Comments on: It’s not enough to banish smoking, now we won’t hire smokers

By: coach ã‚³ãƒ¬ã‚¯ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³

coach ã‚³ãƒ¬ã‚¯ã‚·ãƒ§ãƒ³ — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:11:53 +0000

chanel ãƒãƒƒã‚° ã‚¢ã‚¦ãƒˆãƒ¬ãƒƒãƒˆ

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:08:52 +0000

neo, isn’t it painting with too broad a brush to say that the US has a more puritan heritage. The anti-smoking absolutism is pushed by so-called progressives who also pushed prohibition. Leftists are opposed to the tyranny of ideas pushed by religious types but do not think twice about pushing their own quasi-religious agenda on others. They are just jerks.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:54:41 +0000

RB Glennie: what if someone has a bladder problem, and they have to take frequent bathroom breaks?

Or a circulation problem, and they have to get up every hour or so and walk around for a couple of minutes?

By: RB Glennie

RB Glennie — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:53:30 +0000

Hi – I actually support the right of any employer not to hire cigarette-smokers, though I have no truck with smoking bans as they are imposed out-of-doors, as in public parks, swimming pools, or restaurant / bar patios.

Employers have the right, to my mind, not to be inconvenienced by the reality of smokers `going out for a smoke’ every half-hour; I know this as I have had to deal with this myself, as a workplace supervisor / manager.

Somehow, it has become accepted that, for smokers only, a dozen or so breaks of as long as ten minutes per day is required, whilst everyone else is forbidden this privilege.

By: Sam L.

Sam L. — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:03:21 +0000

In the early ’70s, I remember being at a party with smokers, and having to go outside for fresh air. (I would not date a smoker.) In the late ’70s, I worked in an office with smokers; by 1PM the smoke was visible from half way to the ceiling. Then we started selecting non-smokers, until we all didn’t. In the ’80s, I worked in a building with steam heat. My office guys didn’t smoke, but others did. I could wear my uniform 2 days (hanging it in a plastic bag with moth balls overnight). Then had to wash it.

So I’m against smoking inside, but that’s it.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:39:51 +0000

I have a copy of the 1967 Surgeon General report on smoking and health and it plainly shows that moderate smokers have lower mortality and disease rates than nonsmokers. You will not find this report on the Surgeon General website. It’s politically incorrect so it’s been dissapeared.

By: Lurch

Lurch — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:13:32 +0000

Will the do-gooders tell me next that because I own a gun I am not allowed to work at certain jobs?

By: Lurch

Lurch — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:00:35 +0000

Bottom line for me: is smoking legal, or illegal? It’s legal so whether i smoke or not is my own damn business. Just because I am a slave to wages, must i give up my freedoms too??

By: Surellin

Surellin — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:22:48 +0000

An Obamacare argument for encouraging smoking: Assume that a heavy smoker loses (say) ten years of life (which of course come at the end of life, when one would probably be retired anyway). Then assume (as I believe is true) that most medical costs in one’s life are in the last year or so, and almost everybody will cost heavily in that time, rather than dropping dead unexpectedly and cheaply. Then, voila!, smoking is GOOD for society. All those nasty smokers are forfeiting ten years of retirement (at the expense of everybody else) and not costing much more than average in end-of-life medical expenses. And they’re paying up enormous taxes for their coffin nails in the meantime. Shouldn’t the Death Panel folks be all in favor, then? Just askin’. I smoke a pipe myself. Molon Labe.

I smoke a pipe myself. It’s MUCH cheaper than ciggies. And more civilized, IMNSHO.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:30:29 +0000

So if the real reason for these bans on smokers is due to the “health costs to the company of hiring a smoker” and “the fact that smokers themselves have more sick days and higher health costs in general,” does this apply to pot smokers, too? I mean, in the states where it is now legal (and these employees aren’t screened out using employee drug test)? I can’t imagine that a pot smoker is any more reliable than a tabacco smoker. And what about cigar smokers? Or would that maybe adversely affect managers and CEO types?