smoking in public laws

[Motokid]

I was trying to come up with an analogy that would put you in the shoes of the business owner. Bring it closer to home as it were. Put it right in your basement to be exact.

I think most people here are looking at the news release from the employee side not the owner side.

 

[novella]

I was trying to come up with an analogy that would put you in the shoes of the business owner. Bring it closer to home as it were. Put it right in your basement to be exact.

I think most people here are looking at the news release from the employee side not the owner side.

Well, to that extent, it is a good analogy because the same rules apply and the same tacit preferences are practiced (see post below).

 

[Halo]

All these people should pay there hospital bills themself. It's there fault so why not? It's not that they did it once or twice => they did it all there life and they knew the risks. People who are destroying their health deliberatley should bear the consequences.

Sometimes I feel the same way. Look at George Best, drinking himself almost to death, then being lucky enough to get a liver transplant, and then carrying on drinking. Yes, smokers etc do harm their own health and it makes me mad, but why should we pick on them and deny them free treatment, when everyone else is also doing stuff that is bad for their health? Are you seriously telling me that you never do/eat/drink things that are bad for you? Because I would find it hard to believe. Also, as well as harming your health by doing something, you can also harm it by failing to do something, eg take regular exercise or wear your seatbelt in the car. Should the person involved in a car accident who was hurt because they weren't wearing their seatbelt have to pay for their treatment? Where would this end?

 

[Motokid]

If you are a motorcyclist and you choose not to wear a helmet should you pay higher insurance fees, and how would that be monitored to see if you do what you say you do?

The difference lies in I don’t know anybody who rides a motorcycle 20 times a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for 25 or more years. Most people do not drink gallons of alcohol in the same fashion that smokers smoke. Lets not forget there are studies that shows a glass of wine a day is good for your heart. Where’s the study that shows a cigarette a day is good for you anywhere? Most people probably don’t even eat 7300 M&M’s in a year let alone quarter-pounder’s with cheese. Using the argument that “everybody takes risks every now and then” is weak at best. Show me a risk that equals smoking, that’s not illegal.

It's not about one time freak accidents either. It's about a 10-20 times a day ritual for years and years when there's nothing to support the arguement that it somehow can be a benefit to you, or society.

 

[mr_michel]

But why can't the guy who's invested hundred's of thousands of dollars, if not millions make the rules he wants to make? If you don't like it, work somewhere else. If he makes the rules too rediculous he won't have any employees, or any customers.

If you own a beauty salon are you going to hire fat, ugly, slovenly men, or trim, sexy, neat ladies?

If you own a security service are you going to hire sub-100lb. 18 year old high school cheerleader type girls, or +200lb., muscular, strong, aggressive bouncer type guys?

If the business owner goes crazy with rules he suffers by losing employees, and business. But why can't he make that choice? He started the business, he should be able to steer it anywhere he wants. Even if that means into the ground.

i really hope you never open a bussines
you'll hire whoever has the capacity to do the work its offer, sexy neat ladies arent automaticly capable of working in a beauty salon (if they are, thats good), a 200 lb muscular strong, aggresive bouncer type guys should not be trusted with with guns and an uniform at least until they aprove lost of psycological tests, and also come clean on their records, (if the guy its to be carying guns, then who cares about his size).

the owner of the place has the right to chosee who see fits to the possition offered, but he its not allowed to discriminate. otherwise all the female working force would be composed by bigbreasted women and no a single gay person would have a job.
if you do something like not hiring smokers, small breasted women, maried women, gay people, ugly people, etc... youll be suit a lot.
its done all the time, but its not said what's the real cause for someone to not be hired.
thats the difference, you can fire someone for whatever reason, incompetence, "creative diferences" or whatever, but you can't admit that you really are firing him/her for being a smoker, gay, or just plain ugly.

 

[mr_michel]

hey i smoke 365 days a year, and i pay taxes on each cigarrete i smoke (and every year the taxes are higher), part of all those taxes i pay every day of the year, so im paying a lot more taxes for health care than a non smoker person with similar activities.
then the question its how dare people who pays less for the health care systme to use it, or try to denny me the service for which i had pay extra taxes???

 

[Motokid]

I understand that companies hire who they want, and fire who they want, for any reason they want. That’s just makes the argument even stronger for why can’t they outright admit what they are looking for?
Wouldn’t that save time, and money? Get a tattoo on your face and see how many places will hire you. Is that right? Who cares if it’s right? What matters is that you can’t say it. Why can’t a guy say I only want people working for me who don’t smoke? He can do what ever he wants right? If you smoke he can fire you for some made up performance issue. That’s been admitted here. Why can’t he say it and save everybody a lot of time? If you smoke, go work somewhere else. Why is that so bad?

 

[novella]

I understand that companies hire who they want, and fire who they want, for any reason they want. That’s just makes the argument even stronger for why can’t they outright admit what they are looking for?
Wouldn’t that save time, and money? Get a tattoo on your face and see how many places will hire you. Is that right? Who cares if it’s right? What matters is that you can’t say it. Why can’t a guy say I only want people working for me who don’t smoke? He can do what ever he wants right? If you smoke he can fire you for some made up performance issue. That’s been admitted here. Why can’t he say it and save everybody a lot of time? If you smoke, go work somewhere else. Why is that so bad?

Refer back for a moment to yesterday's GWB/Plutocracy thread and you will find the answer. It's because if everything is owned by rich white guys and they only want to give jobs to the sons of other rich white guys, then everyone else is denied the right to make a living, through blatant discrimination. Equal Opportunity Laws help a qualified candidate get a decent shot at a job, despite skin color, weight, religion, etc.

"Who cares if its right?" You're a flamebaiting 'tard sometimes, Moto. What matters is that it's right. Put yourself in the position of a fat black guy in a wheelchair who has an MBA and wants to be a banker. Who's pulling for him?

Maybe someday you can have your own little country where all the white businessmen can do things however they want no matter what the repercussions to the rest of society. Wouldn't that be swell? All the fatsos can work in McDonalds, all the smokers can sell cigarettes and grow tobacco and die, and all the rich white guys can hire the little blond boy who mowed their lawn in Westport before he decided to be just like daddy.

 

[Motokid]

Novella, I have more fun with you than anybody else here.

The last time I checked cigarettes are completely non-discriminatory.

How long do you think a bank that discriminates to the point of not hiring a fat, black man with an MBA in a wheel chair would last? More to the point how long would that bank be in business if they advertised that discrimination?

I'm just asking questions from the point of view of a business owner. I gather most here are coming from the employee side.

It's easy to say that business owner is taking things too far. I'm taking the harder road for discussion purposes. I've never voiced how I actually feel.

 

[novella]

Novella, I have more fun with you than anybody else here.

The last time I checked cigarettes are completely non-discriminatory.

How long do you think a bank that discriminates to the point of not hiring a fat, black man with an MBA in a wheel chair would last? More to the point how long would that bank be in business if they advertised that discrimination?

I'm just asking questions from the point of view of a business owner. I gather most here are coming from the employee side.

It's easy to say that business owner is taking things too far. I'm taking the harder road for discussion purposes. I've never voiced how I actually feel.

fun . . . FUN . . . FUN . . . YOU CALL THIS FUN!! HAHAHA. Kidding.

As I said below, business owners DO exercise their preferences and it's very hard to prove or prosecute a single instance. There has to be a pattern in order to make a case.

I worked for a woman who preferred to hire dog owners. She smoked and preferred hiring smokers. Even after the nonsmoking laws, the gang who smoked had way better access to her, as they would all huddle with their cigs and talk. I used to stand in the cold watching them smoke, just to keep my hand in. I also bought a cute puppy. My boss loved me. I started to behave like a dog. That really worked great.

Personally, I think employees should wise up and be what their employer wants them to be. It's the best way to get ahead. Litigation is for bottom-feeding pariahs.

"The last time I checked cigarettes are completely non-discriminatory. "

Ah, but the way they are marketed is very discriminatory! As the educated, older population in the US has tapered off their smoking habits, the tobacco companies have revved up their marketing in poor, black neighborhoods and third-world countries. They also started marketing to young kids. There were several recent court cases about these strategies, particularly the one involving the camel cartoon guy and also billboard ads in ghettos.

So, where does that leave us? If there is an effect on the population that skews smoking habits to young and poor people, then isn't there a parallel effect on their desirability to an employer who wants nonsmokers?

 

[Halo]

Most people do not drink gallons of alcohol in the same fashion that smokers smoke. Lets not forget there are studies that shows a glass of wine a day is good for your heart. Where’s the study that shows a cigarette a day is good for you anywhere? Most people probably don’t even eat 7300 M&M’s in a year let alone quarter-pounder’s with cheese. Using the argument that “everybody takes risks every now and then” is weak at best. Show me a risk that equals smoking, that’s not illegal.

Drinking, especially binge drinking, is very much in the headlines at the moment in the UK. Basically, nearly everybody is drinking too much alcohol. They find it impossible to drink in moderation. That one glass of wine a day might be good for you, unfortunately people are drinking 10 or 20 times that amount. Also, just because it is good for your heart, it doesn't mean it's good for your liver or anything else. So drinking alcohol can be just as bad for you as smoking, in my opinion. It's just that, at the moment, it is far more socially acceptable for some reason.

As for the junk food, some people live on it, 365 days a year. This is constantly harming their health, and is self-inflicted too. Eating junk food is not illegal. Drinking alcohol is not illegal. If taken to excess, the health hazards are probably just as bad as smoking. So why make just smokers pay for their self-inflicted illnesses? That is my point; even though I am a non-smoker, (and think people who smoke are idiots), I don't see why smokers should be singled out for wrecking their own health - everyone does to some extent, and drink and junk food can be just as bad for your health.

 

[Motokid]

When my state made indoor smoking illegal in public places the people that screamed the most, and the loadest were the bar owners. They were all scared to death that all the drinkers would just drive to a neighbooring state so they could drink and smoke inside, and in peace.

Drining and smoking go togther so well don't they? Maybe by cutting back one, you can inadvertantly cut back on the other. I know so many smokers that double and triple the number of butts they inhale as soon as they start drinking.

And yes, everybody in some way shape or form does something that can, or could harm their health. Smokers do all those things too, and smoke on top of it. Multiplying the effects, or adding to them, or making the effects worse...

And isn't the inability to get a job because you smoke, a very powerful incentive to stop smoking? Hell, the very real risk of death can't make people stop, how 'bout the threat of no work?

 

[Halo]

And isn't the inability to get a job because you smoke, a very powerful incentive to stop smoking? Hell, the very real risk of death can't make people stop, how 'bout the threat of no work?

I don't think not getting work would bother them in the slightest. Increasing their cancer etc risk does not bother them, smoking in front of their children does not bother them, the monetary cost does not bother them. Bizarrely, I think that the thing that seems to bother them the most (especially the women) is the damage done to their looks - wrinkles, grey skin, yellow teeth etc. "Hey, getting cancer doesn't scare me, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna get all wrinkly and not be attractive to the opposite sex."

 

[Motokid]

vanity - which number is that sin?

 

[Ashlea]

I'm sure Texas will be the last state to ban smoking in bars, but I find the idea appealing. I hate coming home from the bar, taking a shower, and still smelling smoke on me.

And wow, the tobacco companies must be raking it in. Last night, they were giving away zippo lighters AGAIN. ($10 or more value.)

 

[jenn]

But why can't the guy who's invested hundred's of thousands of dollars, if not millions make the rules he wants to make? If you don't like it, work somewhere else. If he makes the rules too rediculous he won't have any employees, or any customers.

If you own a beauty salon are you going to hire fat, ugly, slovenly men, or trim, sexy, neat ladies?

If you own a security service are you going to hire sub-100lb. 18 year old high school cheerleader type girls, or +200lb., muscular, strong, aggressive bouncer type guys?

If the business owner goes crazy with rules he suffers by losing employees, and business. But why can't he make that choice? He started the business, he should be able to steer it anywhere he wants. Even if that means into the ground.

but what if the fat ugly guy cuts gorgeous hair and the cutsie girl can't worth shit. and hiring muscle over the weak isn't the same as not hiring someone for a lifestyle choice. the job calls for muscle, can he fire the muscley guy later because he is gay, no. you are comparing ability to do a job with a personal lifestyle habit, they are not the same. if i smoke it is not going to affect my ability to do hair, but if i look good and still can't cut a straight line...

 

[jenn]

You've been starting some interesting threads, Motokid. They seem to get a lot of response.

i second that. i have this mental image of you lying in bed, with an evil mr. burns look on your face going heh heh, tommorow i'll post this thread...... it's great, we've been debating like mad at our house. i also want to say cheers to everyone, there has been some really potentially dangerous territory here and no one has gotten pissed or upset. perhaps we are all wanting a way to vent those winter blues and love a good debate.

 

[RitalinKid]

Jenn, not to piss you off or anything, but I'm wearing short sleeves where I am, and, yeah, it's real nice!

Moto, alcohol is just as bad as smoking. It's just that when I'm drinking, the fumes from the alcohol don't go up your nose AND make you uncomfortable (unless your a right wing religious fanatic). This makes it real easy to target smokers. Everybody identifies with being made uncomfortable by smokers, and no one sees a problem with picking on them. Here's a question though. Where will all of this stop? Will insurance companies want to put devices in your car to monitor your driving? How many people are indulging in risky sexual behavior? That's legal and can cause lots of health problems. Eating "bad" food increases your risk of diabetes and heart disease. Maybe they should monitor your eating habits. Your genetics also affect risk, so maybe you should be charged more because your mother is diabetic (like my mother). So, where does it stop and who regulates where it stops? It's almost pointless to try and establish a system based on risks. I say almost because someone brilliant one day will come up with a miracle system that will work. Once again, the first step to curing the (US) health care system is to arrest the rising costs. After that, you can start in with your pay by risk system.

 

[bobbyburns]

And wow, the tobacco companies must be raking it in. Last night, they were giving away zippo lighters AGAIN. ($10 or more value.)

hypothetically, if tobacco companies lost all of their market in north america, they would only suffer a profit loss of about 5%, because third world countries are their main target.

 

[Motokid]

You own a small sandwich shop. You have a few college aged employees.
Business is good and steady over the coarse of 3 or 4 years with all the same employees.

One of your employees goes on spring break and returns with tattoos and piercings.

Now, every time that kid works you notice a dramatic decrease in profits. You notice plenty of people walking in the door, but all of a sudden they are turning around and walking out. But only when the pierced kid works.

The pierced kid is the same kid. Nothing's different except his/her appearence.

Should you, the owner, have the right to terminate?