Think again...Florida city wants to blatantly discriminate against smokers
http://www.local6.com/news/6786475/detail.html
Printable View
Think again...Florida city wants to blatantly discriminate against smokers
http://www.local6.com/news/6786475/detail.html
i think it's good in the way, cigaret smokers will get the same treatment than pot smoker...criminal for health reasons...Quote:
Originally Posted by bonsaiguy
Uh, thats a good thing. You know how much tax payers pay for Smokers Healthcare...
Uh, no it's not...you know how much we smokers have already paid in increased car, homeowners, and medical insurance not to mention exhorbitant taxes over the last 30 or 40 years? Erego, taxpayers who don't smoke pay not shit in taxes for it, or smokers are being doubly taxed. It's none of the bosses biz what we do on our own time or to ourselves and that includes the city, state, county and federal govt. As for comparing tobacco users to pot users, you forget that pot is illegal, tobacco is not.
I think its good also........ and i'm a smoker.
You shouldn't, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you've already paid for it (and continue to pay) several times over. But why do you think a company has any right to regulate what we do on our own time? Unless it somehow makes the comany look bad, (ie, delivering illegal substances in the company van, which a friend of mine made the stupid mistake of doing about 25 years ago) and how long before you are no longer allowed, by law, to smoke in your own home?
Where i work we arent allowed to smoke around the building and I agree with the policy. It looks trashy when clients pull up and there are 25 people smoking. Don't get on the kneejerk bandwagon, you will always be allowed to smoke in the house you OWN. I own a house and would never smoke inside anyhow, it stinks.
I agree that they have a right to set policies that prohibit smoking on their property. It's their property and you're right, for some businesses it looks trashy. I do not agree that they have a right to deny you a job because you smoke based on bogus info about increased health care costs for smokers which smokers have already been paying for years. And it's not kneejerk, where I live the anti smoking nazi's are moving in that direction sure as shit and use every dirty advertising trick in the book to convince folks that smoking is akin to the holocost. They're even worse when it comes to second hand smoke and their silly smoking bans that have closed down more businesses than they care to admit. In california these screwballs have even managed to ban smoking outdoors in some places. It's not governments job to regulate how people run their businesses to that extent and especially bars. I don't smoke in my house anymore either because of my wifes business. I don't like it but she has me on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by amsterdam
If the tobacco companies didn't use radioactive fertilizer to grow tobacco, the lung cancer rate would be down to practically nothing - and the laws wouldn't be a strict. Even former surgeon general C Everett Koop acknowledged this fact (radioactive soil) about 15 years ago.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/T...th/cancer.html
I stopped smoking cigarettes in 1991, and never regretted it for an instant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonsaiguy
Pot is illegal? really? oh thanks buddy...dumb ass, i know tobacco is legal, but for what reason??? its about time its getting a lil more criminalized...so yes i compare them! laws are made to be change so don't give me that legal bullshit!:dance:
I think the penalty shiould go one way or the other(and Im not a cigarette smoker, actually hate the smell) but in all fairness, if a smoker is taxed, has to pay higher insurance, etc...than that should be it, no extra punishment or discrimination, like from an employer!!
Clever comeback. Thanks for the educated and informative reply. That being said, you may have a point on one issue, if we're going to outlaw things that are unhealthy, let's either outlaw all of them or none of them and give up the double, triple, quadruple standards. And let's get the heatlh nazi's out of our lives as well. Neither you nor the fed/state/county/city govt has the right to tell me I can't smoke (cigs or pot) in my home on my property anymore than they have a right to ban me from eating meat or fish or a quarer pounder for that matter. And banning smoking on private property should be left up to the property owner, not the government. If there's such a huge market for smokefree bars and restaurants...open your own and you'll make a killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonsaiguy
now that's a good argument! you're right on the sens nobody can tell you what we can put or not into our own body on our own property...in fact the only thing i don't like about cig, and you're right it's not my business, it's it has no purposes else than making money on the back of the addict...
so what i like about this law is it's a good blow against the tobacco industry, but at the same time against the user which is the unfortunate part i must agree...and that law could help legalize the pot elsewhere...because it is obvious that tobacco put pressure against legalisation...
anyways, you're right, no one can tell you what to do or not to do on your own property...but on the public path i guest this law is okay...
I agree that they need a swift kick in the ass for all of the lying, maketing to kids, and generally being unethical shithead business folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves19
But the american tobacco industry has already accounted for this by expanding their reach in to Europe, Asia, and third world countries. And all the smoking bans and taxes enacted in this country have put little or no dent in their revenues. In fact, even the notorious tobacco suits made little or no dent in their bottom line since they were given something like 10 or 20 years to pay up, allowing them time to invest the money and effectively double it, (like Exxon and their fines for the Valediz oil spill) ultimately costing them nothing. Except some bad PR.
I have too agree with you on smoking, I do, and it's killing me mostly because the chemicals in it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Now you hit home with your TARGET of you know who!!!!!!!....
Remember this!
Where's bin Laden........
For your future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
â??"Because he's hidingâ?¦" Bush, explaining why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. (Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2005)
Bush has spoken it doesn't matter and they are the ruling party!:mad:
--------------------
"In politics nothing is accidental. If something happens, be assured it was
planned this way" ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--Benjamin Franklin
I don't neccessarily agree with this but I can see the reasoning behind it. If the city is providing health insurance for its workers, it does stand to reason that they would be able to negotiate lower rates if they had a no-smoking policy for new hiring. I would think, however, that a better alternative would be simply to deny insurance to smokers or require them to pay a higher portion than non-smokers. To simply deny them a job not only hurts the smokers but also the city. Being a smoker really isn't an indication of performance and to rule smokers out would limit the number of potentailly excellent workers available in the area.