Anyone still smoke?

[Red Squirrel]

I never smoked. Thought of trying it when I was younger but did not really want to get into that. Figured, it's not hard to quit something you never started.

 

[Markbnj]

I never smoked. Thought of trying it when I was younger but did not really want to get into that. Figured, it's not hard to quit something you never started.

I suppose the ability to resist peer pressure when you're young might be some reflection of the will-power it takes to quit the habit when you're older.

 

[rsbennett00]

I suppose the ability to resist peer pressure when you're young might be some reflection of the will-power it takes to quit the habit when you're older.

I wonder if that's a comment on society and when you grew up. I graduated in 94 so there wasn't any peer pressure for me as a child, no one smoked, it was known to be a serious problem.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I suppose the ability to resist peer pressure when you're young might be some reflection of the will-power it takes to quit the habit when you're older.

In retrospect quitting was way harder. It would have been a hell of a lot easier to resist the peer pressure in the first place. Nicotine addiction is a bitch and the psychological addiction could be even worse.

 

[Markbnj]

I wonder if that's a comment on society and when you grew up. I graduated in 94 so there wasn't any peer pressure for me as a child, no one smoked, it was known to be a serious problem.

I graduated almost twenty years before you, but there are a lot of other factors. Socio-economics is huge.

 

[Phoenix86]

really? texas has not banned smoking in public places yet?

State law, it's banned in public places.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.48.htm

Cities generally regulate businesses and some ban it outright, others allow it in "alcohol based", and the owner wants to allow it.

 

[Muse]

Have never considered it for 1/2 a second since I gave it up. Usually, even a whiff of SHS irritates me, not always, though. In general I figure smokers for idiots and fools, wasting their time, money and health on a foul practice.

 

[BikeJunkie]

In general I figure smokers for idiots and fools

Yep :thumbsup:

- BJ

 

[QueBert]

Ahh, the tried and true "correlation == causation" argument. Well played :thumbsup:

Welp, stress leads to shit like people going postal, and smoking relaxes people. When I use to piss my dad off to no ends he would light up and literally be calm as a sleeping baby by the time he finished the smoke. On the flip side when he didn't have any cigs left I'd feel his wrath for much much much longer. I thank god he didn't quit smoking until long after I was out of the house, because had he stopped when I was in high school I probably wouldn't be here today.

 

[DrDoug]

Like a steam train. :biggrin:

If people want to focus on smoking and health issues for the employer, wait until the employer and insurance companies get into your hobbies. Like to race on the weekend (flat track, oval, straight, paved dirt, bikes, cars, etc)? Then your 'habit', via an accident, could cost the employer a valuable employee and higher insurance costs. Extrapolate that to any hobbies that could be dangerous to your health and watch what happens...lol! Keep picking on smokers if it makes you feel better. One day, when the smokers are all gone, your 'habit' may be up next on the chopping block.

Must we must sacrifice of ourselves to make sure that we behave in ways that our employers and insurers approve of? Is that your definition of "freedom"?

 

[IronWing]

Must we must sacrifice of ourselves to make sure that we behave in ways that our employers and insurers approve of? Is that your definition of "freedom"?

My definition of freedom includes not being subjected to the vice of asshole smokers.

 

[mattpegher]

study upon study has found that by quitting before 30 the chances of health consequences are reduced to the point where it's almost the same as nonsmokers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/quitting-smoking-before-40-erases-damage-to-health-1.1304433

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20040608/quit-smoking-before-age-35-to-regain-health

that's just a couple, of course not smoking is way healthier, but non smokers can still develop emphysema and COPD without ever being near a cigarette.

Although the lay literature clings to this notion, none of the peer journal literature suggests that.

 

[Ruptga]

My definition of freedom includes not being subjected to the vice of asshole smokers.

You're never going to be completely free of that unless all smoking stops or all people stop being assholes. Those two things will probably come to pass at the same time as lawyers and politicians stop lying, HR and HOA people stop being uptight, old people stop watching the news, and the last person dies. We are what we are.

 

[MrRamon]

Yes

 

[Kaido]

http://i.imgur.com/9aqCdms.jpg

 

[BUTCH1]

No exaggerations. Smokers are assholes, that's why they smoke. To be assholes. To everybody around them. "Hey, I'm in a crowd, looks like it's time to light up!" Total assholes.

Yea, that's why I smoke, just for the pleasure of annoying strangers..:whiste:
BTW I respect others and make it a point NOT to smoke in an area where it's going to float over other people and your statement "blowing smoke in peoples faces" is a crock of shit, I've never done that, ever. I get the feeling here a smoker somewhere along the line kicked your ass hence the hostility, smoking IS nasty and it's why I WON'T light up in a crowd. I'm at 50/50 with the E-cigs so far and I hope to be 100% E-cig in a few months.

 

[phucheneh]

Holy fuck, I opened this thread up and was almost knocked unconscious by the cloud of retardation that escaped from it. I can't possibly bring myself to read all this, but I hope a few select things have been addressed.

Then the week before, I was at the walgreens drive through and some woman pulled up behind us smoking. Yeah, I'm dead serious, smoking at the health store! It filled my car with so much smoke I had to leave and go inside to get my meds. I'm definitely switching to cvs now.

Jesus god, are you eleven years old? There are so many things wrong with this simple paragraph...I am amazed you could possibly function as an independent adult on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, we can't hire smokers because of the health risks associated.

Uh. That's illegal. What non-illicit things someone does on their own time is none of an employer's fucking business. Openly proclaiming that you will not employ smokers is no different than not employing people for other chosen 'disabilities,' like being fat or Christian.

Is it? Smoking lowers workplace productivity and it raises absenteeism.

So does being black.

*gasp* 'You can't say that!'

No, what you mean is...you can't study that. However, if there were workplace efficiency studies based on race, I bet a million bajillion dollars that they would show that it is preferable for your employees to be Hispanic. Or Asian.

Why do we not see 'yellows only' job applications? Because it's fucking illegal. Stereotyping someone based on whether or not they consume tobacco products is no different than choosing to employ someone based on whether or not they're fat or black. Fuckin' racist.

 

[Leros]

I knew a handful of people that smoked. Sometime over the last year, every single one has switched over to vaporizers.

 

[Brainonska511]

Uh. That's illegal. What non-illicit things someone does on their own time is none of an employer's fucking business. Openly proclaiming that you will not employ smokers is no different than not employing people for other chosen 'disabilities,' like being fat or Christian.

Not necessarily and it depends on the state. My quick google search says that Federal law does not protect smokers from discrimination on the basis of smoking. Only ~30 states have protections to protect smokers from discrimination in employment.

 

[BUTCH1]

Holy fuck, I opened this thread up and was almost knocked unconscious by the cloud of retardation that escaped from it. I can't possibly bring myself to read all this, but I hope a few select things have been addressed.



Jesus god, are you eleven years old? There are so many things wrong with this simple paragraph...I am amazed you could possibly function as an independent adult on a day-to-day basis.



Uh. That's illegal. What non-illicit things someone does on their own time is none of an employer's fucking business. Openly proclaiming that you will not employ smokers is no different than not employing people for other chosen 'disabilities,' like being fat or Christian.



So does being black.

*gasp* 'You can't say that!'

No, what you mean is...you can't study that. However, if there were workplace efficiency studies based on race, I bet a million bajillion dollars that they would show that it is preferable for your employees to be Hispanic. Or Asian.

Why do we not see 'yellows only' job applications? Because it's fucking illegal. Stereotyping someone based on whether or not they consume tobacco products is no different than choosing to employ someone based on whether or not they're fat or black. Fuckin' racist.

I'll have to agree 110% with the moronic OP's post but it is in fact possible to not be employed because of nicotine presence, we have a company nearby in Ormond beach FL (Homac) that states on the employment application that if you test positive for nicotine during the pre-employment drug screen you will not be hired, those who were already smokers when the policy took effect were "grandfathered in" so to speak. Also EVAC, (the local ambulance Co.) will not hire you if you smoke, both companies include nicotine testing as part of a random drug test, a positive on either means your fired and you will not be eligible for unemployment either. We all stand by and watch as our constitutional rights get trampled one by one and most here rail against Unions but here in FL we could sure use 'em, I got fired in '12 just for arguing with a co-worker who got caught loafing and tried to throw me "under the bus", never threatened him in any way and barely raised my voice but it was a violation of the "anti-violence" policy, reality was I was there 15 years and they wanted to replace me with a cheaper alternative, the $17/hr I was making was just killing profit!. I did win my unemployment case and received the FL max @275/wk, I'm still bitter to this day over that shit.

 

[phucheneh]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that discriminating based on tobacco use was a violation of federal law.

Pretty fucked up shit, right there. Not to get too political here, but that's pretty much a prime example of the 'freedoms' that a certain group claims to defend- freedom for a corporation to trample all over individuals. Corporations definitely aren't people; people don't have as many rights.

Wonder how a private company banning alcohol and instituting blood testing would go over?

Nah, that'll never happen- without the intoxicant of the masses to unwind, people might actually put up a fight.

 

[BUTCH1]

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that discriminating based on tobacco use was a violation of federal law.

Pretty fucked up shit, right there. Not to get too political here, but that's pretty much a prime example of the 'freedoms' that a certain group claims to defend- freedom for a corporation to trample all over individuals. Corporations definitely aren't people; people don't have as many rights.

Wonder how a private company banning alcohol and instituting blood testing would go over?

Nah, that'll never happen- without the intoxicant of the masses to unwind, people might actually put up a fight.

Alcohol has a short detection "window" as far as urine testing but is detectable in a hair follicle test, one has to wonder when DNA will start to be examined, I'm sure Co's would rather avoid anyone with a family history of alcohol abuse or cancer or renal problems, that means time off work and a spike in the group dynamic in insurance usage, can't have that.

EDIT: Laws may vary from state to state, I know here in FL they generally favor the employer heavily. I was reading about the dude who was the first person to buy pot legally in Washington was on TV, his employer also saw the clip and random-tested him then canned him when it came back positive. Urine testing has always been a joke anyway, pot is lipid (fat) soluble so someone could test positive for weeks after they actually smoked it, thing is drug-testing is a giant cash-cow for the likes of Labco and Quest, they charge $100-150/test, then use the same type of strips you can buy off Ebay for $2-7 depending on how many drugs it tests for, if it's negative then that's it, if it's a positive then it must go through MS/GS for "conformation" testing, that cost around $300 but since around 94% are negative the profit is staggering. They also line the pockets of politicians who favor testing and come up with their own-financed "studies" showing how much safer the workplace is when they random-test the workforce.

 

[raasco]

None of your GD business.

 

[raasco]

State law, it's banned in public places.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.48.htm

Cities generally regulate businesses and some ban it outright, others allow it in "alcohol based", and the owner wants to allow it.

Sweet. Let's ban radon gas while we're fucking at it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Alcohol has a short detection "window" as far as urine testing but is detectable in a hair follicle test, one has to wonder when DNA will start to be examined, I'm sure Co's would rather avoid anyone with a family history of alcohol abuse or cancer or renal problems, that means time off work and a spike in the group dynamic in insurance usage, can't have that.

http://www.genome.gov/10002328
It's against the Federal law to discriminate against people on a genetic basis in regards to health insurance. But for life and disability insurance, they are free to keep discriminating (so be careful if you want to be genetically tested for something and consider getting those insurances first, and/or talking to a genetic counselor).