PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Nazi's Strike Again




DamianTV
05-22-2008, 11:25 AM
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080520/NEWS/805200406/1661


...

The move not to hire smokers is the latest in a string of anti-smoking rules initiated by Sarasota County.

The county recently banned smoking on public beaches.

...

New hires will be asked to submit to a drug test that detects nicotine and sign a pledge promising they have not smoked in the last 12 months. Existing employees will not be affected, but they are encouraged to take advantage of free programs to help them quit.

...

Some companies even extend the smoking prohibition to spouses of prospective employees.



What the FUCK?

The smoking thing is bad enough by itself. But this is like applying for a job and having your wife or your kid to have to come in and take a piss test for drugs. How far is this crap gonna go?

Besides that, when can I not smoke on a BEACH? Oh look I might start a FIRE. Here's a hint. BEACH = WATER.

ARealConservative
05-22-2008, 11:27 AM
If this was a private business, I would say fine.

But this is government jobs and unless smokers are exempt from the taxes that pay those employees, they should not be disqualified.

asgardshill
05-22-2008, 11:51 AM
If this was a private business, I would say fine.

But this is government jobs and unless smokers are exempt from the taxes that pay those employees, they should not be disqualified.

+1776

DamianTV
05-22-2008, 11:51 AM
Or if smoking was made completely illegal, which is probably more of the way we are heading...

Ok, here's a question, how is it that we have a lower percentage of smokers than ever before, yet, we have more lung related illnesses than ever before? Why is that? Hmm, maybe its because of CARS, not cigarettes?

sophocles07
05-22-2008, 12:00 PM
R
I
D
I
C
U
L
O
U
S

Zolah
05-22-2008, 12:15 PM
Or if smoking was made completely illegal, which is probably more of the way we are heading...

Ok, here's a question, how is it that we have a lower percentage of smokers than ever before, yet, we have more lung related illnesses than ever before? Why is that? Hmm, maybe its because of CARS, not cigarettes?

Or maybe it's harder to smoke when you're lying in a hospital bed with lung cancer

DamianTV
05-22-2008, 07:10 PM
We used to be able to smoke in hospitals, with reasonable exceptions, like oxygen tents.

Now what if your lung cancer was caused by the lead in the gasoline that is burned by the trucks that drive by your house every day? Isnt that why we were switched to unleaded gas in the first place? Its one of those things that is never going to be proven why a single individual got lung cancer as there are literally so many potential sources and variables. Im not saying that smoking does not cause cancer, but I think the weight that is put on smoking is disproportionately higher than it should be as compared to other sources. Ever try to run a mile and a half in L.A. on a smoggy day? Yeah thats it. With all that smog and pollution in the air, a non smokers source of cancer MUST be my 2nd hand smoke blowing in their faces from three states away.

lucius
05-22-2008, 08:09 PM
It is definitely a slippery slope; looks like the obese people are being teed-up next.

tmosley
05-23-2008, 01:26 AM
We used to be able to smoke in hospitals, with reasonable exceptions, like oxygen tents.

Now what if your lung cancer was caused by the lead in the gasoline that is burned by the trucks that drive by your house every day? Isnt that why we were switched to unleaded gas in the first place? Its one of those things that is never going to be proven why a single individual got lung cancer as there are literally so many potential sources and variables. Im not saying that smoking does not cause cancer, but I think the weight that is put on smoking is disproportionately higher than it should be as compared to other sources. Ever try to run a mile and a half in L.A. on a smoggy day? Yeah thats it. With all that smog and pollution in the air, a non smokers source of cancer MUST be my 2nd hand smoke blowing in their faces from three states away.

Don't think that smoking and lung cancer aren't highly correlated. They are. I looked up the figure on Google, and it's about what I thought it was 0.716.

This means that if you take the number of smokers and the number of lung cancers and put them in a set to see how many overlap, 0.716, or 71.6% are the same people (I hope you got that, I'm having a bit of insomnia just now).

Minestra di pomodoro
05-23-2008, 01:30 AM
Or if smoking was made completely illegal, which is probably more of the way we are heading...

I say good. It's harmful to other human beings and the environment. While you might feel liberated smoking, I feel oppressed by your secondhand smoke, and often it is not just one person you are passing the fumes on to.

Luft97
05-23-2008, 02:04 AM
IMO, people that go out in public with a Communicable illness or take their children that are sick out in public are worse than the smokers. Just ruins my day when someone comes up and tells me they are sick. I'm thinking WTH get away from me. =p Then I go wash my hands.

bill50
05-23-2008, 08:16 PM
Is that .716 the Pearson correlation coefficient? Whether a correlation is "high" or not is a subjective measure. Personally, I don't consider .716 "high." I would consider that a moderate correlation.

pcosmar
05-23-2008, 08:26 PM
Or maybe it's harder to smoke when you're lying in a hospital bed with lung cancer

How do you explain lung cancer in people that have never smoked, and how do you explain the lack of cancer in people that do.

More "one size fits all" assumptions based on media hype.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
05-23-2008, 09:16 PM
Now hopefully you guys understand how I feel, when applying for virtually any well-paying, secure job would require that my privacy be violated by a piss-test

As many chain-smokers and booze-hounds as I've met who hypocritically chastise my lifestyle choice and support our drug policy, I can only hope that they come under exponentially more intense scrutiny. Maybe then things will change.

But probably not.

driller80545
05-23-2008, 10:08 PM
I think that complaining about second hand smoke is hypocritical and naive. I call it the "bubble baby syndrome"/

MAGICKAL
05-24-2008, 04:24 AM
Here's some irony for ya, I've smoked since I was 12, I'm 42, I have been to the Dr. in the last 30 years exactly one time for being sick, the rest were all for check ups.

My last checkup I had an EKG done, the Dr. comes in the room I'm waiting in, pulls my EKG out of the holder it was in...and stops whistling, he says, "Damn"!

As you can imagine, my heart starts racing, I'm like "What"? "What"?

He goes, "I'm younger than you, I don't smoke, I eat right and excercise and your EKG is better than mine."

I'm like, "Well hell, you almost gave me a heart attack just now." He laughed.

On the other hand, my brother in law who doesn't smoke, was a marine and is four years younger than me has been in the hospital six times in the last six months, three of those times having surgery on his heart.


Go figure.

Zolah
05-24-2008, 07:13 AM
How do you explain lung cancer in people that have never smoked, and how do you explain the lack of cancer in people that do.

More "one size fits all" assumptions based on media hype.

I never said it was impossible to get lung cancer if you don't smoke or that it was impossible not to get lung cancer if you do smoke. My post doesn't actually represent how I feel though, it was just a jab at the anti-anti-smoking topic. I mean, scientists can probably prove that anything causes cancer, or so the media portrays it, but I'm not going to go out on a limb on tobacco, I'm assured in my self that tobacco isn't a victim of hype and that it probably isn't healthy.

Truth Warrior
05-24-2008, 09:57 AM
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

Factoid: Did you know the three leading facist leaders (Benito Mussolini, Franco, & Adolf Hitler) all abstained from tobacco and smoking?

Light 'em up! :D

DamianTV
05-24-2008, 06:45 PM
Its not about the smoking. Its about the door that it opens. Pretty soon when youre bitching about not being allowed to eat bacon because its too fat for you, I'll do the same as you do now and tell you "Good. You cant eat bacon any more. Do you realize how much you cost me by raising my insurance rates because youre fat?"

Is that really the type of world you want to live in?

Minestra di pomodoro
05-24-2008, 07:27 PM
Its not about the smoking. Its about the door that it opens. Pretty soon when youre bitching about not being allowed to eat bacon because its too fat for you,

That door was opened when the first laws were written against public defecation. It's not only bad for you, it's bad for everyone in the immediate area.

chipvogel
05-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Its not about the smoking. Its about the door that it opens. Pretty soon when youre bitching about not being allowed to eat bacon because its too fat for you, I'll do the same as you do now and tell you "Good. You cant eat bacon any more. Do you realize how much you cost me by raising my insurance rates because youre fat?"

Is that really the type of world you want to live in?

The political hypocrisy annoys me - You would never see these same politicians suggest not hiring based upon sexually promiscuity.

AutoDas
05-24-2008, 08:20 PM
Second hand smoke is only a problem because there is so much public property. If someone started lighting up in your house you have the right to tell them to put it out and if they want to smoke on their own property then leave and let them. Darwinism will have its toll on these people.

Expatriate
05-25-2008, 12:53 AM
That door was opened when the first laws were written against public defecation. It's not only bad for you, it's bad for everyone in the immediate area.

Umm, I can see justification for laws requiring you not to flick your cigarette butts on the street, as that's litter that someone else has to clean up. Same with public defecation.

But if you want to ban smoking because it's "bad for everyone in the immediate area" then maybe we should ban cars too. They put out fumes which are MUCH more detrimental to health than cigarettes. Don't believe me? Then take a nice long inhale from my car's exhaust pipe and tell me it's not as bad as smoking a cig. Oh right... you won't be able to because you would be unconscious. :D

pcosmar
05-25-2008, 05:40 AM
Some reading on the subject, for those that are willing to consider that there may be another agenda.

http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html

Writing in the National Post (Mar 25, 2000) Steven J. Milloy said,

"There is no controversy over whether second-hand smoke can be a nuisance. But scientific studies purporting to link second-hand smoke with health effects are invariably controversial. The Health Canada study is no different. . . The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are weak. And it has other shortcomings. Smoking itself is not an established risk factor for breast cancer. . . In the financial world, legal remedies exist for data omission and other fraudulent hijinks. Sadly, no system of accountability disciplines rogue government agencies and their scientists who put political agendas -- such as the anti-tobacco jihad -- ahead of sound science."

In fact, no study supports the anti-smoker's claims, even after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist goals.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/agendas.html



I've been fascinated with science since I was a little kid. A while ago I spent a couple of years working at one of the world's largest research and development centers. This gave me the opportunity to work with many of the most talented scientists in the world, and it only increased my respect for them and my fascination with science. My passion for real science makes my attacks against against junk science rather rabid.

I find the continuing attacks on smokers and smoking a prefect microcosm of just about everything wrong with the United States:

• People unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions or decisions
• Demands that stupidity be profitable
• Insistence that life be risk free
• People who willingly take a well known risk, then demand compensation if they get hurt
• The deep dishonesty of spewing junk science to support an agenda
• The eagerness of the government and charity organizations to create that junk science
• The scientific illiteracy of the masses, which makes it easy for them to accept junk science
• The endless greed of the US government
• The endless greed of many US citizens
• The unfathomable greed of lawyers
• The incessant yammering of the sanctimonious nannies, who insist that they know what's best for everyone else

The worst of the bunch are the nannies. Their self-esteem depends on looking down on others and meddling in their lives. In the past such people resorted to racism and homophobia. Now that such attitudes are socially unacceptable they have chosen smokers (among others) to hate. I'll make no attempt to hide my contempt for them.

I believe that truth, like beauty, is subjective and greatly tainted by personal viewpoints. When I tell you my wife is beautiful, that is the truth. If you disagree that doesn't make you a liar. Therefore, I don't claim that this site offers the truth, or The Truth. Instead, it offers facts; solid, verifiable facts. If you find any factual errors here please notify me immediately, and I'll correct them as soon as possible. Once you know the facts you can figure out the truth (or The Truth) for yourself.

I have smoked cigarettes off and on for most of my adult life. I'd smoke a few years, quit for a few years, smoke for a few more, quit for a few more, etc. I didn't keep returning to the habit because of addiction, (all traces of physical need for nicotine are gone in a week or less) but because I really, really enjoy smoking. These days I smoke cigars and pipes. Neither are inhaled, so they're not as risky as cigarettes, although, like every pleasure in life, they are not entirely risk free.

I despise the major cigarette companies and have never worked for them in any manner. They have behaved irresponsibly for decades, first by lying to the public, then, more importantly, by refusing to stand up for their customers in the recent attacks against them. I encourage cigarette smokers to show their displeasure by rolling their own or buying generic brands from Indian Reservations. (This has the unfortunate side effect of reducing the cost of smoking by as much as 80%, but most smokers are willing to put up with that inconvenience.)

No tobacco money is involved, in any way, with the production and maintenance of this site. It is funded solely by personal funds. (Web sites are cheap.)

My agenda for creating this site is to help those who are fighting off the continued attack on smokers. Anyone who finds this information helpful is encouraged to use it. Although I retain the copyright to everything here, you are free to use any and all text, charts, articles, and information however you wish, as long as you don't modify it in any way that would change the meaning. Crediting this site is appreciated, but not required.

constituent
05-25-2008, 05:42 AM
Its not about the smoking. Its about the door that it opens. Pretty soon when youre bitching about not being allowed to eat bacon because its too fat for you, I'll do the same as you do now and tell you "Good. You cant eat bacon any more. Do you realize how much you cost me by raising my insurance rates because youre fat?"

Is that really the type of world you want to live in?

that is the type of world we live in "drugs"-> cigarettes -> bacon


hope you did your share to stop it at "drugs."

Truth Warrior
05-25-2008, 05:50 AM
The political hypocrisy annoys me - You would never see these same politicians suggest not hiring based upon sexually promiscuity. In many cases that is a hiring requirement for some of the politician's job openings. :D

pcosmar
05-25-2008, 07:56 AM
From another thread,
http://www.cigargroup.com/regional/fl/keywest/

found here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=138082

brandon
05-25-2008, 08:12 AM
I hate smoking nazi's. It is apparent we have plenty of them here too. I thought people around here were smart enough to not buy into the second hand smoke hype.

constituent
05-25-2008, 08:14 AM
I hate smoking nazi's. It is apparent we have plenty of them here too. I thought people around here were smart enough to not buy into the second hand smoke hype.

imo, on second hand smoke...

if i have your smoke in my face, don't go crying to the cops when
my fist ends up in yours.

problem solved.

..and a libertarian solution no less

driller80545
05-25-2008, 08:19 AM
imo, on second hand smoke...

if i have your smoke in my face, don't go crying to the cops when
my fist ends up in yours.

problem solved.

..and a libertarian solution no less

Fair enough, although it might backfire on you.

brandon
05-25-2008, 08:24 AM
imo, on second hand smoke...

if i have your smoke in my face, don't go crying to the cops when
my fist ends up in yours.

problem solved.

..and a libertarian solution no less

Yes that is very libertarian solution. Libertarians always advocate using violence when something annoys you.

What about if someone has a funky body odor? Are you going to beat them up to for making you smell something you did not like? Of what if they are just really fat and sloppy? Are you going to kick their ass for making you look at something you didnt really want to see? Or maybe they just have one of those really fucking retarded voices, and they are talking to some people standing next to you. Off with his head?

Or what if somebody is combusting fossil fuels on the street you are walking on. Are you going to curb stomp that fucker for making you breath the byproducts?

Danke
05-25-2008, 08:32 AM
What about if someone has a funky body odor? Are you going to beat them up to for making you smell something you did not like? [ YES.


Of what if they are just really fat and sloppy? Are you going to kick their ass for making you look at something you didnt really want to see? NO.


Or maybe they just have one of those really fucking retarded voices, and they are talking to some people standing next to you. Off with his head? NO.


Or what if somebody is combusting fossil fuels on the street you are walking on. Are you going to curb stomp that fucker for making you breath the byproducts? MAYBE.

brandon
05-25-2008, 09:08 AM
lol

Kraig
05-27-2008, 05:59 AM
Here's some irony for ya, I've smoked since I was 12, I'm 42, I have been to the Dr. in the last 30 years exactly one time for being sick, the rest were all for check ups.

My last checkup I had an EKG done, the Dr. comes in the room I'm waiting in, pulls my EKG out of the holder it was in...and stops whistling, he says, "Damn"!

As you can imagine, my heart starts racing, I'm like "What"? "What"?

He goes, "I'm younger than you, I don't smoke, I eat right and excercise and your EKG is better than mine."

I'm like, "Well hell, you almost gave me a heart attack just now." He laughed.

On the other hand, my brother in law who doesn't smoke, was a marine and is four years younger than me has been in the hospital six times in the last six months, three of those times having surgery on his heart.


Go figure.

Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

Bern
05-27-2008, 06:45 AM
I consider your second hand smoke an assault on my person. It's chemical warfare!

(That's over the top, but basically how I feel to a lesser degree)

Here's some fun reading for those of you who missed it the first time around:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/national-reporting/works/morris.html

pcosmar
05-27-2008, 07:54 AM
I consider your second hand smoke an assault on my person. It's chemical warfare!

(That's over the top, but basically how I feel to a lesser degree)

Here's some fun reading for those of you who missed it the first time around:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1996/national-reporting/works/morris.html

Pulitzer Prise or Nobel prise mean nothing to me. More often they lend legitimacy to bullshit.
See Al Gore for an example.
Where does it end,
Ban Methane emissions- no more farting.
How about Cologne and Perfume, I find them to be offensive odors. Why should I have to be subjected to your stink.
How about banning cooked meat, a lot of vegetarians would find dead burnt flesh offensive.

The whole concept gets more ridiculous when taken to it's logical conclusion.

Bern
05-27-2008, 08:39 AM
The difference is that scond hand smoke contains chemical agents that affect my health. It's not just an annoyance or nuisance.

I would love to be able to sue for damages when my asthmatic nephew suffers clear damages from second hand smoke. Those cases are immediate and measurable.

A rope leash
05-27-2008, 09:52 AM
Tobacco smokers are a liability. This sort of company policy was inevitable. No doubt they get cheaper insurance when they don't hire smokers. Most tobacco addicts have more health problems, take more sick days, and ALWAYS need a fifteen minute break to "recharge". It hits the bottom line.

I'm with those that say it's about time they started testing for tobacco. The employers would do well to test for alcohol as well. Hell, just living with an alcoholic is a possible threat to the workplace. To those that want to cry about it, I say, welcome to my world. Y'all should be thankful they're not throwing you in jail for it.

They say that tobacco is not a psychoactive drug, but the personality does change when the addict quits tobacco, even for just a few hours. Coffee is another drug that has this sort of anti-effect, as it seems we don't need it until it's not there. Efficient capitalism demands that our workforce be free of such substances, and we all just have to kiss-ass and conform if we want to be part of that, right?

No one has a right to be addicted to anything. No employer has to hire the addicted...and no one, under any circumstances, has the right to pollute the public atmosphere.

The thing is, one person's freedom to smoke is nothing compared to an employer's right to efficiency. CEOs are required by law to make the correct decisions on these matters with the intent of increasing shareholder profits. This is really what is meant by American freedom and equality...do you have the money and clout to get what you want? The persons responsible for addiciting millions to tobacco never did a second in jail, but that was cool because they had billions to spare, and the states ate it up. Only the addicted really care when a vice is supressed.

So, no mercy, dope is dope!

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 10:22 AM
There's nothing like a little tobacco to highlight and bring out the authoritarian statists streaks in folks.

Can we start out on the fattys next week?

Hmmmmm? How about those "brown eyed" ones, very suspicious? What are THEY up to?

:rolleyes:

liberteebell
05-27-2008, 10:41 AM
Wow, you smoking nazis, or what I prefer to call "Conditional Freedom Lovers", are incredibly naive.

This is not about public health. It's about control and who gets insurance and at what cost. And it's an extension on the War on (some) Drugs. And they're picking on smoking because it's an easy target and it's fairly universally agreed that smoking is not good for one's health (but so are a lot of other things). Smoking is the seminal issue for many other control issues and the slope is very slippery.

You don't see anyone asking how much alcohol anyone drinks, what prescription drugs they take, how many Big Macs & X-tra large fries anyone eats a day, how much time anyone spends sitting on their fat ass in front of a computer, teevee or video game instead of exercising or how many people are driving while texting, doing wheelies on their crotch rockets at 80 MPH, or bungee jumping every weekend, and so on. Not yet anyway, but we'll get there soon enough.

And just wait 'till we get universal health care and see what suddenly becomes "risky behaviour" and who gets triaged out of health care.

Sure, a private employer has the right to expect his employees to come to work sober and "outlaw" smoking at work if he pleases. And some could say that an employer who contributes to an employee health plan has the right to ask that his employees take good care of themselves. Problem is, if the government hadn't stuck its tentacles in health care in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Bottom line is that you either own yourself or you don't.

For all you Conditional Freedom Lovers, please rethink all this and take it to its logical conclusions. Otherwise, your vice may be next...

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 10:52 AM
Wow, you smoking nazis, or what I prefer to call "Conditional Freedom Lovers", are incredibly naive.

This is not about public health. It's about control and who gets insurance and at what cost. And it's an extension on the War on (some) Drugs. And they're picking on smoking because it's an easy target and it's fairly universally agreed that smoking is not good for one's health (but so are a lot of other things). Smoking is the seminal issue for many other control issues and the slope is very slippery.

You don't see anyone asking how much alcohol anyone drinks, what prescription drugs they take, how many Big Macs & X-tra large fries anyone eats a day, how much time anyone spends sitting on their fat ass in front of a computer, teevee or video game instead of exercising or how many people are driving while texting, doing wheelies on their crotch rockets at 80 MPH, or bungee jumping every weekend, and so on. Not yet anyway, but we'll get there soon enough.

And just wait 'till we get universal health care and see what suddenly becomes "risky behaviour" and who gets triaged out of health care.

Sure, a private employer has the right to expect his employees to come to work sober and "outlaw" smoking at work if he pleases. And some could say that an employer who contributes to an employee health plan has the right to ask that his employees take good care of themselves. Problem is, if the government hadn't stuck its tentacles in health care in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Bottom line is that you either own yourself or you don't.

For all you Conditional Freedom Lovers, please rethink all this and take it to its logical conclusions. Otherwise, your vice may be next...

QFT!

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Is the US government STILL subsidizing tobacco farmers?

How many cigs did the US government provide for free to US soldiers in WWII?

How much $$$$$$$$$$$$$ does the government collect in tobacco taxes annually?

How much of rewarded theft do/did the lawyers collect in the mega billion class action suits?

Why doesn't the FDA merely ban and outlaw tobacco too?

BTW, tobacco companies pay ZERO taxes, the customers pay them all through higher prices.

Thanks bunches for nothing, all of you smoking Nazis. :rolleyes:

pcosmar
05-27-2008, 04:04 PM
Is the US government STILL subsidizing tobacco farmers?
:rolleyes:

Among other subsidies

Commodity US Dollars (in Millions) ,,, Percentage of Total
Feed Grains 2,841 ,,,,,,,,,,,, 35.4
Upland and ElS Cotton 1,420 ,,,,,,,,,,,, 17.7
Wheat 1,173,,,,,,,,,,,,, 14.6
Rice 1,130,,,,,,,,,,,,, 14.1
Soybeans and products 610,,,,,,,,,,,,, 7.6
Dairy 295,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3.7
Peanuts 259 ,,,,,,,,,,,, 3.2
Sugar 61,,,,,,,,,,,, 0.8
Minor Oilseeds 29 ,,,,,,,,,, 0.4
Tobacco 18 ,,,,,,,,, 0.2
Wool and Mohair 12 ,,,,,,,,, 0.1
Vegetable Oil products 11,,,,,,,,,, 0.1
Honey 3,,,,,,,,,, 0.0
Other Crops 160,,,,,,,,,, 2.0
Total 8,022,,,,,,,,,, 100

Yup, it's in there, but down pretty far own on the list.
I would prefer a free market and no subsidies though.

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 04:07 PM
Among other subsidies

Yup, it's in there, but down pretty far own on the list.
I would prefer a free market and no subsidies though.

That works for me! :)

Kraig
05-27-2008, 04:12 PM
Tobacco smokers are a liability. This sort of company policy was inevitable. No doubt they get cheaper insurance when they don't hire smokers. Most tobacco addicts have more health problems, take more sick days, and ALWAYS need a fifteen minute break to "recharge". It hits the bottom line.

All of these problems are never an issue to any GOOD employer as they can be handled on an invididual basis. Too many sick days? Fire them. Too long or too many breaks? Fire them. Cranky mood effecting job performance? Fire them.

You see it really is that simple. As an employer, if someone's work isn't meeting your standards, you can get rid of them. I've had jobs where I had to squeeze cigs into a 30 second bathroom break and I've had jobs where guys would leave the site and call it a smoke break. This kind of collective judgement should be left for pussy employers who are too afraid to deal with individuals, and people who have no respect for freedom in general.

Polluting your air? Ha! WTF do you think that car you drive every day does?

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 04:22 PM
Air pollution? How about farts in elevators? The bimbo's perfume overdose? General BO and halitosis? Feed lots? Oil refineries? Meat packing plants? Smog? Ozone?

Being out in public just exposes folks to the disgusting habits of others. Toughen up! :p

Crickett
05-27-2008, 05:06 PM
ooohhh..the methane VERY health hazardous. Much worse than burning leaves, I assure you. All these laws, seatbelts, helmets, cigarette ban..federal laws because of federal involvement with healthcare and insurance companies..Medicare, medicaid,...blah blah..what of all the people that are getting SICK over what they are turning this country into--an Oligarchy!! ..killing me..

Truth Warrior
05-27-2008, 05:24 PM
How many ppm is methane in the atmosphere?

3? :)

RSLudlum
05-27-2008, 05:45 PM
SC Gov. Sanford just vetoed a bill today that would've raised the cigarette tax by 50cents today on the grounds that he don't believe we (SC residents) need another hike in taxes unless the SC house cuts taxes somewhere else in an equal amount = no net gain in tax revenue = budget restriction ;)...That's been his policy for quite a long time now.

The local news here jumped all over his decision to veto the bill presenting a a very slanted report advocating the passing of the cigarette tax....I am planning on writing them asking if they would also support a 'french fry tax' and 'soda pop tax' since many people eat/drink these daily which in the long run can cause health problems also. ;)

A rope leash
05-27-2008, 07:09 PM
"Fire them"

Firing people may be the ultimate freedom for the employer, but it is much easier to do when policies and laws are in effect. Expecting a large corporation to a be "good" employer and to take cases on an "individual" basis is not reasonable. They are mostly beholden to money, and they will do as the money wishes.

That's where the "logical conclusion" is...you will not be allowed to damage yourself. As long as you are employed and under the umbrella, you will have to take care of yourself. This is how profits are maximized.

When I can ride a cigarette down the Interstate I'll let people bitch about my car polluting. Cars and cigarettes only hurt people when people use them. Nobody wants to die in a car accident, but cars are pretty fucking necessary, so we let it go. Nobody needs any cigarette, and I sure as hell don't need to be nose-hitting your Camel while I'm trying to enjoy my dinner down at the steak house.

Tobacco dens would be fine with me, and a couple of opium dens wouldn't kill us all, either...but big boss man don't want it. The people would have to rise up and say "let me smoke, or I'll make life hell for you". That's how we get individiual freedoms. You can't buy them like the corporations do.

liberteebell
05-27-2008, 07:57 PM
"Fire them"

Firing people may be the ultimate freedom for the employer, but it is much easier to do when policies and laws are in effect. Expecting a large corporation to a be "good" employer and to take cases on an "individual" basis is not reasonable. They are mostly beholden to money, and they will do as the money wishes.

That's where the "logical conclusion" is...you will not be allowed to damage yourself. As long as you are employed and under the umbrella, you will have to take care of yourself. This is how profits are maximized.

When I can ride a cigarette down the Interstate I'll let people bitch about my car polluting. Cars and cigarettes only hurt people when people use them. Nobody wants to die in a car accident, but cars are pretty fucking necessary, so we let it go. Nobody needs any cigarette, and I sure as hell don't need to be nose-hitting your Camel while I'm trying to enjoy my dinner down at the steak house.

Tobacco dens would be fine with me, and a couple of opium dens wouldn't kill us all, either...but big boss man don't want it. The people would have to rise up and say "let me smoke, or I'll make life hell for you". That's how we get individiual freedoms. You can't buy them like the corporations do.


As I said before, fine for a private employer to decide what rules & regs he wants to place on his employees.

Then potential employees would have the FREEDOM to decide whether or not they want to work there or not and the employer could rightly fire those who chose not to follow the rules. That amounts to a voluntary contract and breach of contract would have consequences.

That said, what an employee does on his own time is nobody's business but his own. The end. Once again, you either own yourself or you don't.

Government involvement in someone's personal life and making laws about what someone can or can't do with their own bodies is another thing altogether.

True freedom is not conditional. Each individual should have the freedom to do what he wants with himself and also the responsibility to suffer the consequences.

We don't need no stinkin' Nanny State telling us what's good for us or not!

Please recheck your logic.

JeNNiF00F00
05-27-2008, 09:05 PM
Just think if we get national health care. This type of control on the people will be EVERYWHERE. I think I read they can test to see if you have had a cigarette in the past year???

This whole attitude can go anywhere. They are picking on the smokers now, the fat people are next, and then who?

What about promiscuous employees? The next thing you know they'll be able to test the men if they use a rubber when they have sex, or if you have an incurable STD of any kind lingering in your body you will not be hired. Or how about when they'll be able to tell women that they need to be on birth control because of maternity leave costs and then the aspects of being a mom could take away from the ability to show up to work on a consistent basis after having a baby.

I've wondered when peeing in a cup for a drug test if they were doing pregnancy tests also. Once you give them that piss they can do anything with it. Kind of scary. Next thing ya know they'll be wanting to take a piece of your hair(oh wait they do that already for some drug tests) or a patch of skin to keep in a DNA database to weed out the people who have genes that are precursors for heart attacks, or certain diseases. When is this shit going to stop??

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 02:33 AM
Why would it ever stop, they're on a roll? Just using the only power that they have. The POWER that THE PEOPLE GIVE TO THEM. You don't like it, then take back your power.

liberteebell
05-28-2008, 04:33 AM
Just think if we get national health care. This type of control on the people will be EVERYWHERE. I think I read they can test to see if you have had a cigarette in the past year???

This whole attitude can go anywhere. They are picking on the smokers now, the fat people are next, and then who?

What about promiscuous employees? The next thing you know they'll be able to test the men if they use a rubber when they have sex, or if you have an incurable STD of any kind lingering in your body you will not be hired. Or how about when they'll be able to tell women that they need to be on birth control because of maternity leave costs and then the aspects of being a mom could take away from the ability to show up to work on a consistent basis after having a baby.

I've wondered when peeing in a cup for a drug test if they were doing pregnancy tests also. Once you give them that piss they can do anything with it. Kind of scary. Next thing ya know they'll be wanting to take a piece of your hair(oh wait they do that already for some drug tests) or a patch of skin to keep in a DNA database to weed out the people who have genes that are precursors for heart attacks, or certain diseases. When is this shit going to stop??


+1984!!!!

Please, all you smoking nazis, read this. She gets it.

constituent
05-28-2008, 06:25 AM
Yes that is very libertarian solution. Libertarians always advocate using violence when something annoys you.



libertarians advocate assaulting others w/ potential harmful chemicals (w/out facing repercussions)?

that's news to me.


the rest of your post = total f*n canard


once again, if you assault me (or members of my family), i have the right/prerogative to assault you back in a libertarian society.

or do you disagree w/ that? in your libertarian society should i first run to the police and file charges for the assault on my person?

when smoking around others in shared space you choose to harm those around you, whether it was through casual disregard for their health
or an intentional attack.

now, if it's on your private property, that's one thing.

pcosmar
05-28-2008, 07:20 AM
libertarians advocate assaulting others w/ potential harmful chemicals (w/out facing repercussions)?

that's news to me.


the rest of your post = total f*n canard


once again, if you assault me (or members of my family), i have the right/prerogative to assault you back in a libertarian society.

or do you disagree w/ that? in your libertarian society should i first run to the police and file charges for the assault on my person?

when smoking around others in shared space you choose to harm those around you, whether it was through casual disregard for their health
or an intentional attack.

now, if it's on your private property, that's one thing.

You would have to have some evidence of assault. Other than your personal annoyance.
You would have to show proof of harm , other than JUNK SCIENCE that has been thoroughly debunked.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 07:27 AM
Who owns the air? NOBODY!

If, you don't like it, then just don't breathe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Ninja Homer
05-28-2008, 08:05 AM
Who owns the air? NOBODY!

If, you don't like it, then just don't breathe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Actually, I own the air that floats above my property. This is how property rights are supposed to work for protecting the environment. If I can prove that you have polluted the air above my property, then I can sue you for damages.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/

However, I agree with you completely about smoking in public places. If I'm smoking on public property, you are free to avoid breathing the smoke. If I were to pin you to the ground and blow smoke in your face, then yeah, that would be assault.

Truth Warrior
05-28-2008, 09:14 AM
Actually, I own the air that floats above my property. This is how property rights are supposed to work for protecting the environment. If I can prove that you have polluted the air above my property, then I can sue you for damages.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/

However, I agree with you completely about smoking in public places. If I'm smoking on public property, you are free to avoid breathing the smoke. If I were to pin you to the ground and blow smoke in your face, then yeah, that would be assault.
Think it through again.

Ownership includes authority over, boundaries, responsibility, protection, control, etc. If you want to protect YOUR owned environment then just go right ahead and be my guest. Leave my property alone.

Keep YOUR air off MY property, however. If an airplane flies over your property, do you claim to own that too? How about over head orbiting satellites? Yours?

Every breath that you take includes a hundred million or so atoms previously breathed by Galileo. :D

Ninja Homer
05-28-2008, 03:20 PM
Think it through again.

Ownership includes authority over, boundaries, responsibility, protection, control, etc. If you want to protect YOUR owned environment then just go right ahead and be my guest. Leave my property alone.

Keep YOUR air off MY property, however. If an airplane flies over your property, do you claim to own that too? How about over head orbiting satellites? Yours?

Every breath that you take includes a hundred million or so atoms previously breathed by Galileo. :D

"When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land - barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land - up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors."
-Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/

DamianTV
05-29-2008, 04:20 PM
FEAR is the tool of politicians to coerce people into doing something they would not normally do. Such as there are a few pedophiles on the planet, but we fear them so much that everything we look at on the internet has to be tracked and monitored. We fear terrorists so much that we want the Real ID and every other (in)security precausionary measure we can take.

So where does this FEAR of SMOKING come from? Do the non smokers really believe that if you even get a whif of smoke that youre gonna choke to death and die at 80 of lung cancer? Guess what, youre probably right about choking to death at 80 but its not because of cigarettes causing the cancer. Youre gonna grow old, and youre gonna die. Face it. Only thing in life that is truly fair is death. At some point it comes for us all.

So you dont want to breathe the air I pollute? Thats about as stupid as suing someone because they farted in an elevator with you. Oh but the second hand smoke MIGHT hurt you. Well, no one has any guarantees that smoke period WILL hurt you. Its a MIGHT. A MAYBE. What If. During the black plague, a geneitic mutation known as the Delta 12 Mutation (I think) made some people basically totally immune to the virus. It didnt kill them. It didnt make them sick. It didnt do shit. It was discovered a few years ago that people that have this genetic mutation appear to be immune to the aids virus. But you dont hear about that on mainstream media. Now for non smokers to constantly say you shouldnt be allowed to smoke is the result of FEAR MONGERING. Nothing more. And not smoking because I MIGHT get you sick also makes as much sense to me as me telling you that you cant go out and have sex with ANYONE because you might pollute the sex pool with a disease you MIGHT have and not know about and when I get my pee pee stinky I dont want to take a chance that you, indirectly, by the girl (or guy) you had sex with, had sex with someone else who had sex with someone else, so on and so forth until your stinkin disease MIGHT make my wing wang fall off. Its illogical.

If the smoking nazi's want to really look at the cause for lung borne illnesses and ailments, how about everything ELSE we do to the air besides smoking. I mean EVERYTHING. Cars, fire, blasting, global warming, farting, mining, driving a truck really fast on a dirt road and kicking up a lot of dust, trucks that use LEADED (suspected cancer causing material) Diesel Gasoline, the odor your dirty socks make, burning a steak, or cooking with TEFLON (another suspected cancer causing agent), etc add on infinitum. If you add it all up, SMOKING is a lot lower on the ladder than something like LEADED GASOLINE.

I'll make this one brief. Doctors dont make money off of healthy people. So we pretty much know that we've had cancer cured in various forms that has been supressed because its "not profitable". Nuff said on that topic. I'll debate that in another thread if need be.

So if youre not afraid that second hand smoking from six miles away will make you sick, but are afraid that the truck route that goes down your street may make you sicker than cigarette smoke will, would you still FEAR smokers?

Truth Warrior
05-29-2008, 04:27 PM
"When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land - barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land - up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors."
-Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/
Ron is correct.

That's not the situation that we find ourselves in, is it?

How long has pollution of other's people's property been illegal?

However long, why is it still going on?