Can we apply similar logic to all dangerous activities like sports?
Ns1, riding the slippery slope since 1983.
Fine with me, it's the idea of praising MJ smoking and persecuting tobacco smoking that I don't understand. They should be treated equally.
I suspect they eventually will be as more people openly smoke MJ and the health effects become more openly known.
MJ smokers reek, too. Nobody wants to smell that anymore than they want to smell a walking tobacco ashtray.
Regardless of one's attitude on smoking... cigarettes are a legal, non-intoxicating product. Smoking doesn't really affect job performance unless you're taking frequent smoke breaks. It's not like pot, drugs, or alcohol that impair performance and present safety risks. I can't see how this will possibly hold up in court. There will definitely be a fat law suit.
Ever work with a smoker who needs a smoke but can't take a break? If that doesn't affect job performance, what does? That's why they need to take so many breaks. No matter how you cut it, an employee who smokes has a bit of a handicap compared to the non smoker (with equal skill and work ethic).
I believe at this point, there's no use trying to explain anything to you. You're too close-minded to even listen to logic and reason. No matter what anyone posts or what pictures they post, your brain somehow comes up with an excuse to try to rationalize it away as not having resulting from chewing tobacco. You're either being obtuse on purpose or you're just stupid. Enjoy the pizza
I like to keep plutonium in my pocket. I know it's toxic for me and everyone around me that gets exposed to the radiation, but it's my freedom of choice. Other people can choose to stay away from me as well, but I don't always make it easy for them.
I like to keep plutonium in my pocket. I know it's toxic for me and everyone around me that gets exposed to the radiation, but it's my freedom of choice. Other people can choose to stay away from me as well, but I don't always make it easy for them.
In Alabama, the state's largest employer, UAB, will start actively screening job applicants for nicotine and will turn away smokers starting in 2013. Period. (Okay, people that smoke, chew, snuff, basically anything.)
And they think that this will legally be upheld. Weee!
Non smoker takes just as many coffee/tea breaks = zero sum game
Bwhahahahaha.
This thread is irony at its best. Welcome to the world of a cannabis user.
Alcohol impairs your ability to think rationally and slows down your reactions. So do any number of prescription and OTC meds. But they're not all illegal.
As for smokers being denied jobs - in an ideal world, they should be given an option to check a box signifying they smoke. They get charged a higher amount than non-smokers.
Allowing companies to dictate what you can and can't do in your private life isn't appealing to me because it's a slippery slope. It starts with the illegal drugs and things that are stigmatized. But it could very easily move to encompass other things. Do you like to partake in extremely dangerous activities like rock climbing, bungee jumping, and sky diving? Sorry, you're at an increased risk of accident and injury. We can't consider your application.
Banning employment due to use of an illegal substance (no matter how much we disagree with the legality point, it's technically illegal and the point should be clear) is, imho, not directly comparable to banning employment/firing someone due to use of a perfectly legal substance.
What's next, the start of a new Temperance movement? Do we not hire anyone who even touches the drink? Fire someone if we dare see them raise the drink to their lips?
Just don't pay into any employer-group insurance plans. We should have the right to do what we please when we aren't at work, and if we punish our health, we pay for it without employer subsidies. Sounds fair enough, imho. Ban it at the workplace, to some degree that's fine imho... but outright preventing employment is just ridiculous.
<---
not a smoker, but a snus-user. also, a drinker. the former I will give up once other aspects of my life have been given due attention, the latter you won't even pry from my cold dead hands!
But even then, I don't want to be prevented from even having the once a year cigar or whatever in an appropriate setting. So you have a job that's nicotine free. You have your first taste of nicotine in however longs its been, celebrating something by enjoying a cigar with your mates, then you get fired for pissing hot for nicotine the next day (because you forgot about your jacket, it smelled of cigars and they tested you like the pricks they are).
Non smoker takes just as many coffee/tea breaks = zero sum game
Not where I work. We get to sit at our desks and have our beverages. Smokers have to take the elevator, walk 5 minutes outside, etc.. 1 smoke break = 15 minutes away from desk.
The only time I take breaks like that is to take a shat
I've worked at many different places, both as a job and now in my career field, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this is not true. Most coffee tea drinkers fill their cup and go back to their desk where I work. Smokers have to walk out across the road, smoke, then come back, then get their drink, and go back to their desk.
Ok, so who is starting the 'What snus is in your mouth RIGHT NOW' thread???
I've worked at many different places, both as a job and now in my career field, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this is not true. Most coffee tea drinkers fill their cup and go back to their desk where I work. Smokers have to walk out across the road, smoke, then come back, then get their drink, and go back to their desk.
Its not zero sum, its more like smokers take the breaks, most others don't unless they just need to get up for a few minutes.
N&J White Heat :thumbsup:
Banning employment due to use of an illegal substance (no matter how much we disagree with the legality point, it's technically illegal and the point should be clear) is, imho, not directly comparable to banning employment/firing someone due to use of a perfectly legal substance.
What's next, the start of a new Temperance movement? Do we not hire anyone who even touches the drink? Fire someone if we dare see them raise the drink to their lips?
Just don't pay into any employer-group insurance plans. We should have the right to do what we please when we aren't at work, and if we punish our health, we pay for it without employer subsidies. Sounds fair enough, imho. Ban it at the workplace, to some degree that's fine imho... but outright preventing employment is just ridiculous.
<---
not a smoker, but a snus-user. also, a drinker. the former I will give up once other aspects of my life have been given due attention, the latter you won't even pry from my cold dead hands!
But even then, I don't want to be prevented from even having the once a year cigar or whatever in an appropriate setting. So you have a job that's nicotine free. You have your first taste of nicotine in however longs its been, celebrating something by enjoying a cigar with your mates, then you get fired for pissing hot for nicotine the next day (because you forgot about your jacket, it smelled of cigars and they tested you like the pricks they are).
The perspective change between "illegal" and "legal" is so thin, it effectively doesn't matter. In fact, the only real argument against cannabis is that it's illegal.
Oh, I know. It's still ironic though. The fact that cannabis is illegal is just a technicality. It shouldn't be any more illegal than cigarettes or alcohol, and based on the number of users, for all intents and purposes it may as well be legal. The perspective change between "illegal" and "legal" is so thin, it effectively doesn't matter. In fact, the only real argument against cannabis is that it's illegal.
That's starting to change. We now have two states where cannabis is outright legal, and it should have been three. I can't believe Oregon lamed out.
Anyway.. I don't support this move, I think it's just as much BS as testing for cannabis. If I come to work and do my job satisfactory, that is all that matters.
One problem - it doesn't work the same way for cigarette smokers as it does cannabis users. You can't keep a cigarette smoker from their fix for 4+ hours, while a cannabis user can easily go 8-12 hours without their fix. I'm not really sure how you deal with that in this scenario. If you smoke cigarettes, being banned from smoking at the work place effectively bans you from smoking.
Every place I have worked that had timed breaks it was 15 minutes.Not where I work. We get to sit at our desks and have our beverages. Smokers have to take the elevator, walk 5 minutes outside, etc.. 1 smoke break = 15 minutes away from desk.
The only time I take breaks like that is to take a shat