Sarasota County, in Florida, has announced that they will no longer hire people who smoke.
Yup. If you smoke, don't work for Sarasota County. Why would they do this? Well, Sarasota County Administrator, Jim Ley, said: "the hiring ban came out of "a five- or six-year strategy to produce a healthier work force and manage our long-term health care costs."
Can they legally do this? Boy, that's a tough question.
As far as 'protected status' . . . yeah. Smokers aren't protected. In fact, apart from Single Straight White Male Conservative Christian gun nuts (like yours truly), no one takes more heat than smokers. They are regularly demonized and overtaxed. They are insulted and have laws passed against them and are dealt with as though they are a leper purposely walking around rubbing up against others.
Here is something that the County doesn't consider (or, that it considers and doesn't care about). . . Off Duty Employees. An employee, you see, is not the slave of the employer. They exchange time and labor for money, but that is (generally) how far that relationship goes. What the employee does on their own time has no bearings on their professional life (that said, I do recognize that illegal drugs in the system as a result of random drug tests are often a part of company policy. I don't have a problem with random drug testing as, unlike cigs, illegal drugs are.... illegal.)
Even though (and perhapes especially since) it is the government, they may not necessarily have the ability to tell employees whether or not they can smoke while not at work. And it would be insane to try and enforce this. (Though, power-happy governments are generally never confused for sane. For reference, see Burma)
That said, businesses are free to discriminate in any way they choose, just so long as they're not discriminating against a protected group (gender, age, race, etc etc etc), and one can easily make the suggestion that this ability also applies to government positions.
This is, really, just another story about demonizing the smoker. They engage in a legal act that they choose and pay for (paying ungodly amounts of taxes) and are held down as evil people who like to kill little kids.
Mark my words. Remember them. It only STARTS with smokers. Next come the overweight people, then the meat eaters.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
People choose to start and continue smoking. It's a learned habit. Not everyone chooses to eat meat (some of us are, in fact, unable to sustain a meatless diet and stay healthy, not because of food choices, but because of nutritional requirements), and not everyone chooses to be overweight (and besides, if they go by the BMI, then everyone that's not anorexic would be on there and no one would have any employees).
That said, in this case, the county is a business. It's not making it a law that smokers can't be hired, it has made a decision as a business that it will not hire people who smoke. Don't like it? Don't work for that county. Work for someone else or work for a different county. We're not talking about elected officials here, we're talking about hired employees. If they were doing that to elected officials, then yes, they would be crossing bounds.
Here is something that the County doesn't consider (or, that it considers and doesn't care about). . . Off Duty Employees.
Perhaps not, but they can control whether or not people smoke while they are on the clock and/or on the property. If you're a smoker and you want the job bad enough, then don't smoke while you're at work. And depending on how anal they are in enforcing that rule, I'd recommend a good clothing deodorizer, because you'll need it after having a smoke. One would think that that proposition is pretty simple, but considering the people that are really fighting against this are typically the ones that smoke a pack a day (read - every couple of hours), it's not that simple. They start going into withdrawal after a couple of hours. 4 times in an 8 hour day one would be going out to smoke and if s/he didn't, s/he'd start getting irritable, perhaps sick, and probably would barely make it to lunch.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No, but there is a large lobby suggesting that red meat is bad and that vegan lifestyles are 'better' (even though many suggest otherwise, their opinion is quashed).
First it is smokers, as they are a 'threat to others' as well as themselves.... then it will be fat people (especially if we get universal healthcare) who will have to pay extra taxes and be looked upon as second class citizens. Then, it will be those who eat meat, as 'red meat is bad for you' . . . What then? People who drink coffee? People who use butter?
It is not the government's job to legislate healthy lifestyles.
As far as the ban on hiring smokers, as I said, they likely have a legal ability to do so, though I do think it is a bit of a dangerous slope to start down, and I question the actual motives of the lobbyists that pushed for the county to start it. I also question the journalistic unbiased nature of the person writing the article, as they, at no point, showed the other side of that argument. (The closest they came was to state that the supreme court ruled that the government can put a ban on hiring smokers when a smoker sued, saying that it invaded her privacy when she was at home)
That's pretty dishonest. I'm against this and I only smoke as per doctor's orders. A pack of 5 cigars lasts me a month or two. I can't even think of the last time I had one... probably january. I only get them when my tourette's is acting up.
To say that those who are fighting this are 'pack a day' smokers only shows your assumption about people who would be cranky about a government entity banning the hiring of smokers.
It isn't about smoking, it is about freedom. Believe it or not, taking away freedom is bad. Socialism really is not good as it fosters dependence upon the government. Dependence is slavery, Freedom is independence.
No, but there is a large lobby suggesting that red meat is bad and that vegan lifestyles are 'better' (even though many suggest otherwise, their opinion is quashed).
And for every group they point out that live a long, healthy, meatless life, there is another group of equally healthy and long-lived meat eaters. There is no medical or scientific proof that either a meatless or a meat-filled diet is bad or good for everyone. For some people, meat has to be in one's diet or they get physically ill. Others get physically ill if they have any meat in their diet.
It is not the government's job to legislate healthy lifestyles.
I agree, but in this case, it's not legislation. It's company policy. The policy does not affect anyone that doesn't work for the company. This is where your concerns are misplaced.
That's pretty dishonest. I'm against this and I only smoke as per doctor's orders.
Not dishonest, misemphasized and perhaps not worded quite right. I'm talking the people that are really fighting this, as in tooth and nail, picket-line, protesting are more likely to be the heavier smokers, because it affects them the most, because it puts their jobs or employability at that location in jeopardy.
It isn't about smoking, it is about freedom. Believe it or not, taking away freedom is bad.
They're not taking away any freedoms! They're exercising their right as a business to turn down potential employees because said employees made a decision to take part in an activity that are against the values of the establishment. If they were taking away freedoms, they'd be making it a legislation, but they are not. They are acting as a business not as a government body in this situation.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
We're on the same side. I'm not advocating it, just pointing out what is to come.
No, it is legal because it is just 'company policy' . . . What I am talking about as a warning is what things like this lead to. This is another event showing the second-class status of smokers.
So we should have ignored calls for woman's sufferage as the people who did the loudest protesting were women, who were most directly affected? That logic quickly breaks down. It seems sill to suggest that because smokers oppose this, it is ok to be for it. Don't let your dislike of smoking and (apparently) smokers cloud things. When a smoker engages in the legal activity of smoking at home, it should have no bearing as to their job. This isn't heroin or pot, where it is illegal.
Once again, next on the list will be fat people, then people who eat meat.
Smoking is against the values of the United States Government? They said that this is an issue relating to healthcare costs, that each smoker costs over 4 grand a year in medical bills (I doubt that)..... So, once again, up next is a BMI requirement for working for the government, followed by requirements based on eating meat.
Perhaps a lightbulb or car choice requirement?
While it is legal for them to do (and I don't question the legality), it is, once again, a sign of how 'second-class' smokers are.
Smoking is against the values of the United States Government?
Watch your fallacies, the establishment isn't the United States Government, it's a county government and the decision was made as a business.
a sign of how 'second-class' smokers are.
A person is a smoker because s/he chooses to partake in an activity. In that sense, a smoker is not like a black person, or a Japanese-American, or a Native American or a woman. These people did not choose their race, heritage or gender. Smokers choose to smoke.
They said that this is an issue relating to healthcare costs, that each smoker costs over 4 grand a year in medical bills (I doubt that)
I don't have time at the moment to see how accurate that number is, but the costs do add up and make smokers more expensive to a business than nonsmokers of the average working age range (it gets hairy in the "extended working" area, which is about 70).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Sarasota County is a county government in the State of Florida.
Last time I checked, Florida was still in the United States of America.
But there are genetic tendancies that make one more prone to be addicted to cigs. You don't choose when you have an addiction. That's why there are support groups and 12-step programs for people who are addicted to alcohol or gambling... yet those are never viewed as poorly as smokers. It's ok to hate smokers.
Beware biased sources such as websites named "Workingsmokefree"
I'm not suggesting that smoking is good for you (though in my case it is, how I do it.), but I do suggest that this is another case of smokers being treated as second class citizens.
And, once again, next up will be fat people (Heck, they're already banning candy in some schools), then after that, people who eat meat.
Fight it all you want, that is what these "Health Nazis" are fighting for.
CHOOSING to live a healthy life is wise. Discrminating based on it is legal.
Just watch for the line to blur between discriminating based on it and legislating based on it.
This is an incredibly slippery slope. I got turned down for a job because I had to take a physical to get hired on. For the specific job, I was at no higher risk than anyone else, but my health care costs due to preexisting conditions would have been MUCH higher than the job even paid.
With the trend of discrimination against smokers, I can see it turning into discrimination against people with medical histories or even bad family medical histories, obesity or severely underweight, people that go tanning, anything that could increase any risk factors, maybe even the vehicle you drive or your driving record. Not to mention, your entire family that would also be covered.
Now they have the technology to check DNA for possible warning signs of disease and illness. Is it to far off to think that everyone will need to be screened in order to get a good job?
As far as smokers go, the only health cost increase I can think of among people I know is lung disease, and that doesn't usually show up until later in life. Yeah, they might have more colds and coughs, but not many people go to the doctor because of a cough.
Everything in life is a risk. Walking outside your door. Driving a car. Riding a bike. Eating. Drinking. Nearly everything "has been proven" to cause cancer. Blah. Live before you die.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
If a business chooses to do so, it is legal.
As long as they do not disciminate against any protected groups, that's wholly legal.
However, it should be viewed as a sign of what is to come, especially if we get socialized medicine (otherwise known as universal healthcare).... Then there will be calls for extra taxes on smokers and fat people and people who eat meat, etc.
There will be calls for families with genetic issues to pay an extra tax if they have kids (especially if their kids end up with the same genetic disorder.)
I don't go so 'tin foil hat' as to suggest mandatory birth control or permits for children, or anything like that (though mandatory birth control would be the easiest to pull off)
An old saying said by a politician the likes of which we need again.....
A government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it all away.
Most insurance companies DO increase rates on people with preexisting conditions and risk factors already. If we get universal- and socialized is not a bad word in this case- healthcare, it probably will increase rates like insurance companies do, as long as it is something that a person can change. Smoking is one of them. Alcoholism is another. There is such a stigma with any drug (including alcohol) addiction, not to mention the cost of treatment, that people don't get treated. With proper universal healthcare, people could get treated, especially when you consider the number of people that are addicted to drugs only out of self-medicating because they can't get proper psychiatric care.
I don't see anyone trying to push eugenics on society. I do see an ethical dilemma that rich people will be able to pay for testing, maybe even prenatal intelligence eventually, and leaving the other 90% bearing children without genetic testing.
I think universal healthcare will still leave big openings for private insurance companies. Fertility treatments are outside the scope of medical necessity, as is almost all plastic surgery.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Yes, but you don't pay for your healthcare under universal, or socialized, healthcare.
You pay taxes, which means that if I have some debilitating disease that costs thousands of dollars every month, YOU pay for it.
Where this becomes a problem is that the government (which has never been shown to be a wise spender of money, ESPECIALLY not with social programs like healthcare) is the one to pay, they get to decide what you can have done, and when.
For reference, look up the numbers of people who die on waiting lists in Canada to have heart surgeries that, here in the US, are routine.
Socialized medicine is nothing more than punishing the rich and middle class for the poor not paying their own way. It would be MUCH preferred if a private charity set up a program to provide no cost health insurance to the poor.
Get the government out of it. They'll only screw it up.
Uh, yeah... it happens quite a bit. Just recently, in the UK, the government gave the 'go ahead' for a human/animal embryo crossing. Cloning is becoming regular, with scientists working on altering dna. In World War 2, Germany had EXTENSIVE genetic work on eugenics, trying to make the "Uberman"
Are you trying to suggest that 90% of Americans do not have health insurance? The most recent figures day 47 million. This includes 20 million illegal immigrants (per those who pushed the 47 million figure) as well as another 20 million people who choose to not have health insurance (The elderly who are otherwise covered and college students who don't want to spend money on it) This leaves a number that is, basically, 4 to 6% of the general population... roughly equalled to that of unemployment. I don't see the need for government to muck everything up for that 4 to 6%, not when there could be charities formed to do it (with much lower overhead than the government)
I seriously doubt that. Most 'elective' surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. What you're going to see is a MASSIVE drain on the government's funds, which will give rise to HUGE tax increases. In the end, we'll pay more for less.
No thanks.
You don't think government could or would regulate extra taxes, possibly indirectly to cover healthcare costs of smokers? Maybe increase all sin taxes to cover drug use in general? That's all I was talking about.
Oh, poor healthy people, having to pay for those that weren't born with healthy bodies.... Sorry, I think that's lame and cold-hearted. Don't you know you pay for it anyway? Medicare has gone well, although since certain services have been passed on to other businesses, it has declined in care and service.
You pay taxes, which means that if I have some debilitating disease that costs thousands of dollars every month, YOU pay for it.
Actually, I do have some debilitating disease that costs thousands of dollars every month, and you ARE paying for it. I'm on Medicare and Medicaid. I'm in college to so that I can hopefully get a job that will actually give me medical insurance. My other option? Work somewhere that will only give me 39 hours instead of the usual 40 that would be considered full time and pay the $600 a month for the high risk state insurance program, plus the deductibles and copays, and hope I don't get sick so that I can continue to pay it. If we had universal health care right now, I wouldn't need to plan my life around having insurance.
Do you have ANY idea how insurance companies work? I'm guessing not.
For reference, look up the numbers of people who die on waiting lists in Canada to have heart surgeries that, here in the US, are routine.
Hey! I got that email too! Luckily, I always check emails like that out.... Read this.
Socialized medicine is nothing more than punishing the rich and middle class for the poor not paying their own way. It would be MUCH preferred if a private charity set up a program to provide no cost health insurance to the poor.
I grew up in a family that went from working poor to upper middle class a few times. Maybe you have to have been there to understand that it isn't about not working hard enough. I won't get into opportunity and discrimination here, but I will say that your comment was utterly ridiculous. Rich people get sick too. I can think of a few families I've talked to over the years that were middle to upper middle class that got screwed by their insurance companies or jobs and went bankrupt. What private charity could or would set up health care for the poor?
Capitalism is the root of most of the evils in this society. It's backbone is greed, not hard work. It's selfish, self-centered, egotistical, and heartless. Capitalism serves the interests of only a few at the expense of the many.
Get the government out of it. They'll only screw it up.
Because the insurance companies alone are doing such a damn good job?
Are you trying to suggest that 90% of Americans do not have health insurance? The most recent figures day 47 million. This includes 20 million illegal immigrants (per those who pushed the 47 million figure) as well as another 20 million people who choose to not have health insurance (The elderly who are otherwise covered and college students who don't want to spend money on it) This leaves a number that is, basically, 4 to 6% of the general population... roughly equalled to that of unemployment. I don't see the need for government to muck everything up for that 4 to 6%, not when there could be charities formed to do it (with much lower overhead than the government)
Insurance usually doesn't pay for genetic testing unless there is a significant amount of risk factors for certain illnesses. So, no, I was just talking about the people that could afford the genetic testing for the "perfect" kid. How young are you that you do not know that there are so many people out here that would love to see a doctor or dentist but can't even afford the copays on insurance, let alone the premiums?!
Fertility treatments are partially covered in most health insurance plans I've researched, and trust me, there have been a lot.
Yeah, there will be tax increases, but people won't be spending on ridiculously high premiums and copays. If we had true equality in this country, we wouldn't have such a blatant class hierarchy.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I'm one of those crazy people who believes that the government issuing more taxes is a bad thing to do. History regularly shows that the United States does the best when the government has low taxes and low regulation of our daily lives. And yet, today's crop of people have been raised to believe that only through the government can we find happiness and peace.... if only we let the government regulate more will we be able to get rid of the social ills.
It doesn't work that way.
Never trade freedom for an easy life. You end up having neither freedom nor an easy life. Dependence is Slavery. And, while independence is hard work, it is the only way to have freedom.
That I disagree with you is not evidence that I don't know enough about how insurance works. Do not fall into that pitfall of illogical thinking. I know more about how the health insurance industry works than most people.
Your condescending tone aside, I'm not talking about chain emails. Though, perhaps you should read your links. I quote from your ink:
Using Ontario (Canada's most populous province) as an example, we find that provinicial wait times measured in mid-2007 ranged from 13 days for angioplasty to 297 days for knee replacements.
297 days is a short wait, in your opinion? The entire Snopes detail of the email repeated itself: Details vary from province to province. That doesn't mean "You're lying!" it means "Yeah, it happens, but not everywhere."
Peddle your socialist propaganda elsewhere, it doesn't fly with me. I'm taking about actual people. Here is an example from a friend of mine who lives in Canada. She was in an accident and damaged her elbow. She was in constant pain and was given OTC tylenol. No X-rays or MRIs done. She was on the waiting list for MONTHS (remember, daily constant pain in her elbow) before she was able to 'get in' to have an MRI done. That, to you, is ok.
Per Canada's own sources, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_m... , the current wait time for a bypass surgery is 55 days. Most of the hospitals apparently are not required to report wait time, so who knows how long it takes.
Would YOU want to wait 2 months to get a bypass that you need?
Of course, before you can get that far, you need diagnostics. You want an MRI? Right now you have to wait 114 days to get an MRI before you can get on the waiting list for any procedures. Of course, if you're lucky and can have just a CT scan, you'll only need to wait an average of 53 days.
Prostate cancer? (One of the deadlier forms) Well, you only need to wait 89 days for that. Because when days matter, you only need to wait 3 months.
Tell me again how great it is?
I've been homeless. Do you really want to compare?
Yeah, the joy that was USSR was just horridly corrupted by Capitalism. It was peaceful and great up until then.
Does 100,000,000 dead people ring a bell?
You hate capitalism, why not go to a communist country?
With the exception of military might, the private sector ALWAYS is more efficient than the government. Always. Your beef with insurance companies has jaded your perception of how things work.
And, one again, charity health insurance programs would be much more efficient and effective than having the government tax us all to pay for those who don't have health insurance.
You're falling into that pitfall of illogical thinking again. That I disagree with you does not mean that I am 'too young' or too ignorant. Please do try to keep rational.
Proof that you do not know what class hierarchy is. The United States is quite the opposite. That there are rich and poor does not mean that there is a class hierarchy. The poor can become rich and the rich can become poor. The same services are offered to both. The only deciding factor is if one can pay for it.
There is no requirement or right that everything be free, and anyone who dangles 'Get it free!" in front of you wants to distract you while they take your money.
Don't let your bitterness at your health insurance company cause you to support a program that is much worse on us all.
You can respond if you wish, but given your very leftist and anti-captialistic stances, I don't really have a desire to continue conversing with you on this issue. You're not interested in discussion, you're intereseted in demonization.
Alright, Lance, I did push that a little too hard. Apologies, but I've cooled down.
This is completely off the original topic, as I see most conversations have gone on this post, but we might as well keep going. I was talking about increasing sin taxes because, well, I'm with you on part of this. If you smoke or drink, you should pay extra to damage your body. Hell, I believe pot should be legal for economic reasons- gives jobs, another sin tax, and it's controlled. Not to mention hemp is so much easier to produce and market than cotton.
I didn't chose an easy life. Easy would've been to give up a long time ago. Right now, I have no choice but to be dependent on the government-issued insurance. I won't go into the medical history or work history, but I will say that I would not be insured without the government, and considering I have at least the very least $1000/month (meds alone) in medical expenses, I do need it. I totally agree that the system is a trap, but I am working my way out of it. I have more freedom than most in my position, as in someone in the system.
Canada was one example of universal health care. I posted that because it has examples of different systems in the country. They all have different results. The UK has their own issues they haven't fixed yet. We have great examples in front of us (as a nation) of how to make a universal health care system WORK. There are wait lists in this country too, by the way. I think health care is a human right, not a privilege.
My point about capitalism is that it, by definition, is inherently greed-based, and hierarchical. Democratic socialism is, by it's ideas, more equitable, hell, even communism is. In practice, it hasn't worked out yet. Starting something on the basis of equality is more my belief than starting something on the basis of discrimination and greed.
Insurance, in my experience and many others, is not very efficient.
I do believe there is a strong class hierarchy here, as the rich are getting richer, the middle class is dwindling, and the poor are still getting poorer.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Why should you? What moral compulsion is there to pay extra money to damage your body through smoking? You're accepting the consequences of your actions and will have to pay for your cancer you develop later in life. That is 'fair' . . . but paying an extra tax to the government so that you can do something you want to do that pop culture doesn't like?
Eh, there is no reason why one 'should' do it. There are just people who WANT them to. That is something wholly different.
No, we have examples of how it doesn't work. What you want to try to do is copy them and just hope that we'll be different. There is a reason why poor, middle class and rich people all flock to the United States to use our hospitals and doctors. Without insurance.
My father recently had a second quadruple bypass. He was in the VA system, having served in the Marines long ago. The VA, you'll recall, is a form of socialized medicine for the military. The wait time was far too long for him, so he chose to use private insurance (Pay a BUNCH more) and go through a local heart hospital. He only had to wait a week. (and the only reason he had to wait a week was because he went into the state's most popular, and best, heart hospital)
Not being able to get health insurance because you'd cost more than you'd provide in monthly payments is not 'removing' your ability to get healthcare. While one may have a right to healthcare, we do not have a right to free healthcare.
My point about capitalism is that it, by definition, is inherently greed-based, and hierarchical.
It is only 'greed based' in that if you want more, you can work more and get more. You only call it 'greed' so as to make the desire to succeed look bad. Also, how can it be hierarchial, when ANYONE can work for a living? Heck, we have programs to find jobs for the handicapped and for people who don't speak english. In other nations, at other times, they would have been executed for being 'unfit' . . . . by a communist nation called the USSR.
Yes, on paper both seem more 'fair' . . . but on paper is not in practice. In practice, you get Marx (Communism), Stalin (Communism), Hitler (Socialism), and a bunch of other really horrible people and governments that restrict freedoms for the masses in order to provide a lavish lifestyle for those in power.
Once again with that dishonest language. Communism and Socialism were never started on the basis of equality. It was started as a way to create an all-powerful state with the populace as its subjects. Capitalism, especially as practiced in the United States, was designed to make each person's work have value to them.
It is much more efficient than government run groups. It really just is. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. Compare the overhead of government social programs to that of charities that do the same work.
We are the richest nation in the world. Even our Poor here are MUCH better off than in most of the rest of the world. Just because some are poorer than others does not mean that those who have achieved and succeeded need to be punished or treated as evil in some way.
Rather than being the 'bad guy' to be avoided, they ought to be the model by which we can also achieve.
However, it is easier to be a 'victim' and choose to hate those who succeed and ask the government to take from everyone else to give to you or me.
I'm not rich. Far from it. I do, however, work for what I get. I strive to NOT be dependent upon the government. I could easily become so, but I choose not to be. I see what freedom REALLY is, and I want it.
do you?
They just flat out refuse coverage. And I've been perfectly healthy for ten years.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Some people choose to do that.
There are also insurance companies that offer an insurance program that only covers hospital stay, nothing relating to the doctor's office.
That way you have coverage for an emergency, but you aren't paying a large monthly fee.
Insurance is gambling. Unfortuantely, if you lose, you lose BIG.
I've been turned down by every health insurance company in existence. Apparently, I'm not a gamble THEY are willing to take. Never have an eating disorder if you can help it. Ten years later, no relapses, and it still bites me in the ass.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
... for a monthly premium of just over $600. This is just another example of why we do need universal health care...
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Just to see if I understand this correctly...
-Businesses choose to extract smokers from their workforce because of profit (good).
-State government chooses to extract smokers from the workforce because of a concern for the health of society
(bad).
Does that about sum it up?
Coal is to shaving as nuclear power is to waxing. For the time being, they are both relatively cheaper options, and each is a fast fix to the energy problem. Now, factor global warming back in --"Hairy Sustainability" by A-squared, a ProU blogger
Oh, I didn't say it was bad. I said that it was a bit of a slippery slope.
I don't expect you to understand the difference. You seem to think that the only bad things are conservative talk radio and people other than you becoming rich.
Watch it, Lance, you're starting to get condescending and using ad hominems.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Not at all, just referencing other conversations I've had with this person in which they support the Fairness doctrine and believe that taxing rich people is good because they're rich.
That is not ad hominem attacks.
An ad hominem attack would be to also say that they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny.
I don't expect you to understand the difference. You seem to think that the only bad things are conservative talk radio and people other than you becoming rich.
Consider the context.
Ad hominems attack the person. Out of the context of that previous conversation, your statement (especially the first part), is an ad hominem.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Given the direct and actual ad hominem attacks from others against me in recent days, I'm not too concerned about it.
Especially since the person to whom I was replying knows the recent discussions that they and I have had and therefore understands the context.
Sarasota County is a county government in the State of Florida.
Last time I checked, Florida was still in the United States of America.
County government does not equal "United States Government."
But there are genetic tendancies that make one more prone to be addicted to cigs.
Then don't start to begin with. I'm genetically predisposed to depression, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just give into it and let it take over my life.
Beware biased sources such as websites named "Workingsmokefree"
Look at both websites. That's why I provided two. The first one happened to give a good overview in nice, neat list form of some of the reasons why employees who smoke are more expensive to companies. The second goes into detail.
Now, I'm having more fun just watching the conversations unfold on this thread, so I'm going to sit back and watch. I just wanted to make sure the points I had made earlier were clarified.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
The SHMEAT lobby will surely beat down any anti-meat legislation! ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This is supposed to cut the cost of health care for the county. What next? No one with pre-existing conditions? That would surely cut costs...
Someone commented on the article, and I think it sums everything up nicely:
"Smokers apparently cost the health industry $20 billion a year...Obesity costs the healthcare industry almost $95 billion a year. Are they sure they want everyone to quit?"
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
In Oklahoma, they're trying to pass a law called "Nick's Law"
The bill, if passed, would require health insurance companies in the state of Oklahoma to cover autism.
While I agree that health insurance companies should cover Autism, I don't know that it is the job of the government to require what a business do in terms of coverage.
Now, if they SAID they would cover it, then decided not to... that is a legal issue as they promised something they won't deliver.
But if they do not say they cover it, and in fact say they do not cover it, no one should 'cry foul' when they end up not covering it.
Rather than mandating things by law, the money spent arguing about this could have been spent on making a private insurance company that did cover autism.
So, while I support the notion of insurance companies covering autism, and while I do feel for families with autistic children... I really DON'T believe that it is the government's job to tell a business what they're going to do.
So... when do we start refusing to hire people who drink alcohol off the clock?
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
Most city/county jobs do not pay well.
Try finding a landscaper or janitor who does not smoke or drink, willing to accept the low pay that they would get from a city or county.
heh.
Next will be the BMI standard for employment.
After all, people choose to eat food until their fat and not exercise.... so lets add extra taxes on candy and sugar, then maybe also a tax based on BMI. (But first, let's get rid of those guns, so the fat, candy eating smokers don't shoot.)
That reminds me of the restaurants who charge fat people more for the buffet and the airlines that kick passengers off planes because they're too fat.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
I haven't heard about airlines kicking people off planes for being too fat, but it is now common practice to charge fat people for two tickets.
Interestingly enough, seats became smaller so they could cram more people into the plane, then decided to charge fat folk extra because of the problem the airline created.
Airlines are weird now... apparently they're going to start charging based on both your weight, and charging you to check bags at all. Craziness.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I can deal with the weight thing, but not the bag checking. I'll be shoving everything in my carry ons from now on!
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
.... You're ok with paying your airfare based on how much you weigh? I'm better with paying to check bags than I am with airlines weighing me to determine my fare.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
My biggest problem is with the carry on compartments. I think this is going to cause a war for carry on space because more people will try not to check bags to save money. I could see them reducing the volume of the carryon limit. Some people don't see this as a big deal, but when traveling for business I would rather not have to worry about checking bags. I know a lot of other people that do the same. I think this would be a big issue for a lot of people because the majority of fliers are business travelers. I'm not that big, so I probably would pay close to the minimal amount anyways.
I can see the logic behind weighing passengers- the heavier the plane, the more fuel it takes to remain in the air. I would hope that the pricing schedules would be reasonable because I see no need in charging anyone under a healthy weight extra fees. I kinda like the idea of only charging more if a person is over a certain size better and giving them bigger or two seats, only because I've been seated next to someone that was overflowing onto my seat before. It was a long ride, and I had to sit on one buttcheek the whole way. Not cool!
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I've heard about charging for checking bags, but have not heard about charging for weight. What's that about? I can understand charging double when need be- they have to keep everyone happy and as comfortable as possible as they downsize the seats... But charging by weight? A link please?
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive.
I heard it... my dad told me that when he was out here for my graduation. No clue if it's true or not, just something I heard. I know the checked bags is true, because my mom is only able to avoid the fee on one airline, because she has elite frequent flier status.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Here's one article about it that is biased, but kinda funny in a sarcastic way:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080608180301reye.nb/topstory.html
and a more serious one, with a video:
http://cbs2chicago.com/consumer/airline.weight.fee.2.741830.html
According to some of the other reports that came up, this is the report that started it all. Apparently, one airline official refused to comment on whether or not this had been discussed somewhere along the line. It seems to be the most referenced article out of the sites that I visited.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/06/03/2008-06-03_will_airlines_sta...
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I disagree with the point that smokers are taxed more. There is no tax for smokers. Cigarettes are taxed more than other items.
I'm okay with smokers as long as they don't smoke around me. What you do in your home is your business, but what you do in a publically owned place is my business. I like the no smoking within 25 ft. of building ordinances, but unfortunately, they're not enforced.
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
Well, it isn't nonsmokers that pay the extra 'sin tax' on cigs. So yes, the smokers are taxed more.
And that tax constantly grows.
As for the smoking in public, remember that unless you're talking about a park or someone walking down the street, it isn't public.
A business is not a public place, even though it may be a place in which the public goes. Businesses are the private area of the business owner/land owner. That is why a business is allowed to refuse service and boot you out of their store if they see fit (and have you arrested for tresspassing if you refuse to go)
The bans on smoking in bars and restaurants were not bans on smoking in public places, but instead were laws that removed the ability of the restaurant or bar owner to determine for themselves if they wanted people to be allowed to smoke in their business establishment.
The governments, in those cases, removed rights from the business owners.
Those who did not like smoke in the restaurants and bars were not required to go there and had the ability to voice their opinion to the business owner and/or set up their own non-smoking restaurant or bar.
Many tried, but they generally failed as many who drink in bars also tend to like the smoke and/or smoke themselves.
When the public did not go the way that the health freaks wanted, the health freaks demanded that government impose their will over that of the business owners.
Bloomington (where Indiana University is) has had a smoking ban on every public place for a while. Technically, you aren't even allowed to smoke in the patio area of bars and restaurants. Chicago's I think is bars can allow smoking only outside seating, and I think that might be limited to bars.
Indianapolis, a couple of years later, got a smoking ban. The law is that only places where no minors are allowed are deemed appropriate for smoking. There are a few bars that have always been nonsmoking. Other bars have nonsmoking hours. And still other bars are always smoky, even with the smoke eaters.
My problem with it is that there are smokers and that there are businesses that can make any rule regarding the matter they want. It's not up to the government. Pretty soon, they'll file neglect charges for people that smoke in the same house as their kids.
I really hate the anti-smoking minivan commercial where a woman puts the windows UP to smoke a cigarette with her kid in the car. Does anyone actually do that? Jeez.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
We have a law here where you can't smoke in cars with kids that require a safety seat. What makes me laugh though is the whole safety seat requirement. If smoking is hazardous to kids who require a safety seat, it's equally as hazardous to those who do not, as well as to those in bars (where you can still smoke).
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
They changed the law here for car seats. Now, any kid under age 8 has to be in one. OK, so you can send your kid on the school bus with not even a seat belt, but when you pick your kid up, you have to have a big kid car seat. I don't buy that it's that much safer for kids.
I'm not saying that it's good to smoke around kids. It does make a bigger difference smoking around babies than smoking around school-aged kids, although I wouldn't recommend either.
The thing with bars is, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to bars that allow smoking. If you don't like your kids being around smoke, don't go out to dinner or go someplace that banned smoking. It should be up to the business owners, not the government. Businesses are going to lose patrons either way.
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
That's about how it is here as well. 6 years and 60 pounds, with a preference for booster seats until a child reaches 4'9." I can agree that smoking around babies can be worse than smoking around older children, but if it's bad for one it's bad for the other as well... so the whole safety seat thing makes little sense to me. If you can't smoke in the car with a 6 year old, why does it automatically become okay under the law to do so with a 7 year old in the car? Either say no smoking with children in the car period or leave it alone.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
There is a specific series of plans for things like this.
It is incrementalism.
You start out with something small... something that you can easily defend. (After all, only the most evil people want to smoke in a car with small children!)
Next you Amend that law by increasing the requirements. Maybe extend an age cap, or change 'in a car seat' to 'children under 12' . . . then it can grow and grow until it includes 'everywhere'
I think it probably has to do with the lung development in kids under five--second hand smoke exposure before you're 5 is a major fator in developing asthma later in life... etc.
Generally, kids under 5 (and some older) all should be in a safety seat of some kind, so it makes it easier to give out citations if people can look in the car and see the child in a safety seat, rather than have to make a guess if the child is 5 or younger, and then it turns out the kid is like 12 and tiny.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
Mark my words. Remember them. It only STARTS with smokers. Next come the overweight people, then the meat eaters.
Even though I don't smoke, I do feel bad for those who do. A job should not base you off the fact that you do or do not smoke. You can sit up there, lie, and say that you don't smoke, but you really do. Well there goes one smoker in the company. They just keep theirs hidden. Like you said next comes the overweight, meat eaters and more. Just so your work society can be better? Now I do not believe that you should smoke at work, but when you are on brake , or are off work, do as you please. If you go outside in the back of the job to smoke good. Just don't try to smoke and process food at the same time. Why? Because you know your cig. ashes will more than likely fall in the meat.
I don't have a problem with a business saying "no smoking" . . . it is their right.
I DO have a problem with the Government saying "No smoking in that business." as it infringes on the right of that business to choose if they want smoking or not.
Smoking is legal. (at the moment.)
Currently, the law here states that only places that allow 18+ (although usually 21+) can have smoking in their establishment. Before that, several businesses (restaurants and bars) had banished smoking. Why do the non-smokers get to dictate what goes on?
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Funny note on ashes in the meat- I can remember when it was legal to smoke in restaurants where i live, even if you were working. We couldn't be handling the food, but we could smoke about 5 feet away from it. I find this pretty gross! I even remember other waitresses who worked in the smoking section going out to check on customers with a cigarette! If my waitress ever did that, I don't think I'd be too happy regardless of what section I was in.
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
Indy banished smoking sections for restaurants about two years ago (?). I don't remember a time when servers actually brought food out with a cigarette dangling. Even 21+ restaurants (bars that serve food) don't have that going on. Ick. I'm glad I eat before I go out!
-Sonja
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."