|
Lilazzkicker
|
US staff lose jobs over smoke ban Cigarette
Weyco says it is proud of its stance on smoking
Four workers in the United States have lost their jobs after refusing to take a test to see if they were smokers.
They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.
The firm says the ban is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights.
If the firm survives a potential legal challenge, it could set a precedent.
Weyco gave its staff a stark ultimatum at the end of last year - either stop smoking completely on 1 January or leave their jobs.
The four workers who refused to take the test left their jobs voluntarily, although a lawyer for Weyco confirmed the company was preparing to dismiss them.
The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue.
"For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.
But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs.
According to Reuters news agency, Mr Weyers wants to turn his attention next to overweight workers.
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," he said.
The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says that if the firm survives any future legal challenges, it could set a precedent for other companies to follow suit.
"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual." Source 1As of today, the owner still has no numbers on how much the company has saved. Interesting, you go so far to do something to save money, and your people money but do not have anything to show for it...good job! Howard Weyers: Smoking is serious business for us all
Decision to dismiss smoking workers wasn't made lightly
The no-smoking policy at Weyco, Inc. recently became the subject of news reports - some accurate, some not. To clear up misconceptions, here are the facts about our policy and the reasons behind it.
Weyco is in business to help other companies save money and improve employee health through innovative benefit plans. The health plans we create offer hundreds of options - and our approach to smoking may not be for everybody - but it's natural for us to take a leadership position on this issue.
Clearly, smoking is dangerous to smokers and others. In fall 2003, we decided that, as of Jan. 1, 2005, we would no longer employ smokers.
Advertisement
Since then, we've assisted employees through a series of meetings about the program, as well as supportive efforts including smoking-cessation classes, medication, and acupuncture. We've implemented the change gradually, encouraging smokers to become healthier and remain Weyco employees.
We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility; another $65 for meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus.
While trying to be sensitive to smokers' personal predicament, we're also saying, "You can choose to smoke after Jan. 1, but if so, you'll need to find other employment."
Some call this a violation of privacy, pointing to the principle that "what you do in your own home is your own business."
But they forget the part about "so long as it doesn't harm anyone else."
Michigan businesses have the right to protect themselves from the enormous financial harm that smokers inflict upon society. So do individual employees and taxpayers:
? Michigan's smoking-related health-care costs amount to $2.65 billion a year.
? Lost employee productivity due to smoking totals another $3.4 billion.
? Every Michigan household pays $557 in taxes for smoking-related illnesses annually.
? And each smoker costs his employer more than $4,000 a year in absenteeism, medical benefits, earnings lost to sickness or premature death, etc.
But it's not just about saving money. It's about saving lives:
? Smoking kills 4.9 million people worldwide each year.
? In Michigan, the smoking death toll is 16,000 a year - more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
? On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than non-smokers.
Despite facts like these, we also get asked: "What will companies ban next - unhealthy eating, drinking, and sexual behavior?"
No. We offer many incentives for employees to make healthy lifestyle choices. Compliance is voluntary, and the result has been a demonstrable improvement in wellness.
Still, anyone concerned about limiting employers' right to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions such as obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco use.
Weyco is proud of its stance on smoking and wellness. For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave. Source 2I will let you guys form your opinions... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kajet
|
Interesting... as a non-smoker i don't really give a crap, yet being brought up by smokers i feel this is a kind of discrimination Still, anyone concerned about limiting employers' right to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions such as obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco use. I find it kinda funny that people get bitchy about smoking y'know considering tobacco helped this country flourish in it's beginning... (yep there's my family talkin...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
Here they are doing the same thing. Everyone who wants to work for the Ministry of Health cannot smoke. I find this a completely stupid attitute. I think that alcohol is a more serious problem than smoking. Why not fire people who have drinking problems now that you are on a row you idiotic baboons? Unemployent levels are so high, yet they fired people. "Who cares about the country & the people I just fired, they are all going to Hell! I WANT MY MONEEEE!".
If they wanted for people to stop smoking, they could have just incentivate them with flyers, classes on how to stop smoking. So many possbilities, yet they chose the easy way, because it's cheaper. No shame at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
I don't smoke. I used to, but stopped before my first son was born. Smokers have an addiction, and therefore lose thier freewill. thats what addictions do to you. they convince you you want to carry on, and enjoy it. That is not you talking, but the addiction has taken over your free will.
Why do it? its exspencive and very harmful. why would a person in command of thier free will do it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ReBoOt
Mean ol Swede
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1294
|
I really don't think that a "company" shall decide where ever you do on your spare time. course taking any drugs that whould reduce your ability to work should, of course be banned but hey takning a smoke won't make you see pink elephants.
In my company we are encouraged to not to smoke during working hours but there's noon saying that you can't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
The problem is that smokers tend to disrespect their fellows by putting their so-called "right to smoke" ahead of everything else. That's the behavior of an addict on a drug, which is exactly what nicotine is. Until it was against the law to do so, smokers routinely exposed their coworkers to second-hand smoke without asking their consent, and often objecting violently if their non-smoking coworkers protested. Since smoking is no longer (in the US at least) permitted in most work places except in designated areas, smokers often take "smoke breaks" - unscheduled time away from their tasks that non-smoking coworkers are not allowed - in order to feed their habit. This results not only in lost productivity since they are taking extra breaks, but also is unfair to their non-smoking coworkers who would be punished for taking an unscheduled break. Then there's the "cheaters" - smokers who violate company rules and smoke in places like bathrooms, or private offices, or "hang their head out the window" instead of going to designated areas like other employees. This is unfair to everyone else. Then there's the spitters - the ones who use chewing tobacco on company premesis. That's just plain disgusting.
I have absolutely no sympathy for a person who smokes and gets "the shakes" because they're made to not smoke while on duty. Smoking is not a right, it's a dirty, nasty addiction that hurts not only you, but everyone else who has to breathe the same air around you. It hurts children, who routinely get stuck in smoke-filled houses and cars because their parents are more concerned in feeding their own addiction than caring for the health of their children. Think about that, it's illegal to sell filtered tobacco products to minors, yet it's legal for them to breathe unfiltered, second-hand smoke because their parents just don't give a damn. You love your children? Don't force YOUR PROBLEM on them. They didn't ask for it, and you owe them better. It hurts society as a whole because of smoking-related illnesses driving up insurance and healthcare costs. It also hurts the poor because a lot of poor people become addicted at a young age owing to peer pressure and lack of self esteem, as well as marketing by tobacco companies, so the money they could be spending on clothing, food, better shelter, or on their children is spent on tobacco instead.
Smoking needs to be seen for what it is, and eradicated from society. Those who do smoke need to understand that they are addicts, and stop living in denial of the harm they are doing not only to themselves, but those who don't want to breathe their pollution. I will also say that if anyone who reads this board has a bird for a companion, do me and the bird a favor. Either quit smoking NOW, let the bird go, or you might as well wring its neck and get it over with. Our lungs take in four times as much air percentage wise per breath as yours, and we metabolize on both inhalation and exhalation, making us much more sensitive to airborne pollutants and toxins. You are showing absolutely no love by poisoning your feathered friend in this way, so please do the right thing for your bird, or I will hate you forever. I am not kidding either.
I think if a company wants to hire only non-smoking employees they have that right because it is not discriminating against a person because of their race, or gender, or any other "can't be helped because I was born this way or got really sporked up in an accident" condition. Smoking is a choice. At some point, the smoker decided to take it up. It's up to them to get off it, the same as it's up to the drug addict to get off the drugs. Easy? No. Impossible? No. Any addiction can be overcome with help. First, people need to stop accepting smoking as being something normal. It is not. It is completely unnatural. I do, however, think companies who start a zero tolerance policy for nicotine and have employees that currently smoke should implement an assistence program to help those addicted and currently employed get off the tobacco. If, on the other hand, the person values their addiction more than their employment, well, there are plenty of other places to work, and most employement these days is at an "at-will basis", meaning employment can be terminated for any reason with or without cause. If that line exists in your employee handbook or application, well, then the company is well within their rights to boot you whether you like it or not, so long as it's not violating any laws in the process.
Now as for the "what you do in your own home" business, that's rubbish, and to me is just a poor defense that people who want to continue to smoke at their job hide behind the same way that porn peddlers hide behind "freedom of speech". You can't produce methamphetamines in your own home, nor plot murder, nor can you imbibe copious amounts of alcohol "in your own home" and arrive intoxicated at work and expect to remain employed. Failing a drug test, even if the drugs are used "in your own home" also results in Das Boot. So yes, companies routinely decide what people can and cannot do in their own homes, and do have an interest in doing such so long as it affects the person's behavior or performance at their place of employment. Telling someone they can't shag a sheep in their own bedroom is going too far, but then, sheep-shagging doesn't affect one's on the job performance any more than any other sexual behavior would.
Shambler: The problem with drug addictions is that the person is not in command if their own free will - the drug is. Nicotine is a harder addiction to break than even cocaine. I know people who have done it, but it's damned difficult, especially since most people who are addicted to tobacco live in denial and become viciously defensive about it when confronted. The fact that it's so readily available doesn't help much either. Anyone who ever wants to talk about how "legalizing drugs" will solve the drug problem needs to take a good, hard look at alcohol and tobacco. Now imagine cocaine, meth, and heroine sold like that. What a nightmare!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-12-08, 20:06 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
You forgot caffeine, pho  Now while I agree that smoking is a dirty habit; and highly addictive. There are a couple of issues that I think need to be gone over. Not all smokers who complain about being discriminated against based on their choice to smoke fit within the blatant jerks you describe. I know a number of smokers, my father included, who have always been very careful about limiting the exposure to those around them; Smoking outside, in designated rooms, or making sure they've got a window cracked in the car. But when you're at a public park, and someone crosses a 30 yard distance to tell you to put out your cigarette because their child who is on the other side of the park is going to die of cancer? That's entirely unacceptible. As a general rule, the most responsible smokers I know have been going out of their way to avoid exposing other people; and their complaint is that they're running out of places in which they CAN do so. Smokers are increasingly pigeon-holed outside a single entrance to a building that noone uses, and in some cases can no longer smoke on company property at all. Restaurants locally no longer have smoking sections, and bar smoking on company property. Bars have been placed under a smoking ban AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES, because a grand total of 24 people snuck a vote in by advertizing that the vote was a week after it was actually scheduled. Instead of opening a smoke-free bar, which I have no doubts would have received business, they forced smokers out of the area. The bars have lost, in some cases, in excess of 60% of their business. Bouncers have an increased workload as they have to stop locals and non-locals from smoking, or the owner gets hit with a $1-5k fine per reported smoker. I will not argue that smoking is unhealthy, and can impact productivity; but then, so is almost any addictive substance when abused. Coffee, for example, is just as bad as smoking, if not moreso in a number of cases. The difference is simply that second-hand coffee is far less likely an occurrence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
what is the worst? smoke or car exhaust?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
As I always have to say after posting, I'm not lumping the people who go out of their way to try to be respectful with the ones who I described above, but for brevity's sake I thought I could actually make a post for once without having to add a disclaimer to it. Sheesh. 
And yes, I'm aware that caffeine is also a drug. The difference, as you pointed out, is that it has almost no adverse affect on other people around the person. Remember that aspirin, pseudoephedrine, and prescriptions are drugs as well, all of which have beneficial effects. Not all drugs are necessarily bad, but the act of smoking is in itself harmful. Instead of pining about not having places to smoke, why not endeavor to break the habit instead? Then it won't be a problem anymore. I know I'm being simplistic, but it is certainly true. The problem is that too many people want to smoke, even if they don't know it, while knowing all the harmful effects of it. As for the park reference... ever think some of those people might be looking for a place out and away from the city to try to get clean air, and end up being downwind? I know I'd be unhappy too, and my sense of smell is stronger than that of humans. I can smell tobacco from 100 yards away easily if I'm downwind. Now as for how I'd allow myself to be put in such a situation, like I said, I know people who used to smoke. I'm part of the reason one of them no longer does. I can be very... persuasive.
Shambler: Depends on who you listen to and what condition the vehicle is in. Car exhaust mostly consists of water vapor, carbon dioxide, some carbon monoxide, some nitrous oxide, and unburned hydrocarbons. CO2 is picked on by people who are convinced that CO2 emissions are causing the earth to get hotter, but in itself is not a dangerous gas. The others are, but not nearly as bad as sulphur dioxide and other industrial chemical wastes and also tend to be highly regulated through emissions testing in many places. Still, automobiles could be made 100% clean by running them off pure hydrogen since the only byproduct would be water vapor, but that's a ways off. If automobiles used turbines instead of piston engines, they would burn clean of hydrocarbons since turbines have an almost 100% complete combustion rate and produce almost no unburned fuel as a byproduct. As for CO2 causing global warming, I think that giant nuclear fireball in the sky has a lot more to do with the temperature of the earth than anything man is doing. Too much of the global warming debate is political, and very little good science is being published in the news and talk circuits. Besides, if people would plant more trees and pave less roadways you'd have a use for all that carbon dioxide as it gets converted to oxygen by plants, which also scrub the air of pollutants. You'd be healthier, have more oxygen to breathe (which I wouldn't mind myself either) and it would help keep surface temperatures cooler. Go walk in a forest, then go stand in a downtown city block. You tell me which is cooler and more pleasant under the same weather conditions. There's a reason that blast furnaces are made from brick.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
ReBoOt
Mean ol Swede
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1294
|
The world whould be such a better place without humans |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
YicklePigeon
Ogre
Posts: 56
|
Just a quick note to Pho's initial post.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Over here, workplaces do indeed have designated smoking areas - sometimes that's in an outside area, sometimes not. Here are some examples:-
One place I am aware of, had a nice garden area that workers could sit down and eat their lunch outside (providing the weather was nice). But it became a haven for smokers who would literally toss the cigarette butts onto the ground without a care of where it landed. Let's just say there isn't a blade of grass to be seen nowadays.
A few months ago, I had to attend a Health & Safety course at my company's HQ. At HQ, we were told that a woman who smokes went to the ladies toilets to have a quick smoke...rather than going to a designated smoking area...guess what she done? She smoked just enough cigarettes to trigger the smoke alarm!
Suffice to say, in my own workplace this is what happens: one of my (female) colleagues will call for me or someone else to cover for her whilst she "goes to the toilet". Well, one of my (also female) supervisors follows her now into the ladies toilet to make sure she isn't trying to have a quick smoke.
Now if I was to do that...every day that I worked...I would indeed get into trouble (as Pho points out). Also, if I have to cover for someone so they can take a sneaky cigarette break, that means anything I was told to do won't be getting done for at least 10 minutes. Some people might not think that's anything to complain about...but unless I can work extremely fast and get onto the next task (of which there almost always is), I'll be constantly 10 minutes behind.
And then I would get into trouble for "working too slow" and/or "not giving my 100%".
Bah!
Regards,
Yickle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
t0ts
Imp
Posts: 25
|
That isnt such a bad deal about banning smoking in workplaces though, here in our town they want to pass a bill to make it illegal to smoke anywhere out in public on sidewalks, down the road in a car etc.. I do not smoke but me and my mom(smoker) thinks it is rediculous. I say they just stop selling cigarrettes alltogether would fix the problem. Making it illegal to smoke anywhere in public would cause way too many problems, and then whats next shoot kids that write on sidewalks with chalk?  If that happened it would be like prohibition and would lead to more crime and criminalization of common smokers, and then they would try to ban even more stuff which just gets rediculous. :!: |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-12-10, 19:01 by t0ts »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
I suppose my only real complaint is that it's gotten to the point where the law is leveraging itself against the freedom of choice. At what point do we finally stop and say "you know what, I KNOW what I'm doing isn't good for me, but I'm doing it anyway because on some level, it makes me happy." Do we stop with smoking? alcohol? how about overeating or simple sloth?
At what point do we tell all these people trying to force us to live healthier against our will to shove it? Legally moving against smoking is one thing, but when the company cited actually goes out and says "obesity, alcoholism, [etc.]" are protected by law...
Frankly, I would refuse to work for a company that's going to decide how I live my life. My body is my own to use and abuse as I will. No company, or government will own me, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Frankly, I would refuse to work for a company that's going to decide how I live my life. That's the thing, you have that right to refuse to work for someone. They in turn have the right to refuse to hire people, so long as they're working within the law and not violating any legally protected status. Smoking is not a legally protected status, so companies, unless the law changes or some legal precedent is set in a court case, can refuse employment to smokers. Anyone who thinks this is outside some limitation should take a good hard look at how insurance premiums are calculated. If you smoke, you get a higher rate and sometimes even denied coverage. If you have lung cancer or heart disease or any major illness they will deny coverage. In this case it's a "refusal to sell" rather than a "refusal to employ", but the action is the same - you're denied something based on an action you take.
That's what's at the crux of the matter, it's a person's behavior that's the center of this. If you think a company can't decide how you live your life? They do it all the time. You have to plan your life's time around their schedule. If you fail to do this, they fire you. If you fail to follow the commands of your superiors, they fire you. If you engage in any "prohibited behavior", etc, same result. There are any number of things you cannot do if you wish to remain employed, and if you have no employment then you no longer have a source of income. If you have no income, you have no food, no shelter, no means of transport and no means to clothe yourself. Sure, there's always welfare, but that means the government now owns you instead of the company, and if you make one cent above the "poverty line" you lose ALL assistence, so once you get stuck there you can forget about ever having any say over your own life again.
As for smoking, consider this - why do people smoke? Either someone who's already hooked goaded them into trying it out and acted as an unpaid salesman, or they bought into the advertising. Once you're hooked, that's it, you've got a vicious fight getting unhooked. If you smoke, a company is already telling you how to live your life because you're addicted to their product. You're dependent upon it, and so long as they make it, you're going to buy it unless you can overpower the addiction. You want to rant about being "owned" by some damned company, consider that for a moment. Slavery can be defined in many ways. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
And in that regard, I'm heavily addicted to caffeine; and well aware of it. Nicotine however I'm not noticeably addicted to. Though I have to admit I enjoy the occasional nicotine buzz, it's not something I base my life around.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
This is an issue that has been brought up in my economics class many times. Let me say one thing, I know it's blatant and harsh.
It really annoys me when people bitch about smokers clogging our lungs, which this annoys me as well, but they fail to look in the mirror and think about what they do to harm society. I mean do anti-smoking enthusiasts think about how much smog and pollution they put into the atmosphere everyday when they go to work in their car? Pollution puts more shit in the air then cigarettes do. You got a 8 inch muffler blasting nasty crap in the air, or a little 4mm cigarette, which will most likely cause someone to obtain cancer? You see, anti-smoking enthusiasts won't give up their cars because is will inconvenience them. Funny how people bitch about things, but won't follow through with them when it obstructs their convenient comfortable lifestyle.
Another issue is not just policy concerning tobacco use, but weight management. Companies are now instituting "wellness programs" they will weigh you, take your blood pressure, measure your fat content, and cholesterol levels. They will fire you if you go below their standards. They even measure your caloric intake and expenditure and your vitamins and minerals level. All this to lower their healthcare costs, so they can get a bigger bonus. I understand that people are stupid and eat McDonald's and wonder why they are fat, but being a dumbass is legal. I should not fired because I ate a 16oz steak because the food pyramid says you should only eat 8oz of meat a day. Like anyone cares about that stupid bullshit. I should not have to sacrifice what little free time I have to do "Tae Bo" or Sweating to the Oldies with that fag of a phony Richard Simmons. Richard Simmons, what an asshole.
These assholes are now instituting this stupid bullshit on spouses and children of the said worker. Soon phrases like, "Com?on honey and kids, it Tae Bo time! Need to pay the house payment this month!." will be ever so common in the rotting trash that is society.
I know that "rights" should not be the number one agenda on society, which unfortunately it is. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let corporate fat assholes harass me for enjoying a burger with my family on my night off.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-12-22, 18:30 by Little Washu »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I mean do anti-smoking enthusiasts think about how much smog and pollution they put into the atmosphere everyday when they go to work in their car? Pollution puts more shit in the air then cigarettes do. There's a difference between an acute irritant and a long-term hazard. Auto exhaust is a long term hazard (unless you're confined in a garage). Tobacco smoke is an acute irritant AND a long-term hazard. Also, let's be reasonable here. You don't have people parking their autos in the middle of your office, restaurant, or other indoor area where people congregate or are forced to share confined spaces. Automobiles are also a vital part of civilization at this point. People depend on automobiles to reach their place of employment in order to earn money so they can survive. The next excuse would be "bicycles" or "public transit", but wait, bicycles come from factories, and public transit still consumes fuel. Electricity and gas for refrigeration and heating also require fuel, so really, what's the point here? You can't escape the pollution even if you could remove cars from the picture. Tobacco, on the other hand, is completely unnecessary. It has absolutely no beneficial properties or uses whatsoever, and even if it does to some very, very small degree, any such properties are vastly outweighed by the addictive nature of nicotine as well as the physical harm that tobacco causes, not to mention the fact that it flat out stinks.
Pointing out a different wrong does not absolve the inherent badness of the other either. Ever hear the phrase "Two wrongs do not make right?" Saying "Well you shouldn't gripe about smoking because people drive cars" does not excuse the smoking anymore than telling someone they shouldn't eat meat if they own a pet makes them guilty of hypocrisy for doing so. People use this kind of circular reasoning to justify all sorts of bad behavior by blame shifting. It's offering an excuse, a rationalization, a justification for what someone knows is bad and harmful. "Well, Person A is doing this bad thing, so nobody has any business telling me I should not do this other bad thing." It's just an attempt to deflect attention so someone doesn't have to deal with something. To me it's far more logical and far wiser to see every problem for what it is and take them head-on, rather than trying to avoid certain specific problems by pointing at other problems. You don't solve problems unless you acknowledge them first. I agree that pollution is a horrible problem, but the solution to that is an entirely different discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
im all for smoking to have a 100% ban everywhere, i dont give a shit if you are too weak and undisciplined to quit. quit being a pussy and letting tobacco companies ruin yours, and everyones lives around you.
I have a friend that smokes. Last night we saw "Munich"(awesome movie btw) .. lots of people smoking in it.(being based in the 70's n all, not that much has changed really) ... so whats the first thing he does when he gets out.. you guessed it.. lights one up! .. i mean wtf is that? are you sporking kidding me, i cant beleive that ANYONE would let something have that much control over them. it freakin rediculous. you might as well sign your life away to the tobacco companies. they own you now.
ban it all. im tired of the money wasted on ciggarette smoking idiots that end up with emphysema, heart attacks, cancer and more. imagine if even.. 2% of the money that people BURN on just the after affects(not even counting the COST of ciggarettes, 2 packs is like 10 bucks right? so if you smoke 2 a day, thats 70 bucks a week!) went to say.. education? I tell you there would not be a single school in the USA that would be underfunded! Hell with all that money saved we might even afford FREE health care. but no, you addicted, no self-esteemed wusses have to ruin it for those of us that would like to live past 50.
I also think you are going to find there is going to be a decrease in tolerance for it. more people are getting smarter, and more people think its a nasty disgusting habit. so the sooner it dies. the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
t0ts
Imp
Posts: 25
|
im all for smoking to have a 100% ban everywhere, i dont give a shit if you are too weak and undisciplined to quit. quit being a pussy and letting tobacco companies ruin yours, and everyones lives around you.
I have a friend that smokes. Last night we saw "Munich"(awesome movie btw) .. lots of people smoking in it.(being based in the 70's n all, not that much has changed really) ... so whats the first thing he does when he gets out.. you guessed it.. lights one up! .. i mean wtf is that? are you sporking kidding me, i cant beleive that ANYONE would let something have that much control over them. it freakin rediculous. you might as well sign your life away to the tobacco companies. they own you now.
ban it all. im tired of the money wasted on ciggarette smoking idiots that end up with emphysema, heart attacks, cancer and more. imagine if even.. 2% of the money that people BURN on just the after affects(not even counting the COST of ciggarettes, 2 packs is like 10 bucks right? so if you smoke 2 a day, thats 70 bucks a week!) went to say.. education? I tell you there would not be a single school in the USA that would be underfunded! Hell with all that money saved we might even afford FREE health care. but no, you addicted, no self-esteemed wusses have to ruin it for those of us that would like to live past 50.
I also think you are going to find there is going to be a decrease in tolerance for it. more people are getting smarter, and more people think its a nasty disgusting habit. so the sooner it dies. the better. I agree smoking is a stupid habit and stuff, but the government doesnt have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do, i mean years of second hand smoke hasnt effected me, so those people that think someone smoking outside are polluting our atmosphere are just stupid imo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
