Smoking bans for private businesses

[JSt0rm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_Ergonomics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health

^^^ look at this government take over of what people sit on!! Those people should just work somewhere else if they dont like the chairs they sit on.

What about this fool.

Harry McShane, age 16, 1908. Pulled into machinery in a factory in Cincinnati. His arm was ripped off at the shoulder and his leg broken. No compensation paid.

^^^^ he should of just not worked there eh? Free markets?

 

[LegendKiller]

Its funny watching the "progressives" argue against personal choice/freedom.

It's funny to watch "free market" loonies defend abusive labor practices by those with capital and the continuation of those abusive practices outside of human decency and societal benefits.

But hey, the 18th century founding fathers justified slavery, "inferiority" of women and minorities. The 19th century people justified child labor, horrible working conditions and continuation of slavery. The 20th century people justified societal advancements, including womens sufferage, child labor laws, environmental laws, quality of work laws, among others.

I guess the chromagnum knuckle draggers here would love nothing more than return to 18th century thought and quality of life, including limited infrastructure, massive labor abuses, higher child mortality, poorly educated people, and an agrarian economy.

 

[alkemyst]

They can protect themselves by not working where they're exposed to things they don't want to be exposed to.

qft

 

[xj0hnx]

It's funny to watch "free market" loonies defend abusive labor practices by those with capital and the continuation of those abusive practices outside of human decency and societal benefits.

Letting patrons smoke in an establishment is "abusive labor practices"? Or is that just a completely unrelated thought you just felt like throwing out there?

 

[LegendKiller]

They can protect themselves by not working where they're exposed to things they don't want to be exposed to.

That's easy for you to say but practice is something a bit less effective, especially considering that this type of activity can disqualify more jobs than qualify since smoke affects an entire area, affecting not one job, but dozens.

Smoking is a vile habit that has massive secondary effects and huge societal ones. The costs of smoking are distributed society wide for the benefit of the few. This selfish behavior costs taxpayers, private companies, private consumers, and society as a whole a massive amount of money, probably far more than any other addiction once you consider the secondary, tertiary, and n'th order effects.

 

[LegendKiller]

Letting patrons smoke in an establishment is "abusive labor practices"? Or is that just a completely unrelated thought you just felt like throwing out there?

Sure, it is.

People like you aren't following this logically.

 

[xj0hnx]

Sure, it is.

People like you aren't following this logically.

I'm following it quite clearly thank you, I just think you are completely wrong.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm following it quite clearly thank you, I just think you are completely wrong.

Not really. You are following it rather horribly, as with the rest of your braindead idiots above. I suggest you guys leave sleeping dogs lie before I lay the bitch slap on your stupid "free market" thoughts. Let this thread die like you and your ilk let the state Senators one die.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not really. You are following it rather horribly, as with the rest of your braindead idiots above.

Brilliant, simply ...brilliant. Wouldn't want to bother composing some type of discourse, just save time and jump straight to the bottom of the barrel, unfortunately, it's no surprise.

Oh scary, gonna get "bitch slapped" by the scary eThug LOL. What a tool.

 

[LegendKiller]

Brilliant, simply ...brilliant. Wouldn't want to bother composing some type of discourse, just save time and jump straight to the bottom of the barrel, unfortunately, it's no surprise.

Why should I bother posting discourse when you and your ilk run away like cowards every time I do? It's easier to try this strategy first since you, yourself, haven't really posted much substance here.

Face it, you aren't interested in discourse, you're interested in supporting one-liner posts and soundbytes fed to you from Faux Newz. You couldn't care less about rationality nor logic.

Call me an "eThug"? Bitch, please, the only "thugs" on here are people like you who can hardly post a cogent reply worth more than the pittance of bandwidth you waste in inflicting it upon this threads reader's internet providers.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why should I bother posting discourse when you and your ilk run away like cowards every time I do? It's easier to try this strategy first since you, yourself, haven't really posted much substance here.

Face it, you aren't interested in discourse, you're interested in supporting one-liner posts and soundbytes fed to you from Faux Newz. You couldn't care less about rationality nor logic.

More brilliant commentary ...astounding. Amazing you even worked in Fauz Newz ...golf clap.

 

[LegendKiller]

More brilliant commentary ...astounding. Amazing you even worked in Fauz Newz ...golf clap.

I see you've still not posted anything beyond replying to what I posted. No logic, nothing of substance, nothing to actually back your point up.

But hey, you fell lock stock and smoking barrel for my strategy. Just proved my point.

You've got nothing.

 

[xj0hnx]

I see you've still not posted anything beyond replying to what I posted. No logic, nothing of substance, nothing to actually back your point up.

But hey, you fell lock stock and smoking barrel for my strategy. Just proved my point.

You've got nothing.

Now you're trying to turn it around? Come on, that's Junior Debate 101.

 

[alkemyst]

That's easy for you to say but practice is something a bit less effective, especially considering that this type of activity can disqualify more jobs than qualify since smoke affects an entire area, affecting not one job, but dozens.

Smoking is a vile habit that has massive secondary effects and huge societal ones. The costs of smoking are distributed society wide for the benefit of the few. This selfish behavior costs taxpayers, private companies, private consumers, and society as a whole a massive amount of money, probably far more than any other addiction once you consider the secondary, tertiary, and n'th order effects.

People think the same way about sex out of wedlock....should we ban that too?

 

[Patranus]

Sure, it is.

People like you aren't following this logically.

Using your logic the owner of a strip club should ensure that its stripers are not exposed to sexual harassment.

 

[alkemyst]

Why should I bother posting discourse when you and your ilk run away like cowards every time I do? It's easier to try this strategy first since you, yourself, haven't really posted much substance here.

Face it, you aren't interested in discourse, you're interested in supporting one-liner posts and soundbytes fed to you from Faux Newz. You couldn't care less about rationality nor logic.

Call me an "eThug"? Bitch, please, the only "thugs" on here are people like you who can hardly post a cogent reply worth more than the pittance of bandwidth you waste in inflicting it upon this threads reader's internet providers.

You have now proven yourself not worth listening to anymore since you are admitting you are just trolling for your own amusement.

 

[alkemyst]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_Ergonomics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health

^^^ look at this government take over of what people sit on!! Those people should just work somewhere else if they dont like the chairs they sit on.

What about this fool.

Harry McShane, age 16, 1908. Pulled into machinery in a factory in Cincinnati. His arm was ripped off at the shoulder and his leg broken. No compensation paid.

^^^^ he should of just not worked there eh? Free markets?

Wow...just wow.

 

[LegendKiller]

Using your logic the owner of a strip club should ensure that its stripers are not exposed to sexual harassment.

yes, because sexual harassment and the effects on society are exactly the same as second hand smoke, cancer and the costs on society.

I wouldn't have a single problem with smoking if those who smoked or were significantly exposed to second hand smoke were underwritten properly and/or were 100% ineligible for insurance coverage (public or private) for any smoking related illnesses.

To carry this out I would encourage insurers to be able to deny coverage based upon constant monitoring of all insureds, measuring exposure to second-hand smoking, giving them the ability to drop coverage or not cover pre-existing conditions (allowing insurers to share records).

Furthermore, I would allow employers to not hire people based upon smoking, or second hand smoking, from prior employees, as this increases their risks.

I could go on and on.

 

[matt0611]

Smokers or people who work in hazardous environments should pay more for insurance, isn't this logical?

If I work as a tree logger shouldn't I pay more for insurance than someone that works in a cubicle if I have a higher chance of getting hurt?

Theres no difference between someone choosing to smoke and to voluntarily go into or work at a restaurant that people are smoking. Both are risks and if you want to do either you are taking a risk.

Insurance providers should be able to deny you coverage if you have cancer, or not cover you if you smoke etc

 

[xj0hnx]

Insurance providers should be able to deny you coverage if you have cancer, or not cover you if you smoke etc

But then people will cry about not covering pre-existing conditions.

 

[matt0611]

But then people will cry about not covering pre-existing conditions.

Some may cover pre-existing conditions at an additional cost. Thats their choice.
But forcing a company to insure something that is broke or someone who is already sick at the same price as someone who is healthy makes it no longer an insurance company.

 

[LegendKiller]

Smokers or people who work in hazardous environments should pay more for insurance, isn't this logical?

If I work as a tree logger shouldn't I pay more for insurance than someone that works in a cubicle if I have a higher chance of getting hurt?

Theres no difference between someone choosing to smoke and to voluntarily go into or work at a restaurant that people are smoking. Both are risks and if you want to do either you are taking a risk.

Insurance providers should be able to deny you coverage if you have cancer, or not cover you if you smoke etc

Not just insurers, but anybody. Costs would be limited to those who can afford them, if you can't afford the costs and don't have insurance, you die.

For example, if you're 40 and have smoked for 20 years but you got laid off from your job just after being diagnosed with cancer, lost the insurance premiums you've paid for 20 years while at that company. If you're poor and have no ability to pay, you die. No questions asked, no leeway given.

Further, if you've worked in a place, but didn't smoke, you face the same issue.

In paying "more" you pay the actuarially adjusted amount, effectively isolating you from the rest of the insureds. Thus, as an insurer, I can charge not just 50% more, but multiples more (this is likely what it would be considering the cost of surgery, chemo, and after care). If you can't afford the insurance, you die.

As a child if you're exposed to second hand smoke from a parent, you get cancer outside of insurance, you die.

As long as I don't have to pay a penny for those who wish to smoke and the insurance company can monitor those people 24/7 to make sure they don't raise my premiums, I am 100% OK.

 

[xj0hnx]

I wouldn't have a single problem with smoking if those who smoked or were significantly exposed to second hand smoke were underwritten properly and/or were 100% ineligible for insurance coverage (public or private) for any smoking related illnesses.

What about people that eat hamburgers and get heart disease? Or soda drinkers that develop diabetes?

 

[LegendKiller]

What about people that eat hamburgers and get heart disease? Or soda drinkers that develop diabetes?

All for it. 24/7 monitoring. In fact, let's just RFID everybody up if you want insurance.

That's what the "free market" would want, right?

as somebody who works out once a day and is only slightly outside of ideal weight and doesn't drink soda or eat fastfood, I'd love for all of you unhealthy fatties to get off of my dole. I'm tired of this socialist insurance bullshit. Pay your own way.

 

[matt0611]

Not just insurers, but anybody. Costs would be limited to those who can afford them, if you can't afford the costs and don't have insurance, you die.

For example, if you're 40 and have smoked for 20 years but you got laid off from your job just after being diagnosed with cancer, lost the insurance premiums you've paid for 20 years while at that company. If you're poor and have no ability to pay, you die. No questions asked, no leeway given.

Further, if you've worked in a place, but didn't smoke, you face the same issue.

In paying "more" you pay the actuarially adjusted amount, effectively isolating you from the rest of the insureds. Thus, as an insurer, I can charge not just 50% more, but multiples more (this is likely what it would be considering the cost of surgery, chemo, and after care). If you can't afford the insurance, you die.

As a child if you're exposed to second hand smoke from a parent, you get cancer outside of insurance, you die.

As long as I don't have to pay a penny for those who wish to smoke and the insurance company can monitor those people 24/7 to make sure they don't raise my premiums, I am 100% OK.

Yeah, if you work in a hazardous place its gonna cost more to insure you. If you get sick and you aren't insured, don't expect someone else to pay for you. Its an incentive for people to get insurance. Otherwise, whats the point of insurance if you can just wait till you get sick to get some?

All for it. 24/7 monitoring. In fact, let's just RFID everybody up if you want insurance.

That's what the "free market" would want, right?

as somebody who works out once a day and is only slightly outside of ideal weight and doesn't drink soda or eat fastfood, I'd love for all of you unhealthy fatties to get off of my dole. I'm tired of this socialist insurance bullshit. Pay your own way.

Lol yeah, its fine if that were actually viable, if the market called for that, I highly doubt it would though.