once said, "It takes a smart man to realize he's dumb!"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2005
  15. Veteran101

    Veteran101 New Member

    Gosh!!

    Old Larry had a good article going until he brought in the Democrat card, the class envy card, and the right wing conspiracy.

    Funny, when you look at the top wealth in the nation. Oprah, Roosevelts, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Soros, Gates, 99.9% of Hollywood, one will find the Democrat ilk.

    When you review his comment about Montgomery County Maryland and the home invasion what do you find???
    A Democrat controlled county with 4-1 margin, and yes, one of the most wealthy counties in the nationl.

    Restrictive smoking laws. The toughest in California, Vermont, Maryland, and New York. Wow! All Democrat again.

    Why didn't Larry just report the smoking item? Why do all these left wing writers have to instill their political bend, mostly when it is filled with half truths.

    As for my opinion, on politics I can't stand either party considering nowadays, modern Democrat speak reminds me of the writings of Karl Marx and modern Republicans seem more in line with LBJ. Give us back the old Truman Democrat and Reagan Republican then we might have a two party system that is once again worth a darn!!!

    As for the smoking question. Well, tobacco caused the deaths of my grandfather, grandmother, aunt, mother-in-law, and a few friends. I don't smoke, cannot stand smoke, and cheer the latest Georgia law. I don't, however, feel it is right to invade the privacy of one's home as with Montgomery County, Maryland.

    Gov. Sonny Purdue said it right on Friday.
    He did not like to sign a bill with big brother standing over public enterprise, but with todays technology vs. that of 30 years ago, one must ask why does anyone even feel the need to light up today? It kills you, harms those in closed areas with this poison, and why should the general public have to foot the bill?

    All in all, if you do not smoke, young or old, and feel the need to drop over $4-$5 a pack on 20 sticks of death in todays world, you have to be a idiot.

    Cheers!
     
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Gosh!!

    I understand that the Democs remind one of Karl Marx (this has been so since the 1930s), but why do the Repubs remind one of LBJ (a Democ)?
     
  17. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Gosh!!

    And wouldn't you think that smoking ought to be okay either in separately ventilated enclosed areas (incredibly stale though the smell thereof may be) or outside (where the atmosphere will be plenty of room for the smoke to escape)? I'll be dog-goned if some fascist health police is going to tell me that I can't light up right here in my own house in my own basement at my own computer!
     
  18. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Gosh!!

    The technically correct definition of an idiot is one who is incapable of connected speech or incapable of avoiding the common dangers of life. I am perfectly capable of connected speech and I voluntarily choose not to avoid this one common danger of life (smoking).
     
  19. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Re: Gosh!!

    Gosh! Sorry about all your friends and relatives! Or are you saying that they're just a bunched of (now-deceased) idiots?
     
  20. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    (1) (a) It would certainly be nice if people actually learned their Constitution in High School Civics classes. The Ninth Amendment states, very explicitly: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Translation: Just because the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights failed to include a clause, section, article, or amendment saying:"Thou shalt have the perfect right to light up, especially if it is good Virginny tobacky" doesn't mean that they're saying that there is no right to smoke.

    (1) (b) No competent health care provider that I know of would deny that drug addiction is a disability. And since tobacco is both (i) addictive and (ii) a drug (albeit, one that's legal, at least for the time being), it necessarily follows that being addicted to the nicotine drug is a disability, mahn!

    (2) Personally, I don't think that employers should provide health insurance or any other fringe benefits at all. Everybody working at the same job for the same company with the same education and the same number of years experience should make the same pay - and all of it in the long green stuff. Then, from amongst your array of employees, those who want health insurance can buy it on their own while those who prefer to simply pay cash for their health care, or are otherwise insured, or are too healthy to need health care, or just don't care about their health can have that money for other things. As to the bargaining power of buying in quantity, I suppose that some reasonably intelligent, motivated employee can organize an insurance buying pool among his/her fellow workers. Of course, I wonder why health insurance should exist at all, since the existence of third-party payers only serves to artificially inflate prices.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2005

Share This Page