Red Squirrel
No Lifer
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 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.
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.
State law, it's banned in public places.really? texas has not banned smoking in public places yet?
Ahh, the tried and true "correlation == causation" argument. Well played :thumbsup:
My definition of freedom includes not being subjected to the vice of asshole smokers.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"?
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.
My definition of freedom includes not being subjected to the vice of asshole smokers.
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.
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.
Yes, we can't hire smokers because of the health risks associated.
Is it? Smoking lowers workplace productivity and it raises absenteeism.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.