NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html

Much as I don't care for cigs; this seems a bit extreme.

What a person does on his on time is not the concern of the employer. Well baring things like say athletes who have dangerous hobbies.

Glad to see the "enlightened" Europe has it's failings just like us. ;)

At my work, there is a strict no smoking policy - OUTSIDE of the building.

Now, this didn't happen at my location, but it happened in the city.

A TH employee was on break, away from the building and had been smoking. He was arrested and charged because the police thought he was smoking too close to the building, and was summarily fired.

The fellow wasn't near an entrance. He had been away from the building.

This was in Toronto.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html

Much as I don't care for cigs; this seems a bit extreme.

What a person does on his on time is not the concern of the employer. Well baring things like say athletes who have dangerous hobbies.

Glad to see the "enlightened" Europe has it's failings just like us. ;)

There's nothing like a nanny state.

Well, everybody knows that smokers are most likely to be communists.

http://www.oxha.org/knowledge/backgrounders/adult_smokers.gif

So it makes sense. I mean, who wants to hire a commie?

There's nothing like a nanny state.
Or over zealous anti-smoking policies that are running rampant in Canada and the US.

It's hard to tell from the article either way, but I hope that this is limited to workers that were hired under the pretense that they were not smokers and the boss discovering that they lied.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html

Much as I don't care for cigs; this seems a bit extreme.

What a person does on his on time is not the concern of the employer. Well baring things like say athletes who have dangerous hobbies.

Glad to see the "enlightened" Europe has it's failings just like us. ;)

I don't smoke, and I don't agree with what happened in the article, but I can see the employer's side of the coin, too. Smoking is unhealthy, and can increase the number of sick days someone takes (reducing productivity) and can increase an employer's health care costs (affecting their bottom line).

*sigh* what people do in the privacy of their own homes is no one business except themselves and God.

*sigh* what people do in the privacy of their own homes is no one business except themselves and God.

What if they torture and kill neighbors in the privacy of their own homes?

I don't know; it seems like the ruling is about people who lie about smoking and then disclose that they actually do, or if a company wants to hire people but doesn't want to hire smokers. Both of those reasons are justified; depending on the occupation, smoking could have a pretty sizable impact on your work performance or ability to present a good image of the company so I think in those cases it's justified.

Now, if a company suddenly started to fire smokers for the hell of it or tried to retroactively apply a new rule to previous hires, that would be different.

It's hard to tell from the article either way, but I hope that this is limited to workers that were hired under the pretense that they were not smokers and the boss discovering that they lied.
Well, now an employer can forbid an employee (at the time of hiring) from being a smoker, and test them, and if they find out they smoked at home, fire them.

Rather like the marijuana thing, except that in the EU, tobacco is a legal product (marijuana is legal in a few places, yes).

I don't smoke, and I don't agree with what happened in the article, but I can see the employer's side of the coin, too. Smoking is unhealthy, and can increase the number of sick days someone takes (reducing productivity) and can increase an employer's health care costs (affecting their bottom line).
Smoking does that... and so can the following, and yes, I'm aware it seems stupid, but so does firing someone for smoking offhours...

- Lifting something heavier than you can handle outside of the office
- playing a sport where there's a risk of injury
- Sitting in a chair wrong
- Sleeping in the wrong position
- Stretching, yawning...
- Making supper (you can burn it, under cook it)
- Eating (the food could've gone bad without you knowing)
- Overeating
- Drinking alcohol
- Driving (accidents...)
- Shovelling snow
- cleaning the house (some cleaners can't be used in areas not well ventilated, but, people are stupid enough to that anyway)
- Pregnancy (it means a woman MUST take time away from work)

et cetera...

The article isn't exactly clear. It gives three or so examples of this 'discrimination' but without background detail or context.

There may have been cases of a loss of worker productivity with incessant smoke breaks (I know, I've worked with those types of people), it may have clashed with the company's health insurance policies, it may be down to hygiene (bad smelling staff can be an example of poor work ethic and standards).

The article is misleading.

This is stupid - perhaps not paying for health insurance to the smoker (or anyone with an obviously unhealthy lifestyle) would be okay though. If they call in sick too often then fire their ass.

At my work, we have a designated area for us smokers. It's next to the area where we keep the trash, so it's pretty nasty, but I accept that. It's my choice to smoke and other peoples' choice not to, and I shouldn't force my choices upon them.

By the same token, non-smokers shouldn't force their choices on me. This problem, like so many others, would be easily resolved if we handled it like reasonable adults and treated one another with due respect. But I don't think that this will happen in my lifetime, mostly because I'm a smoker and I'll probably die 20 years before the rest of you. :D

I hear in hell you can smoke wherever you want.

Smoker: "I didn't do it. The cigarette fell into my mouth already lit. What was I to do?!" :eek:

Smoker: "I didn't do it. The cigarette fell into my mouth already lit. What was I to do?!" :eek:

Smoker: I wasn't smoking, I was chewing tobacco.

I don't smoke, and I don't agree with what happened in the article, but I can see the employer's side of the coin, too. Smoking is unhealthy, and can increase the number of sick days someone takes (reducing productivity) and can increase an employer's health care costs (affecting their bottom line).

Sick days are used for many reasons. It's not a good way to measure health.

It's not a concern of the employer. They don't own you.

I hear in hell you can smoke wherever you want.

Wouldn't hell not have cigs for smokers? ;)

Wouldn't hell not have cigs for smokers? ;)

They'd have nothing but Menthols.

There's nothing like a nanny state.
Hard to blame this on the state, since it's the state staying out of the way of corporate policy that allows this to happen.

Hard to blame this on the state, since it's the state staying out of the way of corporate policy that allows this to happen.
The state's actions (or in this case, approval and inaction) are part of the nanny mindset.

The state's actions (or in this case, approval and inaction) are part of the nanny mindset.
That's just stupid. In the US, the state stays out of these kinds of issues because it hasn't given itself jurisdiction. If it does, at some point, then you might have a nanny state argument, but in this case? Not a chance. This is one of those areas where the fight is between employer and employee and no one else.

Hmmm... If your employer provides health insurance and someone claimed to be a non-smoker but was really a secret smoker and the company found out - would that be grounds for a firing?

They lied to their employer, plus every insurance company I've ever seen has different (higher) rates for smokers.

I'm not sure that those are feasible grounds. Unless you work for the Cancer Society or something like that! :D

If the company knew he was a smoker and they fired him for smoking off company grounds, then it seems like they were just looking for a lame excuse to fire him.

this is one of the reason i fail to understand people, i think...

ATTENTION HUMANS:
SMOKING KILLS YOU. SLOWLY. IT MAKES YOU DEAD. NOT ALIVE. ITS A TICKET TO A DIRT NAP. SMOKE FROM SMOKING HURTS PEOPLE AROUND YOU. IT DOES NOT HARMLESSLY DISSAPATE INTO THE AIR.

there are laws against suicide. there are laws against harming others. resteraunts do not contain cyanide gas and no cyanide gas sections. if cigarettes were not a multi-billion dollar industry, or if governments were more resistant to lobbyists, smoking would have been stamped out 15 years ago.

also, employers are allowed to fire people taking illegal drugs, and tobacco has been found to be worse for you than many illegal drugs (yes, than includes pot).

governments are allowed to pass laws restricting the use of harmful things. say, (hypothetically) that eating lobster caused cancer, period. lobster would be off the menus as soon as scientific proof was shown to the government! then again, i guess lobster fishermen don't own legions of lawyers, advertisers and politicians.

anyway, thats how we do things in america, where i live.
-all men are equals. some are just more equal than others-

yours randomly-
Captain Flamebait

Why don't we just get it over with and go straight to prohibition?! Just ban everything that poses a health risk. No more smoking. No more drinking. No more guns. No more driving. No more flying. No buildings with more than 2 floors. No more knives. No more forks. No more sports. No more baths or pools. No more solid food. Get where I'm going with this, don't ya?

Life is inherently dangerous and just about anything has the potential to hurt you. What someone chooses to do on their own time, and especially on their own property is their own damn business.

Why don't we just get it over with and go straight to prohibition?! Just ban everything that poses a health risk. No more smoking. No more drinking. No more guns. No more driving. No more flying. No buildings with more than 2 floors. No more knives. No more forks. No more sports. No more baths or pools. No more solid food. Get where I'm going with this, don't ya?


Because, as the post above yours shows, anti-smokers have gotten the idea that smoking (unlike any other activity!) is not just a RISK of cancer, it's a CERTAINTY. A chance of 100%, whether nonsmoker or smoker, of tobacco smoke killing whoever it catches within its web of evil.

Life is inherently dangerous and just about anything has the potential to hurt you. What someone chooses to do on their own time, and especially on their own property is their own damn business.

Amen!

Why don't we just get it over with and go straight to prohibition?! Just ban everything that poses a health risk. No more smoking. No more drinking. No more guns. No more driving. No more flying. No buildings with more than 2 floors. No more knives. No more forks. No more sports. No more baths or pools. No more solid food. Get where I'm going with this, don't ya?

Life is inherently dangerous and just about anything has the potential to hurt you. What someone chooses to do on their own time, and especially on their own property is their own damn business.
All well and good, and I actually agree with you for the most part. Just one little problem--this isn't a ban. This is a company's policy, and was part of the deal when the workers were hired. No smoking. Don't like it? Get a job somewhere else, or agitate to get the company to change its policy. But this isn't a "big government" issue here.

There's nothing like a nanny state.
How does the politicians refusing to legislate make it a nanny state?

There's nothing like a nanny state.
But this is company policy. I'd like to have the freedom to fire smokers. They, as a group, have worse health and cost more to insure than non-smokers.

As Hillary said, "Fire their asses", whether they smoke at home or on the job.

Because, as the post above yours shows, anti-smokers have gotten the idea that smoking (unlike any other activity!) is not just a RISK of cancer, it's a CERTAINTY. A chance of 100%, whether nonsmoker or smoker, of tobacco smoke killing whoever it catches within its web of evil.

Amen!
Both of my grandparents on my mother's side smoked from roughly the age of 12 until at least 85 years of age, and both died in a car accident.

So they didn't die of tobacco-related disease, however evil that might be.

Care to adjust your 100% figure?

But this is company policy. I'd like to have the freedom to fire smokers. They, as a group, have worse health and cost more to insure than non-smokers.

As Hillary said, "Fire their asses", whether they smoke at home or on the job.You can, as long as you make it a condition of employment when you hire them. Turner Networks fought that case over twenty years ago, and won.

Both of my grandparents on my mother's side smoked from roughly the age of 12 until at least 85 years of age, and both died in a car accident.

So they didn't die of tobacco-related disease, however evil that might be.

Care to adjust your 100% figure?

Hey, it's not my figure. I ain't no hypochondriac.

Both of my grandparents on my mother's side smoked from roughly the age of 12 until at least 85 years of age, and both died in a car accident.

So they didn't die of tobacco-related disease, however evil that might be.

Care to adjust your 100% figure?
Yep, the only 100% certainty is that we're all gonna die. We just don't know how.

You can, as long as you make it a condition of employment when you hire them. Turner Networks fought that case over twenty years ago, and won.
In some states, making something a condition of employment has to be related to something you actually do on the job.

For instance, if you write software, contracts, or operate heavy machinery, they can require that you not drink alcohol at all. It's a tenuous thing, depending on the job description.

It can also be a condition of getting health insurance through the company.

In some states, making something a condition of employment has to be related to something you actually do on the job.

For instance, if you write software, contracts, or operate heavy machinery, they can require that you not drink alcohol at all. It's a tenuous thing, depending on the job description.

It can also be a condition of getting health insurance through the company.
In most cases, however, the company gets the most leeway, and I mentioned Turner because I know Myrmidonisia is in Georgia. Now, the caselaw may have changed in the intervening years, but I doubt it has at the most basic level.

In most cases, however, the company gets the most leeway, and I mentioned Turner because I know Myrmidonisia is in Georgia. Now, the caselaw may have changed in the intervening years, but I doubt it has at the most basic level.
I know in Virginia that they can't change your conditions of employment after the fact.

So if you're already smoking, they can't make you stop.

In most cases, however, the company gets the most leeway, and I mentioned Turner because I know Myrmidonisia is in Georgia. Now, the caselaw may have changed in the intervening years, but I doubt it has at the most basic level.
And employment should always be a contract solely between the employer and the employee. The government should have absolutely no intervening authority over that contract.

Of course, I also oppose the minimum wage, income tax, employer-provided health insurance ...

By the way, did anyone notice that Target is leaving Chicago because of mimimum wage laws?

You want a nanny state argument? The Hennepin County smoking ban. No smoking in bars or restaurants. There have even been pushes to ban smoking in all public places, outside, in apartments and other buildings, and even in homes or in a yard. Those didn't get as far, thankfully, but that doesn't mean that people haven't been trying.

You want a nanny state argument? The Hennepin County smoking ban. No smoking in bars or restaurants. There have even been pushes to ban smoking in all public places, outside, in apartments and other buildings, and even in homes or in a yard. Those didn't get as far, thankfully, but that doesn't mean that people haven't been trying.

Well, that's more of a majority rule kind of thing.

If you don't like it, get elected and get rid of the ban.

We just threw out our most of our local government here in Herndon, because they pissed us off.

Here's what you do if you don't like your local bans, etc.
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_050506.htm

I know in Virginia that they can't change your conditions of employment after the fact.

So if you're already smoking, they can't make you stop.
Yeah, exactly. That's not the case everywhere, but it's a policy I like.

You know if you eat right, dont smoke, and excersize, you die anyway! so smoke up, get fat, and be happy!

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060821-1226062,00.html

Much as I don't care for cigs; this seems a bit extreme.

What a person does on his on time is not the concern of the employer. Well baring things like say athletes who have dangerous hobbies.

Glad to see the "enlightened" Europe has it's failings just like us. ;)
Excellent. It's time this disgusting habit was banned once and for all. Those who are so careless with their own lives and the lives of others deserve to be punished.

Excellent. It's time this disgusting habit was banned once and for all. Those who are so careless with their own lives and the lives of others deserve to be punished.
Are they not already geting "punished" by a shorter life?

Are they not already geting "punished" by a shorter life?
It's clearly not a threat they take seriously enough to actually stop doing it.

Excellent. It's time this disgusting habit was banned once and for all. Those who are so careless with their own lives and the lives of others deserve to be punished.

I agree. Anyone who drives a car or uses electricity should also be punished, for the same reason!

Smokers are the new gays.
Excellent. It's time this disgusting habit was banned once and for all. Those who are so careless with their own lives and the lives of others deserve to be punished.
Could have come right out of a fundy's mouth.

I agree. Anyone who drives a car or uses electricity should also be punished, for the same reason!
Ah yes, the standard nonsensical pro-smoking response, because of course the two are directly comparible, what with one being a tool that can cause accidents and the other being nothing more than a inhaled toxin. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, the standard nonsensical pro-smoking response, because of course the two are directly comparible, what with one being a tool that can cause accidents and the other being nothing more than a inhaled toxin. :rolleyes:

And the standard shirking anti-smoker reply, because of course cars never kill anyone, or pollute; and even if they do pollute that pollution is harmless and acceptable to breathe in because cars are "tools."

You're living in a dream world.

And the standard shirking anti-smoker reply, because of course cars never kill anyone, or pollute; and even if they do pollute that pollution is harmless and acceptable to breathe in because cars are "tools."

You're living in a dream world.
Or rather I live in a world where it is accepted that some things cause harm, but it is a necessary harm; other things cause harm for no reason.

It's called the 'real world'; welcome to it.

Or rather I live in a world where it is accepted that some things cause harm, but it is a necessary harm; other things cause harm for no reason.

It's called the 'real world'; welcome to it.
No reason? Cigarettes make you look cool. And calm you.

No reason? Cigarettes make you look cool. And calm you.
And keep your weight down.

Here's a cool stat: the majority of smokers die from non-smoking related causes. So the odds are that something else will kill you first.

Smoker: "I didn't do it. The cigarette fell into my mouth already lit. What was I to do?!" :eek:
Smoker: Yes, I smoked it. But I didn't inhale! :D:D:D

Are they not already geting "punished" by a shorter life?

Not always

It was said that George Burns smoked up to 10 cigars a day till the day he died.

He lived to be 100. ;)

If my employer tried something like that, I'd sue him and his company into the ground.

How about a little history, hmm?

Native Americans were the first to cultivate the tobacco plant. They smoked it in pipes for medicinal and ceremonial purposes.

The first successful commercial crop of tobacco was cultivated in Virginia in 1612. Within seven years it was one of the country's largest exports. So, tobacco helped to build America.

And so for centuries, tobacco production flourished. Nobody was even aware of any dangers back then, until, in 1965, when Congress passed an act forcing all tobacco companies to put the Surgeon General's warning on their packages. So now, everyone knows the dangers of smoking. And some people still choose to do it, and we believe that's what being an American is all about.

Sound perfectly reasonable, doesn't it?

I think so. I know smoking increases my risk for developing helaht problems so I don't smoke but if people understand the risks and choose to do it anyway then they should be allowed to.

If my employer tried something like that, I'd sue him and his company into the ground.
Of course, firing for smoking is illegal here. So is asking the employee at the time of hiring, IIRC.

Or rather I live in a world where it is accepted that some things cause harm, but it is a necessary harm; other things cause harm for no reason.

It's called the 'real world'; welcome to it.

Or rather, you have an arbitrary definition of what is "acceptable necessary harm."

Your objection to smoking is not the harm. It's that it displeases you. It disgusts you. You don't understand it - you chalk it up to "addiction" at best, or "no reason" - and like any other primate, you fear what you don't understand.

Enjoy your air pollution cocktails - I'm sure people who get impaled in metallic car wreckage also share your naively narrow definition of how their fate is "necessary."

Or rather, you have an arbitrary definition of what is "acceptable necessary harm."

Your objection to smoking is not the harm. It's that it displeases you. It disgusts you. You don't understand it - you chalk it up to "addiction" at best, or "no reason" - and like any other primate, you fear what you don't understand.

Enjoy your air pollution cocktails - I'm sure people who get impaled in metallic car wreckage also share your naively narrow definition of how their fate is "necessary."
What his arguement is:

Could you live without tobacco? Easily.

Could you live without cars? With a total lifestyle change.

Well, now an employer can forbid an employee (at the time of hiring) from being a smoker, and test them, and if they find out they smoked at home, fire them.

Rather like the marijuana thing, except that in the EU, tobacco is a legal product (marijuana is legal in a few places, yes).

Marijuana isn't legal anywhere in the EU, it is however decriminalized in a few places.

Yellow teeth and stinky breathe... sexy... ;)

If my employer tried something like that, I'd sue him and his company into the ground.
Sorry to say, but you'd likely lose. Corporations have way more leeway in this sort of thing than the government does.

Good, maybe that'll teach them not to smoke.

Good, maybe that'll teach them not to smoke.

What bothers people like you so much about someone else doing something you don't like that doesnt concern you in anyway shape or form? unless they happen to be blowing smoke in your face.

The Nazis invented anti-smoking research, and they "discovered" that fact that it gives you cancer, and had the first anti-smoking laws. Hitler was big on outlawing smoking, it was a big staple of facism. I think insane anti smoking laws like these are some of the biggest staples of facism in this country as well. Its just stupid and wrong, and oppresive.

I quit smoking three weeks ago.

There are still times when Id be sorely tempted to gut and field dress any one of you alive for a Camel Wide.

However I wont. Im mostly stronger than that. Plus nobody is offering a Camel Wide for this service. But I understand the downside of addiction far too well at the moment.

That still doesnt mean that the extreme do-gooders who make these laws which cause citizens to get arrested for smoking outdoors shouldnt be thrown out of office at our earliest possible convenience however. In fact we should do our best to vote them out no matter their party. To coin a Forrest Gumpism ; fascism is as fascism does. This is definitely nanny taken to madness in my opinion. Dont let the idiots legislate even worse laws. Find out who they are and send them the hell away from the places laws are made.

What his arguement is:

Could you live without tobacco? Easily.

Could you live without cars? With a total lifestyle change.

Could you live without one of your toes? Easily.

But I bet he might object to losing one all the same.

And that "lifestyle" change BS doesn't change my attitude towards cars. They're dangerous coffins on wheels. They pollute the air that is apparently *so* precious to the anti-smoker crowd. They pollute the whole planet, as a matter of fact. And when we're all running for the hills because of rising water levels due to global warming -- largely caused by people who don't want their car "lifestyle" to change -- there's gonna be a lifestyle change.

That's why I'm saying he lives in a dream world. Anti-smokers tend towards the idea that if they just scapegoat those vile cigarette smokers they can ignore every other risk that they accept. He brushes it off as "necessary." Well, guess what. I think my freedom to purchase and smoke tobacco is necessary too. And while it adds to numerous risks, that's what life is about. In the real world.

I quit smoking three weeks ago.

There are still times when Id be sorely tempted to gut and field dress any one of you alive for a Camel Wide.

However I wont. Im mostly stronger than that. Plus nobody is offering a Camel Wide for this service. But I understand the downside of addiction far too well at the moment.

That still doesnt mean that the extreme do-gooders who make these laws which cause citizens to get arrested for smoking outdoors shouldnt be thrown out of office at our earliest possible convenience however. In fact we should do our best to vote them out no matter their party. To coin a Forrest Gumpism ; fascism is as fascism does. This is definitely nanny taken to madness in my opinion. Dont let the idiots legislate even worse laws. Find out who they are and send them the hell away from the places laws are made.It's only been three weeks. It should let up after...fifteen years or so if you're lucky, according to my granddad.

It's only been three weeks. It should let up after...fifteen years or so if you're lucky, according to my granddad.


took me about two years before I could go a week without thinking about having a cigarette

It's only been three weeks. It should let up after...fifteen years or so if you're lucky, according to my granddad.

I quit for a year once about ten years ago. I still craved a cigarette at the end of that year. So at least there is hope after 15 years eh?

took me about two years before I could go a week without thinking about having a cigarette
I was one of those smokers that real smokers fucking hate. I could pick them up and put them down at will, and I have. Haven't bought a pack in over two years and in the last year I've smoked about 3 cigarettes and 1 cigar.

I was one of those smokers that real smokers fucking hate. I could pick them up and put them down at will, and I have. Haven't bought a pack in over two years and in the last year I've smoked about 3 cigarettes and 1 cigar.

That's a pretty tolerable habit. Ive known a couple of people like that. Im not one of them with tobacco.

That's a pretty tolerable habit. Ive known a couple of people like that. Im not one of them with tobacco.
According to a study I read in a Malcolm Gladwell book--Blink, I believe--it really is a genetic thing. Some people are just more likely to develop a craving than others, although there's a belief that the trigger is the amount of nicotine in the cigarettes, and that if the nicotine levels were reduced, no one would be hooked.

What bothers people like you so much about someone else doing something you don't like that doesnt concern you in anyway shape or form?

I don't give a shit what you do to your own body, but when you smoke, you're poisoning those around you. Nothing gives you the right to cause me harm.

The Nazis invented anti-smoking research, and they "discovered" that fact that it gives you cancer, and had the first anti-smoking laws. Hitler was big on outlawing smoking, it was a big staple of facism. I think insane anti smoking laws like these are some of the biggest staples of facism in this country as well. Its just stupid and wrong, and oppresive.

Ah yes, let's not do it, because the Nazis did it! :headbang:

I suppose you don't drive on the freeway either, or drink Fanta, right?

According to a study I read in a Malcolm Gladwell book--Blink, I believe--it really is a genetic thing. Some people are just more likely to develop a craving than others, although there's a belief that the trigger is the amount of nicotine in the cigarettes, and that if the nicotine levels were reduced, no one would be hooked.

Maybe, but it would be nicotine specific. I can pick up or put down booze and dont crave it. This despite at one point going through loads of it (largely to fit in) and despite alcoholism in my family on both sides. I can enjoy it without getting hooked. Which is nice. The same with some other substances that arent legal but are very highly addictive to some. But Ive had trouble kicking weed (19 or so years ago) and another illegal substance (5 years ago). I show every sign of addiction to caffeine currently as well. So in my experience some substances trigger addiction in me while others just plain dont.