If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Florida county bans nicotine. There, that should fix everything   (opposingviews.com) divider line 40
    More: Florida, Flagler County, banned drugs, big tobacco  
•       •       •

4805 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Sep 2013 at 3:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-06 03:27:46 AM
Some guy in my county tried to pass a law banning the ban of things....

He abruptly disappeared.
 
2013-09-06 03:31:14 AM

SpdrJay: Some guy in my county tried to pass a law banning the ban of things....

He abruptly disappeared.


I want to ban the people who ban stuff I like! Hey, what's with all the helicopters outside?
 
2013-09-06 03:31:25 AM
With actual drug screenings?!

I'm on the gum right now and doing exactly nothing to harm the health of people around me while I work to overcome addiction.

fark these assholes, hard.
 
2013-09-06 03:34:24 AM
It's not so much a ban so much as another employer deciding not to hire tobacco users for healthcare cost reasons.
 
2013-09-06 03:38:50 AM
Should work out about as well as dry villages in Alaska.
 
2013-09-06 03:41:43 AM
One fine day cigarettes, booze, sugar, red meat, heterosexuality, and gas powered cars will be banned for the poor but we'll be okay because we will be able to smoke all the weed we want.
 
2013-09-06 03:50:57 AM

Old Man Winter: One fine day cigarettes, booze, sugar, red meat, heterosexuality, and gas powered cars will be banned for the poor but we'll be okay because we will be able to smoke all the weed we want.


i.crackedcdn.com
Be Well
 
2013-09-06 03:58:31 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Old Man Winter: One fine day cigarettes, booze, sugar, red meat, heterosexuality, and gas powered cars will be banned for the poor but we'll be okay because we will be able to smoke all the weed we want.


Be Well


I'll be in the sewer eating rat burgers.

Or volunteering for a millenia of sleep-learning in the hops that I come out a well-balanced genius.
 
2013-09-06 04:04:03 AM

Smackledorfer: sleep-learning in the hops


Ah, yes, beer immersion sleep learning.  The best kind of sleep learning.
 
2013-09-06 04:09:04 AM
There are ways around the banning of substances.  People lie all the time.  nicotine doesn't stay in your system like THC does, according to all those placards I kept seeing about the time I quit smoking.  Yes, I can tell when my ex came back from a smoke, first off, because she left the house, and second, because the smell preceded her.

However, should any of these smokers want a cushy government job, they can do something simple: The cost of smoking has risen to the point that the nicotine patches, of just about any variety/maker, are about the same cost as it would be to smoke during the time you are at work.  Or you can chew the gum, or whatever.  Or just hold in the disdain you feel towards the morons about you, while you deny yourself the simple pleasure of lighting up ... for a few more hours.  I did that while working in insurance, surrounded by smokers all day who would leave every 45 minutes to take a couple drags, and be back 20 minutes later smelling of Dorals or Winstons or Camels.  And they can lie on their insurance application.  The credit check(yes, they are checking on what you buy, so as to find the evil cigarettes on your credit card bill) can be side-stepped by buying smokes with cash every time.  I see it every damn day where I work.

/pussification of America indeed
//I have the privilege, nay the right to fark up my body any way I want
///non-smoker, runner, gym rat ... 26 minutes and such
 
2013-09-06 04:09:12 AM
Yeah this is going to go over like a lead balloon.
 
2013-09-06 04:12:21 AM

CourtroomWolf: Smackledorfer: sleep-learning in the hops

Ah, yes, beer immersion sleep learning.  The best kind of sleep learning.


Well, I want good state-dependant recall. When I wake up knowing all the sciences, I would like to be able to do my studies while drunk.
 
2013-09-06 04:39:39 AM
Well, if it works for alcohol, drugs, and guns....
 
2013-09-06 04:54:26 AM
In Flagler County the 635 current employees are exempt from the ban. The County Commission is also exempt including "those individuals who may run for office in the future."
 
2013-09-06 05:38:00 AM
Which Costs More...Obesity or Smoking?Friday, March 09, 2012Obese Workers Have Even Higher Health Costs than Smokers, Study Finds
Chicago IL - Obesity adds more to health care costs than smoking does, reports a study in the March Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
James P. Moriarty, MSc, and colleagues of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., analyzed the incremental (additional) costs of smoking and obesity among more than 30,000 Mayo Clinic employees and retirees. All had continuous health insurance coverage between 2001 and 2007.
Both obesity and smoking were associated with excess costs for health care. Compared to nonsmokers, average health costs were $1,275 higher for smokers.
The incremental costs associated with obesity were even higher: $1,850 more than for normal-weight individuals. For those with morbid obesity, the excess costs were up to $5,500 per year.
The additional costs associated with obesity appeared lower after adjustment for other accompanying health problems (comorbidity). "This may lead to underestimation of the true incremental costs, since obesity is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions," Moriarty and colleagues write.
Smoking and obesity place a growing strain on an already stretched healthcare system. Employers are evaluating wellness programs - such as quit-smoking and fitness programs - in an attempt to lower costs by reducing health risk factors.
Moriarty and coauthors conclude, "Simultaneous estimates of incremental costs of smoking and obesity show that these factors appear to act as independent multiplicative factors." Their study provides new insights into the long-term costs of obesity and smoking, showing that both risk factors lead to persistently higher health costs throughout a seven-year follow-up period.
- See more at: http://www.acoem.org/CostsObesityvsSmoking.aspx#sthash.MYdHbivk.dpuf Which Costs More...Obesity or Smoking?
Friday, March 09, 2012
Obese Workers Have Even Higher Health Costs than Smokers, Study Finds
Chicago IL - Obesity adds more to health care costs than smoking does, reports a study in the March Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
James P. Moriarty, MSc, and colleagues of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., analyzed the incremental (additional) costs of smoking and obesity among more than 30,000 Mayo Clinic employees and retirees. All had continuous health insurance coverage between 2001 and 2007.
Both obesity and smoking were associated with excess costs for health care. Compared to nonsmokers, average health costs were $1,275 higher for smokers.
The incremental costs associated with obesity were even higher: $1,850 more than for normal-weight individuals. For those with morbid obesity, the excess costs were up to $5,500 per year.

The additional costs associated with obesity appeared lower after adjustment for other accompanying health problems (comorbidity). "This may lead to underestimation of the true incremental costs, since obesity is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions," Moriarty and colleagues write.
Smoking and obesity place a growing strain on an already stretched healthcare system. Employers are evaluating wellness programs - such as quit-smoking and fitness programs - in an attempt to lower costs by reducing health risk factors.
Moriarty and coauthors conclude, "Simultaneous estimates of incremental costs of smoking and obesity show that these factors appear to act as independent multiplicative factors." Their study provides new insights into the long-term costs of obesity and smoking, showing that both risk factors lead to persistently higher health costs throughout a seven-year follow-up period.
- See more at: http://www.acoem.org/CostsObesityvsSmoking.aspx#sthash.MYdHbivk.dpuf


Stuff that tobacoo users cost to much healthcare right up your ass. Fatties cost almost 600 bucks more if they are only fat. If they are "Oh Damn" Fat they cost almost 4k more.

So should we ban french fries and greaseburgers too? Or perhaps those campuses that banned smoking also kicked out the taco bell/mcdonalds/pizza hut from the food court.

Personal freedoms be damned, this country is retarded when it comes to cost:benefits analysis.

/Don't hate fatties.
//Love me some thick women.
///But 4k. Damn!
Which Costs More...Obesity or Smoking?Friday, March 09, 2012Obese Workers Have Even Higher Health Costs than Smokers, Study Finds
Chicago IL - Obesity adds more to health care costs than smoking does, reports a study in the March Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
James P. Moriarty, MSc, and colleagues of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., analyzed the incremental (additional) costs of smoking and obesity among more than 30,000 Mayo Clinic employees and retirees. All had continuous health insurance coverage between 2001 and 2007.
Both obesity and smoking were associated with excess costs for health care. Compared to nonsmokers, average health costs were $1,275 higher for smokers.
The incremental costs associated with obesity were even higher: $1,850 more than for normal-weight individuals. For those with morbid obesity, the excess costs were up to $5,500 per year.
The additional costs associated with obesity appeared lower after adjustment for other accompanying health problems (comorbidity). "This may lead to underestimation of the true incremental costs, since obesity is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions," Moriarty and colleagues write.
Smoking and obesity place a growing strain on an already stretched healthcare system. Employers are evaluating wellness programs - such as quit-smoking and fitness programs - in an attempt to lower costs by reducing health risk factors.
Moriarty and coauthors conclude, "Simultaneous estimates of incremental costs of smoking and obesity show that these factors appear to act as independent multiplicative factors." Their study provides new insights into the long-term costs of obesity and smoking, showing that both risk factors lead to persistently higher health costs throughout a seven-year follow-up period.
- See more at: http://www.acoem.org/CostsObesityvsSmoking.aspx#sthash.MYdHbivk.dpufWh ich Costs More...Obesity or Smoking?Friday, March 09, 2012Obese Workers Have Even Higher Health Costs than Smokers, Study Finds
Chicago IL - Obesity adds more to health care costs than smoking does, reports a study in the March Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, official publication of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
James P. Moriarty, MSc, and colleagues of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., analyzed the incremental (additional) costs of smoking and obesity among more than 30,000 Mayo Clinic employees and retirees. All had continuous health insurance coverage between 2001 and 2007.
Both obesity and smoking were associated with excess costs for health care. Compared to nonsmokers, average health costs were $1,275 higher for smokers.
The incremental costs associated with obesity were even higher: $1,850 more than for normal-weight individuals. For those with morbid obesity, the excess costs were up to $5,500 per year.
The additional costs associated with obesity appeared lower after adjustment for other accompanying health problems (comorbidity). "This may lead to underestimation of the true incremental costs, since obesity is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions," Moriarty and colleagues write.
Smoking and obesity place a growing strain on an already stretched healthcare system. Employers are evaluating wellness programs - such as quit-smoking and fitness programs - in an attempt to lower costs by reducing health risk factors.
Moriarty and coauthors conclude, "Simultaneous estimates of incremental costs of smoking and obesity show that these factors appear to act as independent multiplicative factors." Their study provides new insights into the long-term costs of obesity and smoking, showing that both risk factors lead to persistently higher health costs throughout a seven-year follow-up period.
- See more at: http://www.acoem.org/CostsObesityvsSmoking.aspx#sthash.MYdHbivk.dpuf
 
2013-09-06 05:40:14 AM
Sorry formatting error due to the formatting from the site it was on.

The site by the way, since it got lost in the shuffle is...
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

www.acoem.org
 
2013-09-06 05:58:25 AM
Ban florida. It's nasty.
 
2013-09-06 06:05:51 AM
You don't need any fancy test or snooping around cc records. A smoker just plain stinks. Even if they manage to stop for a couple of days before an interview that nasty funk still hangs around a smoker.  They might as well have gone without a bath for a week before the interview.

Smokers don't seem to realize this because smoking destroys their sense of smell. They already have odds stacked against them when they walk in the door and the HR person gets a whiff.
 
2013-09-06 06:13:33 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: You don't need any fancy test or snooping around cc records. A smoker just plain stinks. Even if they manage to stop for a couple of days before an interview that nasty funk still hangs around a smoker.  They might as well have gone without a bath for a week before the interview.

Smokers don't seem to realize this because smoking destroys their sense of smell. They already have odds stacked against them when they walk in the door and the HR person gets a whiff.


While you are right, does that mean we can discriminate against people that wear perfume I don't like?

Or live in Alaska like I do where some don't have running water. I don't care how much perfume you slap on, not showering makes you smell disgusting. Especially disgusting when mixed with an overbearing perfume.

Perhaps we should just have companies follow us home to make sure we follow all of their rules about how to live life.

I guess the point is, I don't see your point other than smokers smell bad.
 
2013-09-06 07:07:01 AM
From another article (since I refuse to click Opposing Views):


"The tobacco ban applies to anything that would produce nicotine," said Joseph Mayer, Flagler County's community services director. That includes cigarettes, chewing tobacco, e-cigarettes, pipes and snuff.

Job applicants also must sign an affidavit stating, under penalty of perjury, that they have not used tobacco within one-year of employment.
"It's the same thing as drug use," Mayer said. "We have a drug-free policy where everyone is tested for drug use before they come on board, and if they start using afterwards we won't know until either a random test or a workers compensation incident."


Oh, and it's a proposed policy contrary to the headline.

So it hasn't happened yet.
It's not about the "stink" of smokers.
It's not about smokers taking excessive breaks on the job.

It's about DRUGS!!!!

A few states actually have laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees who do legal things on their own time when not working.  Apparently Florida is not one of them.

I can't wait until employers start refusing to hire people who drink coffee or alcohol.
 
2013-09-06 07:08:52 AM
Bloomberg approves.
 
2013-09-06 07:12:56 AM
My antidepressant wasn't as effective as I thought it should be so my therapist suggested that I embark on an overarching quest to displace the lack of pleasure I feel onto all aspects of life I see around me.
 
2013-09-06 07:31:11 AM
Thus, when employers exclude smokers, they can save money on employee health insurance.

Market forces, lol
 
2013-09-06 08:27:16 AM

LumpyProle: In Flagler County the 635 current employees are exempt from the ban. The County Commission is also exempt including "those individuals who may run for office in the future."


Holy farking shiat. Where is my torch and pitchfork?
 
2013-09-06 08:38:37 AM
 "Rather than discouraging smoking, these sort of policies end up punishing the smoker for using a perfectly legal product. "
Which, if politicians and the "health" industry had more of a spine, wouldn't be legal.  Nicotine  is the single most addictive substance on earth, period.(citation -  http://tinyurl.com/6t9oxcz among many others)
That's why after the congressional hearings and the huge tobacco settlement, the tobacco industry upped the percentage of nicotine in products, in some, as much as 25% more. (citation - http://tinyurl.com/og9n3 ) It is now virtually impossible to quit smoking and the industry is working on making it harder.

Instead of vilifying those among us looking out for our well being and our later in life finances and health, we should be supporting this sort of well-meaning initiative.  Granted, you may feel it's a bit wide of the mark but, it is meant to protect the smoker that has managed to ignore or avoid the warnings regarding tobacco.  And the rule isn't meant to kill anyone, as opposed to tobacco.

In looking up pages for this bit I just wrote, I kept running across the phrase -"for using a perfectly legal product ".  To the point that it was sort of creepy.  Different sources, same exact phrase.  Seemed odd.
 
2013-09-06 08:57:53 AM

Marcintosh: "Rather than discouraging smoking, these sort of policies end up punishing the smoker for using a perfectly legal product. "
Which, if politicians and the "health" industry had more of a spine, wouldn't be legal.  Nicotine  is the single most addictive substance on earth, period.(citation -  http://tinyurl.com/6t9oxcz among many others)
That's why after the congressional hearings and the huge tobacco settlement, the tobacco industry upped the percentage of nicotine in products, in some, as much as 25% more. (citation - http://tinyurl.com/og9n3 ) It is now virtually impossible to quit smoking and the industry is working on making it harder.

Instead of vilifying those among us looking out for our well being and our later in life finances and health, we should be supporting this sort of well-meaning initiative.  Granted, you may feel it's a bit wide of the mark but, it is meant to protect the smoker that has managed to ignore or avoid the warnings regarding tobacco.  And the rule isn't meant to kill anyone, as opposed to tobacco.

In looking up pages for this bit I just wrote, I kept running across the phrase -"for using a perfectly legal product ".  To the point that it was sort of creepy.  Different sources, same exact phrase.  Seemed odd.


You have a point. It no longer a perfectly legal product. They have banned it. You can argue if they have the power to ban certain substances. What they don't have the power to do is exempt themselves from said bans.
 
2013-09-06 09:13:39 AM
It's very cute the way that the politicians that passed this law exempted themselves and future politicians from the law.

Day_Old_Dutchie: You don't need any fancy test or snooping around cc records. A smoker just plain stinks. Even if they manage to stop for a couple of days before an interview that nasty funk still hangs around a smoker.  They might as well have gone without a bath for a week before the interview.

Smokers don't seem to realize this because smoking destroys their sense of smell. They already have odds stacked against them when they walk in the door and the HR person gets a whiff.


People who vape (electronic cigarettes) don't smell.  Those don't actually make smoke, there is no tobacco, nothing burns.  They don't smell anything like cigarettes, and while you can usually get a slight smell if you're smelling the vapor while they vape, but you aren't going to be able to smell it on them afterwards.  But if you test for nicotine, the majority of them will test positive.  Nicotine patches, nicotine gum, etc will also give you a positive nicotine test.

You can be more specific to smoking by testing carbon monoxide levels, but it's more expensive to test.

badhatharry: You have a point. It no longer a perfectly legal product. They have banned it.


This is incorrect.  It's still a legal product.  It can still be sold.  You can still smoke at home, or in a parking lot, or anyplace where it isn't specifically prohibited, and you will not be arrested or ticketed for doing so.

The very first line in the article says "Cigarette smoking is still legal, but it's certainly gotten more inconvenient. "

It's not illegal.
 
2013-09-06 09:19:27 AM

JuggleGeek: It's very cute the way that the politicians that passed this law exempted themselves and future politicians from the law.

Day_Old_Dutchie: You don't need any fancy test or snooping around cc records. A smoker just plain stinks. Even if they manage to stop for a couple of days before an interview that nasty funk still hangs around a smoker.  They might as well have gone without a bath for a week before the interview.

Smokers don't seem to realize this because smoking destroys their sense of smell. They already have odds stacked against them when they walk in the door and the HR person gets a whiff.

People who vape (electronic cigarettes) don't smell.  Those don't actually make smoke, there is no tobacco, nothing burns.  They don't smell anything like cigarettes, and while you can usually get a slight smell if you're smelling the vapor while they vape, but you aren't going to be able to smell it on them afterwards.  But if you test for nicotine, the majority of them will test positive.  Nicotine patches, nicotine gum, etc will also give you a positive nicotine test.

You can be more specific to smoking by testing carbon monoxide levels, but it's more expensive to test.

badhatharry: You have a point. It no longer a perfectly legal product. They have banned it.

This is incorrect.  It's still a legal product.  It can still be sold.  You can still smoke at home, or in a parking lot, or anyplace where it isn't specifically prohibited, and you will not be arrested or ticketed for doing so.

The very first line in the article says "Cigarette smoking is still legal, but it's certainly gotten more inconvenient. "

It's not illegal.


Fair enough. It is legal, just banned for prospective county employees. Sounds like a case for the ACLU.
 
2013-09-06 09:24:26 AM

badhatharry: Marcintosh: "Rather than discouraging smoking, these sort of policies end up punishing the smoker for using a perfectly legal product. "
Which, if politicians and the "health" industry had more of a spine, wouldn't be legal.  Nicotine  is the single most addictive substance on earth, period.(citation -  http://tinyurl.com/6t9oxcz among many others)
That's why after the congressional hearings and the huge tobacco settlement, the tobacco industry upped the percentage of nicotine in products, in some, as much as 25% more. (citation - http://tinyurl.com/og9n3 ) It is now virtually impossible to quit smoking and the industry is working on making it harder.

Instead of vilifying those among us looking out for our well being and our later in life finances and health, we should be supporting this sort of well-meaning initiative.  Granted, you may feel it's a bit wide of the mark but, it is meant to protect the smoker that has managed to ignore or avoid the warnings regarding tobacco.  And the rule isn't meant to kill anyone, as opposed to tobacco.

In looking up pages for this bit I just wrote, I kept running across the phrase -"for using a perfectly legal product ".  To the point that it was sort of creepy.  Different sources, same exact phrase.  Seemed odd.

You have a point. It no longer a perfectly legal product. They have banned it. You can argue if they have the power to ban certain substances. What they don't have the power to do is exempt themselves from said bans.


Agreed, be fair across the board "if you please"
 
2013-09-06 09:24:35 AM
I suspect that the reason it doesn't apply to politicians is that their lawyer told them "If you do that, you'll be sued by the first person who tries to run for office and fails the test, and you will lose".   If you want to stop someone from running for office, you need to be on very firm legal ground.  "I don't like you" isn't enough, and that's essentially what this is.

There are a number of businesses that have made "no nicotine" rules, which is what this article is about.  Baylor Hospital in Dallas has one, for instance.
 
2013-09-06 11:17:18 AM

thiefofdreams: Day_Old_Dutchie: You don't need any fancy test or snooping around cc records. A smoker just plain stinks. Even if they manage to stop for a couple of days before an interview that nasty funk still hangs around a smoker.  They might as well have gone without a bath for a week before the interview.

Smokers don't seem to realize this because smoking destroys their sense of smell. They already have odds stacked against them when they walk in the door and the HR person gets a whiff.

While you are right, does that mean we can discriminate against people that wear perfume I don't like?

Or live in Alaska like I do where some don't have running water. I don't care how much perfume you slap on, not showering makes you smell disgusting. Especially disgusting when mixed with an overbearing perfume.

Perhaps we should just have companies follow us home to make sure we follow all of their rules about how to live life.

I guess the point is, I don't see your point other than smokers smell bad.


Actually yes, an employer in many states can fire you over perfume usage. It, like smoking, is not a protected status.

See At-will employment laws.
 
2013-09-06 12:00:22 PM
So when does the caffeine ban go into effect then?
 
2013-09-06 12:20:53 PM

Psychopusher: So when does the caffeine ban go into effect then?


Caffeine in moderation may actually be good for you.  I don't think that can be said for smoking.

/not in favor of any smoking bans, nor do I like employer hiring discrimination based on health concerns, but this is hardly an actual ban. It is a hiring practice.
 
2013-09-06 02:06:19 PM

Smackledorfer: Psychopusher: So when does the caffeine ban go into effect then?

Caffeine in moderation may actually be good for you.  I don't think that can be said for smoking.

/not in favor of any smoking bans, nor do I like employer hiring discrimination based on health concerns, but this is hardly an actual ban. It is a hiring practice.


Granted, smoking is bad, period.  I meant specifically nicotine though, since that's what they've banned, which is, physiologically speaking, very similar to caffeine, both in terms of its effects and its addictive potential.  Medical science has been finding positive uses for nicotine as well, such as the treatment of ADD as it helps promote focus.  Nicotine in and of itself is relatively benign -- a fact being recognized by more doctors these days.  It's all the other nasty crap in cigarettes, both naturally occurring in tobacco and, moreover, as a product of combustion, that kills you and harms those around you.

My point though was that the alleged reason for the banning is because they are treating it like a drug little different from weed or harder drugs, and if that's the case, when are they banning caffeine?
 
2013-09-06 02:36:19 PM

Psychopusher: Nicotine in and of itself is relatively benign -- a fact being recognized by more doctors these days.  It's all the other nasty crap in cigarettes, both naturally occurring in tobacco and, moreover, as a product of combustion, that kills you and harms those around you.


Agreed.  Amusingly though on NPR last night they were talking about the increase in E-cig usage and the 'expert' whose job was to go on and stir up ZOMG YOUR KIDS ARE DYING OF ECIGS, and they are a gateway to REAL SMOKING!!!! said something along the lines of 'people believe that these ecigs are healthier because they don't have any of the tar or chemicals in a regular cigarette, but that has yet to be proven'

And I just wanted to call NPR and cancel my donations right then and there for not calling him out on it.  We need a study to show that if you don't burn things that produce tar then there won't be tar?  Gee, where is the study that my humidifier for water doesn't contain all the tar of a cigarette product too? Until such study occurs, lord only knows what I'm doing to myself when I get a sore throat in the winter and turn on a humidifier.
 
2013-09-06 07:07:06 PM
A provision in the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, allows smokes to be charged 50 percent more than non-smokers by insurance companies.

Uh, fark you Obummer. Seriously, fark you. Just like abortion, they can't ban it outright, but they'll weasel around and do underhanded shiat to make it exceptionally hard to do it/get it.

/Week four on the patch
//Still want one sometimes when I have to deal with stupid muggles
 
2013-09-06 10:16:08 PM

Smackledorfer: Caffeine in moderation may actually be good for you.  I don't think that can be said for smoking.


It doesn't matter if it's good or bad.  It's DRUGS!!!!

Didn't you see the quote from Joseph Mayer?  He's the county community services director.

Yes, caffeine is a drug.  It's a legal drug, just as nicotine is a legal drug.
 
2013-09-07 12:46:21 AM

wildcardjack: It's not so much a ban so much as another employer deciding not to hire tobacco users for healthcare cost reasons.


So what about people who don't use tobacco? There are more ways to enjoy nicotine than burning tobacco, so you won't hire people who are on the patch or gum or vape?
 
2013-09-07 12:52:41 AM

Marcintosh: "Rather than discouraging smoking, these sort of policies end up punishing the smoker for using a perfectly legal product. "
Which, if politicians and the "health" industry had more of a spine, wouldn't be legal.  Nicotine  is the single most addictive substance on earth, period.(citation -  http://tinyurl.com/6t9oxcz among many others)
That's why after the congressional hearings and the huge tobacco settlement, the tobacco industry upped the percentage of nicotine in products, in some, as much as 25% more. (citation - http://tinyurl.com/og9n3 ) It is now virtually impossible to quit smoking and the industry is working on making it harder.

Instead of vilifying those among us looking out for our well being and our later in life finances and health, we should be supporting this sort of well-meaning initiative.  Granted, you may feel it's a bit wide of the mark but, it is meant to protect the smoker that has managed to ignore or avoid the warnings regarding tobacco.  And the rule isn't meant to kill anyone, as opposed to tobacco.

In looking up pages for this bit I just wrote, I kept running across the phrase -"for using a perfectly legal product ".  To the point that it was sort of creepy.  Different sources, same exact phrase.  Seemed odd.


What about the fact that nicotine can be enjoyed in NON-TOBACCO forms? Is nicotine evil and must be banned even in the form of e-cigs? Why? What on earth is the reasoning behind that stance?

Someone else enjoys something I don't so it must be made illegal? Is that where they're coming from?

fark that noise.
 
2013-09-07 01:42:50 PM

silvervial: wildcardjack: It's not so much a ban so much as another employer deciding not to hire tobacco users for healthcare cost reasons.

So what about people who don't use tobacco? There are more ways to enjoy nicotine than burning tobacco, so you won't hire people who are on the patch or gum or vape?


Did you read an article about it?  I dunno, I skipped the Opposing Views bullshiat but other sources make it clear that users of those will not be hired either under the proposed regulations.

Because it's DRUGS.

It kind of makes me wonder what kind of lawsuit would ensue if they were prescribed nicotine by a doctor as a smoking cessation drug.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report