[Whiskeyman]

I think smoking related disease has much to do with genetics. Many of my family members have smoked all their lives. Not one has died from smoking related problems. My great-aunt smoked from when she was 12 until she hit 93. She is still alive at 99, but living in a nursing home where they don't allow smoking. My grandmother who never smoked and wouldn't allow it near her died from lung cancer. The biggest health problem in my family is genetic cholesterol and diabetes.

Every time you breathe some pollutant is entering your lungs far more dangerous than cigarette smoke.

As for businesses being barred from allowing smoking within it's premises I find that ridiculous. I owned a tavern in NY when the smoking ban was first enacted. All of my customers and employees smoked. I believe it is a right of a business owner to be able to opt whether smoking is allowed. We should have been allowed to post a sign at the entrance that states smoking allowed or smoke free. If a customer doesn't like smoke they have a choice not to enter. The same with an employee. Someone does not need to work in an atmosphere where the conditions are not to their liking. They can work elsewhere.

[Advertisements]

With levels of an unemployment in most civilised nations people dont always have the choice of getting another job, and i dont breathe things more dangerous things than cigarette smoke daily, and i live next to a rather large petrochemical plant, and i know whats in the air at the moment i study chemistry and chemical engineering envirmomental effects are important and in most countries there is very strict emmisions regulations in place, if a chemical plant pumped out the stuff that comes out of a cigarette in a proportional quantity it would get shut down very quickly and the operators heavily fined.

And not everyone gets a choice where they get to go to socialise without smoking before the ban i didnt know of a single non smoking pub or club or even one that had a reputation for few smokers(except maybe the student union but it was still allowed there and there were still smokers it just had high ceilings and good ventilation), clubs and pubs get aways with alot of things that are technically illegal, in a smoking pub the average pollutant and noise level is far in excess of the legal limits if it was an industrial setting like i said it would get shut down and the owners heavily fined. Why should the laws of industry and public health not apply everywhere to protect everyone.

Some people will have a high resistance and be genetically very healthy and not prone to cancer, but most people dont have that and if you have an increased risk of cancer that 60% boost from passive smoking is huge and very worrying, and i should know my family has a big history of it and its something i have to think about, i cant smoke even if i did want to because the risks would be to great it would almost certainly be a death sentence given my family history and i dont like it when people smoke around me for the same reason.

If you want to smoke whats wrong with going outside or doing it in your own home where you cant hurt or impose a bad habit on other people.

[warriorscot]

With levels of an unemployment in most civilised nations people dont always have the choice of getting another job, and i dont breathe things more dangerous things than cigarette smoke daily, and i live next to a rather large petrochemical plant, and i know whats in the air at the moment i study chemistry and chemical engineering envirmomental effects are important and in most countries there is very strict emmisions regulations in place, if a chemical plant pumped out the stuff that comes out of a cigarette in a proportional quantity it would get shut down very quickly and the operators heavily fined.

And not everyone gets a choice where they get to go to socialise without smoking before the ban i didnt know of a single non smoking pub or club or even one that had a reputation for few smokers(except maybe the student union but it was still allowed there and there were still smokers it just had high ceilings and good ventilation), clubs and pubs get aways with alot of things that are technically illegal, in a smoking pub the average pollutant and noise level is far in excess of the legal limits if it was an industrial setting like i said it would get shut down and the owners heavily fined. Why should the laws of industry and public health not apply everywhere to protect everyone.

Some people will have a high resistance and be genetically very healthy and not prone to cancer, but most people dont have that and if you have an increased risk of cancer that 60% boost from passive smoking is huge and very worrying, and i should know my family has a big history of it and its something i have to think about, i cant smoke even if i did want to because the risks would be to great it would almost certainly be a death sentence given my family history and i dont like it when people smoke around me for the same reason.

If you want to smoke whats wrong with going outside or doing it in your own home where you cant hurt or impose a bad habit on other people.

[Whiskeyman]

I feel that is my right to do as I please within my own establishment. After all I am the one who invested my money into it and pay the excessive taxes to the city, county, state and federal governments. If the vast majority of my regular customers want smoking then it should be legal for me to allow this. As for bartenders they know that my bar was filled with smoking customers. They did not need to apply if they didn't like smoking. If non-smokers want a place to congregate then they can invest their hard earned money and do as I did in opening their own establishment. I honor places that don't allow smoking. I have worked construction all my life besides running a bar. 75% of the jobs I take on are outdoors. I would never smoke inside at a customer's place. Mostly I smoke while having my morning coffee at home or when I get frustrated with something that is going wrong. Nicotine has a calming effect and allows me to gather my thoughts.

[frantique]

Mmmm ... amazing the topics one finds when one has some extra spare time due to the fact that one has ceased smoking for ever (just one week ago!). No more trips out the back (in either freezing cold or 40 degree temps) for a ciggie. This is from a 30 year habit of around 20 a day. If you're a smoker and have been drawn to this topic and have some idea about stopping sometime, I would suggest you invest a few dollars in a book "Easy Way to Stop Smoking" by Allan Carr. You don't have to have the intention of quitting right now and it is mandatory that you smoke at your usual rate whilst you read the book. I personally suggest reading the book over a period of about a month (a few pages each day or so) rather than reading it overnight. There is a success rate of around 90% with none of the usual side effects (weight gain, substituting, etc). Most of the literature and discussions (such as this) attest to the reasons people should not smoke. If you are a smoker (in my experience) you simply switch off to whatever is presented which is why there are still lots of people smoking. Carr in his book and workshops (in US and UK) addresses the reasons smokers do smoke and does not address why they should not.

Back on topic, does a Government who allows business to dictate to this extent (ie fire people who choose to smoke) really represent the people? Or is business just using the unpopular smoking to test the waters for more substantial power over the workers (people)?

What's happened to Civil Rights?

[fleamailman]

Well you see I have no idea about cigarettes but I know for a fact that if one more of the goblintechs in this shop here talks any more about the wonders of RAID, RAID striping, RAID something being better than RAID whatever, I will personally light the faggots that all humanity will gladly stake him to, that is, smoke or no smoke, OK now hands up, all those who now think that demise of witchhunting in the middle ages has had some depremental effects in our age if not our week then.

[Footnote, readers in the New world will probably have to be reminded that a faggot is a bunch of sticks, pity.]

Edited by fleamailman, 05 April 2006 - 06:42 PM.

[Comrade General]

Well simple answer stop voting conservative and start voting for the guys that want to give you a nationalised health service.

Not as easy as you think, there could be a guy who says he'd do that but is totally wacko on other issues...

[frantique]

This subject has sort of died a little. Thought I might open it up again with a scenerio which is being muted in Oz right now. Not really about smoking - though it is about dictating in law how people can live. Don't know much about the details, but one of our northern states is suggesting bringing into law that it be illegal for young people (I think mainly teenagers) to be in a relationship with anyone more than five years their senior. So in actual fact they are suggesting that it would be illegal for a 17 years old to be in a relationship with a 23 years old person!!! This is all a little scary to me.

[fleamailman]

frantigue, I think that is a great topic by itself and it would be wrong of me to pinch it form you here but I would be grateful to you and happy to add my reply if you started that as a new thread here since a lot of people would be interested and they would not see it here.
Sin.,
flea

Edited by fleamailman, 10 April 2006 - 05:42 AM.

[frantique]

You got it fleamailman! Thought went through my mind just after I pressed the "Add reply" button, but it had already gone into the nethers of cyberspace. Will do as you suggest and please anyone reading this thread please disregard previous post and post on topic regarding being fired because you smoke.

[Angst]

I comepletely and utterly disagree with them. I mean, that's like saying I can't be a certain race. Maybe not as extreme, but still, many smokers can't help it. I'd understand if they said that you couldn't smoke on the job. THat makes sense. Also, warriorscot, charging people just because they have a habit that they can't get rid of, or are attempting to, is not fair. In fact it is doing more injustice than what is being dne right now.

[s2006]

i don't smoke so it doesn't bother me. where i work , we had a smoke rule came into effect jan. 1st. potential applicants that smoked would either have the option to get into a quit smoking plan or if they didn't than of course the chances of them getting hired is slim. for current employees before jan. 1st, if u do smoke on break, one must either do this in his/her car closed doors but your window can be slightly opened or smoke off the property which would take you to the next street over...no kidding. one employee was caught smoking on property & fired immediately.

i think this is a good idea but just with the wrong intentions. fresh clean air is important for the body. think about it, does anyone gasping for air want filthy air to beathe? why allow your body to be filled it? why put others at risk?

i think it's funny how smokers which i've heard alot of them say "yeah i know it's bad for me but oh well..."
smoking parents don't even want their young children picking up the HABIT...that's what it is a bad habit.
maybe this new regulation will help give a boost to the smokers that never knew they could quit

[shagnicely]

If I were an employer, and had the power, would I sack smokers? In a heartbeat. Right/wrong does not come into it. Corporations are amoral. Their ONLY legal responibility is to their shareholders.

In the US this principle was etablished by the supreme court at the end of the C19th. It has been reinforced by the current crop of neo-conservative economists.

IF you are a regular smoker, your chances of developing AND dying from some smoking related illness are approaching 100%.

I am an ex-smoker, stopping 4 years ago. I wil probably die of emphysema.

Does an employer have the moral right to sack smokers? Of course not. Smoking is legal. It is also an addiction.

It is common to blame the victim ,as very few people, even doctors,and certainly not politicians, have any understanding of the nature of addiction.

In my lifetime , I have seen smoking become less and less socially acceptable.The percentage of the population which smoke continues to shrink. Within another century it will be very rare.

That such a dangerous drug remains legal and permitted is because of the power of the tobacco companies and the fact that governments remain addicted to the revenue.

In my country, within another 10-20 years, it wil be illegal to smoke in public. GOOD.

There you have Shaggy's two cents. I do hope I have not offended anyone.