# Is smoking a right?



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

At our facility,cigerette butts and smoke breaks got so out of hand that we as managment decided to go "smoke free facility" We have one employee that has kept on smoking. he has been repremanded twice. He is now leaving company property at lunch and both breaks. He states that he has a right to smoke and if he gets fired because of smoking he is going to sue us. What do you all think?
Cosmo


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think it would be easier for him to just quit.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Put aside smoking for one minute. Is he a good employee, loyal, longterm?
Is he off the timeclock during his lunch or breaks?
How long has he smoked? 
It's a filthy and unhealthfull habit, true.
It is also terribly addictive, an addiction once chearfully pushed by the same people who now push sugar, fat and any number of unhealthfull pursuits.
When I go to the V.A. Hospital, I see the last of our WW2 vets ( and time is breathing on my generation's heals)who were GIVEN cigarettes while serving.
Now they smoke in a society that makes it an act of pariahism, with no thought to the same society that once profited from big tobacco.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I am retired from the U.S. Civil Service. When the Federal Buildings went smoke free, all employees who smoked were allowed extra time during the day to go outside and smoke. I think this was negotiated by the union. Some employees actually wanted to take up smoking just so they could get extra breaks to go out and smoke. When I think about it, it reminds me of the episode of _Frazier _where Niles was trying to smoke so he would have an excuse to stand outside the theater.

Cruiser


----------



## ctt (Dec 24, 2008)

Sure, he has a right to smoke. He doesn't have a right to smoke on another's private property. I also don't think he has a right to receive extra breaks to accommodate his habit. If he chooses to leave work to smoke when on break, as long as other employees are allowed to leave when on similar breaks, that's his own decision.

Are you claiming that you are telling your employees that cannot smoke at all or just not at work?


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

cosmotoast said:


> What do you all think?
> Cosmo


I think you're going to have a lot of employees dipping.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

cosmotoast said:


> At our facility,cigerette butts and smoke breaks got so out of hand that we as managment decided to go "smoke free facility" We have one employee that has kept on smoking. he has been repremanded twice. He is now leaving company property at lunch and both breaks. He states that he has a right to smoke and if he gets fired because of smoking he is going to sue us. What do you all think?
> Cosmo


I think if he is at his station working when he is supposed to be working that is about all you should ask of him. If not then he should be disciplined, and eventually fired, if necessary.

I don't know about a "right" but, I think he should be able to smoke if he wants when on an authorized break (except in areas where banned: I've seen some companies ban smoking by employees in certain areas of company property such as entryways and picnic area, etc).


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

A "right" implies that it is a protected activity under law.

Really, it's an activity that is regulated and in some environments prohibited, so no, it's not a right. 

Here in Georgia there's a very fair compromise on this - the law states that a restaurant or bar can allow smoking if they prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from entering. So you can have "family-friendly" or "smoker-friendly," sometimes in the same location at different times of the day, but you can't have both at once.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You know, during colllege I answered a job ad to help renovate a large building. The interviewer stressed the no smoking policy.
I arrived on day one to observe a supervisor so wired on bennies he was bouncing off the walls.
Oh, and those walls turned out to be asbestos.
We were going to tear them down with no protective gear.
I walked.
Our society is now intolerant of many unhealthfull activities.
So just fire the guy. Economy is bad, there are lots of people who will probably jump on his position for less money and less benefits.
I suppose the contract landscapers spraying Dursban and Diazanon know what they're doing?
You do drug testing, no?
Is there alcohol in after hour functions?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, the "right" to kill babies was considered "fundamental" after only existing in this country for about 20 years. Smoking tobacco however is much older than our republic, but enjoys no protection.

Honestly I do not like smoking and I would rather work and play in smoke-free environments, but I do not support legislation mandating that private places ban smoking.


----------



## IvanG (Dec 29, 2008)

It is your free choice to smoke or not but if it's part of the company's culture that nobody is allowed to smoke within the company, he should stick to it.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*One can claim a physical dependency on nicotine*

If not smoking on the premises, the initial problems of extra breaks and smoking area messes are gone. Additional persecution would be purely discriminatory. It's likely that some Polyanna hates the smell, but I doubt I'd fire someone for wearing patchouli.

For all the anti-smoking zealots, imagine a coffee-free workplace.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Smoking must of course be a right.

Similarly, not inhaling another's smoke must also be a right.

As with all rights, they usually extend as far as they do not infringe on another's rights.

It was a happy day for me when the UK banned smoking in public venues. Now, if only smoking in the streets could be outlawed too!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It sounds as though he isn't violating any company rule.

Is he? He's not smoking on company property, or during work time. Is his use of cigarettes on his own time affecting his work performance?

I don't even understand what he's being reprimanded for. Is he missing time because of leaving the premises? 

Is it that the company wants him to stop smoking even on his own time? I would consider that illegitimate, whether the drug he wants to use is tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, or something else that doesn't affect his performance.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Smoking must of course be a right.
> 
> Similarly, not inhaling another's smoke must also be a right.
> 
> As with all rights, they usually extend as far as they do not infringe on another's rights.


How can both of these "rights" exist without some infringement, one against the other?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I want that scab of civilization, Las Vegas shut down. It's light pollution ruins my view of the Milky Way while night riding in the desert.
Hitler was a vegetarian, so lets stop offending PETA. 
I wanted to include Chuck Norris, but it seems since Mike Huckabee's God given mandate to play base in the White House failed, Ol' Chuck has retired to a men's retreat version of a catholic monastery making bowflexs that convert to crosses when not in use.
The new carpeting in my apt is offgassing formaldehyde.
I hear nearby Rocketdyne blasted pollutants into me when building rockets for the moon landings.
Two LDS missionaries pounded on my jewish nieghbor's door during shabbot last saturday.
We are all offended or our health put at jeopardy on a daily basis.
Society seems to pick a few scapegoats to make us think it's progressing.
So, in the interest of fair play, YOUR ALL FIRED!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Smoking is not a right. The medical cost don't just effect the smokers, but also, everybody else. Why? Medical insurance cost more so everybody pays more. In a way that is stealing, isn't it? Why should I pay the medical bills for somebodies foolish, childish, digusting and unhealthy habit? And those who can't afford insurance get it from charity or tax payers through government. And, lastly, why should a company pay higher insurance for its smokers foolish addictive make believe pleasures?

If companies want a place for smokers then it should be outdoors and far enough away from doors that regular people use. And, there should be no "smoke breaks" unless the company is going to pay the smokers thousands of $$$$$ less. These 'smokers breaks' every 15 minutes for 10 minutes each is anti-profit. Why did companies ever hire these profit losers, anyway? It is amazing how many adults are anti-adult.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Relayer said:


> How can both of these "rights" exist without some infringement, one against the other?


Well, if somebody chooses to smoke away from me and without their smoke coming into contact with me, then I have no qualms with them smoking whatsoever! :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA put that cinnamen bear claw down NOW! Your increased cholesteral is raising health costs.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Well, if somebody chooses to smoke away from me and without their smoke coming into contact with me, then I have no qualms with them smoking whatsoever! :icon_smile:


I understand your personal qualms, or lack thereof, but that doesn't address the issue and/or conflict of smoker's/nonsmoker's rights as stated in your prior post.

Perhaps _*right*_ is not the proper term.


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

The coffee free comment is the only reason that I try to understand this guy because I dont smoke but if the company wanted to stop me from drinking coffee I would be very angry.This guy has been with the company since 1972
and he is lazy as hell. He is very smart and skilled but you just about have to beg him to do anything.Thereis no smoking on company property. you can leave the property for an off the clock lunch but there is no written rule about leaving co. premises during break. This is were the problem comes in.He is the last one back on the job and says it the companys fault for "making" him leave to smoke.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think at Pathmark,they have a smoke free environment but you're allowed to smoke away from the premisis,they should also invest in a sand ashtray.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

cosmotoast said:


> The coffee free comment is the only reason that I try to understand this guy because I dont smoke but if the company wanted to stop me from drinking coffee I would be very angry.This guy has been with the company since 1972
> and he is lazy as hell. He is very smart and skilled but you just about have to beg him to do anything.Thereis no smoking on company property. you can leave the property for an off the clock lunch but there is no written rule about leaving co. premises during break. This is were the problem comes in.He is the last one back on the job and says it the companys fault for "making" him leave to smoke.


And _how_ has he been there for close to 40 years? Tell him to kick the habit and stop being whiny.


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> And _how_ has he been there for close to 40 years? Tell him to kick the habit and stop being whiny.


 I hate to even bring it up but, hes in the union and if you follow all the rules and stick to the contract you have a job for life. Oh and also,several employees have stoped smoking since the co. went smoke free.
Cosmo


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

WA said:


> Smoking is not a right. The medical cost don't just effect the smokers, but also, everybody else. Why? Medical insurance cost more so everybody pays more. In a way that is stealing, isn't it? Why should I pay the medical bills for somebodies foolish, childish, digusting and unhealthy habit? And those who can't afford insurance get it from charity or tax payers through government. And, lastly, why should a company pay higher insurance for its smokers foolish addictive make believe pleasures?


I don't understand this. So whether something is a _right_ or not is premised upon the costs imposed on others by a person exercising that _right_?

I have a right to bear arms. Should that be re-considered since the misuse of firearms, whether accidental, or in the commission of a crime, imposes costs on others? What about if I decide to eat nothing but Big Mac Meals and hand dipped milkshakes for the next 30 years? Or is my right to eat what I want a right that should be legislated away since the diabetes or heart disease I may develop as a result would impose costs on society?

I don't agree that rights are defined by the costs they may or may not impose on society at large.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

WA said:


> Smoking is not a right. The medical cost don't just effect the smokers, but also, everybody else. Why? *Medical insurance cost more so everybody pays more. In a way that is stealing, isn't it? Why should I pay the medical bills for somebodies foolish, childish, digusting and unhealthy habit? *And those who can't afford insurance get it from charity or tax payers through government. And, lastly, why should a company pay higher insurance for its smokers foolish addictive make believe pleasures?


What if I told you that when you combine tobacco taxes with foregone health and social security spending actually resulted in a net "cost" to the smoker as a result of their habit? Should you give him a refund of the social security and medicare benefits they will not collect because of their early death?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

cosmotoast said:


> I hate to even bring it up but, hes in the union and if you follow all the rules and stick to the contract you have a job for life. Oh and also,several employees have stoped smoking since the co. went smoke free.
> Cosmo


That's especially a reason for him to quit.


----------



## Falconboy (May 10, 2008)

WA said:


> If companies want a place for smokers then it should be outdoors and far enough away from doors that* regular people* use.


Wow, I feel so... shamed and shunned or something


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

WA said:


> The medical cost don't just effect the smokers, but also, everybody else. Why? Medical insurance cost more so everybody pays more. In a way that is stealing, isn't it? Why should I pay the medical bills for somebodies foolish, childish, digusting and unhealthy habit? And those who can't afford insurance get it from charity or tax payers through government. And, lastly, why should a company pay higher insurance for its smokers foolish addictive make believe pleasures?


So, you also argue that the government should regulate:


Playing sports
Riding motorcycles or bicycles
Eating fattening foods
Watching too much TV
And every other aspect of life that doesn't directly improve one's health.

But, in agreement with you...

By "regular people" I assume you mean people using the entrance to actually enter and exit the building, and not linger around. I smoke cigars, but I can't stand the habits of cigarette smokers. They leave piles of spit-sogged mushy cigarette butts and their addiction is often such that they don't understand that other people don't agree that rushing out for a smoke is the most important thing in the world.

And they lose their sense of smell! Ack! I had to help a friend with his bow tie before we went to a black tie party, and his breath was like a mummy's curse! I honestly don't think he realized it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Is smoking a right?
Well, under the law restoring native american religious freedom, yes.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the guy has a right to smoke. Think about it - the country was primarily founded on tobacco. Where would we be without it?

Personally, I don't buy into all these claims we all pay for a smoker's habit. Smokers pay a higher insurance cost (both health and life). They pay an extra tax on their tobacco as well (ironically most of the funds are allegedly earmarked for things like children's healthcare, which requires smokers to keep on smoking to fund).

I would describe myself as a conservative, but that buzz word is immediately replaced with "Republican." If I describe myself as socially conservative that must mean I want to tell you how to live. In truth, I believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. These same people who are worried about their right to privacy are the same ones who want to prevent people from smoking.

I don't believe there should be a huge "sin tax" on cigarettes either. I mean: New York is now considering a "sin tax" on soda and other sugary beverages. What next? Shall we start putting extra taxes on bespoke clothing - gluttony is a sin after-all. Or perhaps fine dining should have a higher tax. Perhaps we should have higher income taxes on people who work in hazardous conditions? Construction workers, oil rig workers, people who are exposed to caustic chemicals, etc.

Perhaps we should just have one person decide the proper way to live and we can tax anything that said individual doesn't find proper.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Miket61 said:


> And they lose their sense of smell! Ack! I had to help a friend with his bow tie before we went to a black tie party, and his breath was like a mummy's curse! I honestly don't think he realized it.


I was at a shoe repair place, and it had the lovely smell of shoe polish. The owner couldn't smell it because he was so used to it. Should we ban people from spending their lives running a shoe repair store because their sense of smell is somehow altered.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Some of you are saying that you have a right to other peoples money because of your irresponsible choices. Then that means the people who live under bridges and in briar patches have a right to live in your house off of your money that is paying for it.

Who has a right to other peoples money? If you own a hot car like a Lamborghini or a Ferrari I'd like to know where you live so I can drive it- it's my right because I have right to your money. Or, if your going to be honest you and I don't have right to each others money no matter how we wish to have that right.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Another person says the high taxes on smoking gives them a right. When did government ever obey their laws? How much smokers tax goes to their heath problems as promised? Washington lotto came in as money to the schools- that is what people voted for. 
But, instead it goes to the general fund where maybe 5% goes to schools. There are many government scams like this.

Kav- 'native american religious' isn't even half a pack aday or maybe even a month.


----------



## deandbn (Mar 6, 2006)

Well here in SA it not a right in fact it is a criminal offence to smoke in any public place and that includes offices, shops, malls, the street or countryside. The only place you may smoke is in the privacy of your own home and even then only provided it does not affect anyone else. If for instance, at home, your smoking was affecting your partner or other occupant, that person would be entitled to lay a criminal charge of smoking against you for which you would be prosecuted, taken to court and if convicted, fined or jailed. 

One other exception is that there is a provision for bars and restaurants to have smoking sections that must be completely separated floor to ceiling with a closed door and have it's own separate air extraction and filtration system.

Oh, and they have put the price up so that cigarettes are inordinately expensive.

The nett result is that very few people smoke, which is a wonderful thing because when i go out these days, i dont have to come home and take my clothes off immediatley (and wash them) to get the nicotine smell out and then take a shower to also get the nicotine smell off myself.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm sort of on the fence with regards to smoking, as I enjoy a nice cigar or hookah (tobacco, no illegal substances) once in a while, though I do not inhale. I know what deandbn means, though. I hate that smell of cheap cigarettes that lingers with you.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In Washington State there were some trying to get a club statis, like as a tavern, before smoking was banded, where smoking would be allowed. But, their would be no employees, just volunteers serving the drinks.

Second hand smoke is a health problem for employees.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Stop wearing wool. People have alllergies.*



WA said:


> Second hand smoke is a health problem for employees.


Junk science. There are no previously robust people's health suffering from second-hand smoke? It's always wheezy asthmatic/allergic people who suffer further (mild) irritation, and that's it.
Just be honest and admit to olfactory discrimination. Nobody really cares about the real or imagined health effects.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Stop wearing wool. People have alllergies.*



WA said:


> Second hand smoke is a health problem for employees.


Junk science. Has a previously robust person's health ever suffering from second-hand smoke? It's always wheezy asthmatic/allergic people who suffer further (mild) irritation, and that's it.
Just be honest and admit to olfactory discrimination. Almost nobody really cares about the real or imagined health effects.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

WA said:


> Another person says the high taxes on smoking gives them a right. When did government ever obey their laws? How much smokers tax goes to their heath problems as promised? Washington lotto came in as money to the schools- that is what people voted for.
> But, instead it goes to the general fund where maybe 5% goes to schools. There are many government scams like this.
> 
> Kav- 'native american religious' isn't even half a pack aday or maybe even a month.


If you are referring to me, I think if you go back and read my response carefully, I say no such thing. High taxes do not confer a right to anything at all. Read my post carefully. It simply questions the old BS argument about the costs smokers impose on society.

BTW, I am not a smoker. A cigar here and there, but no cigarettes for me.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I've often thought of buying those little "stink bomb" capsules and releasing them in the smoking section of the restaurant (St. Louis does not have a ban on smoking). The very idea of a smoking section is ridiculous anyway..non smokers still leave the restaurant with the smell of smoke on their clothes and body. I have yet to actually do this, but I do think it would be a fun way to show the smokers how non smokers feel. :devil:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I think I'm going to go have a nice cigar this afternoon. I'll smoke it in the cigar store with a couple of the regulars while relaxing in a well-used leather chair. It'll be a good time. 

I'll have a Los Imperialistas toro. Really a nice cigar and I like the name, too. If anybody is going to be in the Smyrna area around 2:00 come on over to the Cigar Villa and light one up!


----------



## bus station number 6 (Jul 25, 2008)

The amazing hypocrisy associated with the anti smoking crusade is what has the issues so confused. Smoking, while not a right per se, is a legal activity. One which the government has NO desire to criminalize because of the huge tax revenue that tobacco taxes generate. The genesis of the myriad lawsuits and legal wranglings of the tobacco companies was the legitimization of the victim status of smokers which resulted in billions of dollars of damage awards. As soon as the money started flowing the states saw no reason why they shouldn't get in on the action. 

There are millions of Americans that are "smoke free" who are destroying their bodies with fast food, processed food, alcohol, junk food and soda. Obesity and diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure cost this country more each year than smoking ever has, where is the concern?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA You don't want women having abortions, gays marrying and now you're after tobacco users. For a republican, you sure do want to micromanage others. 
The average catlinite, red stone pipe bowl holds @ 1 oz of native tobacco. An offering is commonly made in hte morning, sunset, at a sweat's begining and the many opening ceremonies of pow wows. It is used at momentous events and during calender observances.
Please, next time ASK somebody before you push your scandinavian baptist, I watched an Audey Murphy cowboy movie world view on the world once again.
Smoking is a unhealthfull and dirty habit in excess. So is drinking. I suppose wine at communion is next?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I've often thought of buying those little "stink bomb" capsules and releasing them in the smoking section of the restaurant (St. Louis does not have a ban on smoking). The very idea of a smoking section is ridiculous anyway..non smokers still leave the restaurant with the smell of smoke on their clothes and body. I have yet to actually do this, but I do think it would be a fun way to show the smokers how non smokers feel. :devil:


I, for one, am glad smoking sections have been abolished in Florida. Some people still have no idea it's happened, however.

When I was hosting at a restaurant a year ago, I asked the group if they preferred a booth or table. The oldest gent (who was probably paying) replied, "A booth please. Non-smoking." I was confused for a second until I realised they were probably from out of state. I then clarified to him that smoking sections hadn't been around for a while, which took him by surprise. Hm.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I think I'm going to go have a nice cigar this afternoon. I'll smoke it in the cigar store with a couple of the regulars while relaxing in a well-used leather chair. It'll be a good time.
> 
> I'll have a Los Imperialistas toro. Really a nice cigar and I like the name, too. If anybody is going to be in the Smyrna area around 2:00 come on over to the Cigar Villa and light one up!


Relayer, today is my birthday and I would have enjoyed a good smoke with you if I lived closer to Peachtree Corners. Perhaps some time we can meet for a nice cigar at NY Prime in Buckhead. Great steak place that has a nice bar area that is cigar friendly. PM me if you ever want to meet.


----------



## cosmotoast (Oct 11, 2008)

bus station number 6 said:


> The amazing hypocrisy associated with the anti smoking crusade is what has the issues so confused. Smoking, while not a right per se, is a legal activity. One which the government has NO desire to criminalize because of the huge tax revenue that tobacco taxes generate. The genesis of the myriad lawsuits and legal wranglings of the tobacco companies was the legitimization of the victim status of smokers which resulted in billions of dollars of damage awards. As soon as the money started flowing the states saw no reason why they shouldn't get in on the action.
> 
> There are millions of Americans that are "smoke free" who are destroying their bodies with fast food, processed food, alcohol, junk food and soda. Obesity and diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure cost this country more each year than smoking ever has, where is the concern?


 Yes smoking is legal, and he has every right in the world to smoke in his house or car but, can we in managment say no no no and no, you can not and will not smoke on our property or while on our clock?
Cosmo


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

bus station number 6 said:


> The amazing hypocrisy associated with the anti smoking crusade is what has the issues so confused. Smoking, while not a right per se, is a legal activity. One which the government has NO desire to criminalize because of the huge tax revenue that tobacco taxes generate. The genesis of the myriad lawsuits and legal wranglings of the tobacco companies was the legitimization of the victim status of smokers which resulted in billions of dollars of damage awards. As soon as the money started flowing the states saw no reason why they shouldn't get in on the action.
> 
> There are millions of Americans that are "smoke free" who are destroying their bodies with fast food, processed food, alcohol, junk food and soda. Obesity and diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure cost this country more each year than smoking ever has, where is the concern?


Wiser words have rarely been spoken...err...written. Well done.

Though I do enjoy eating in a smoke-free restaurant, I am against non-smoking laws. Government nannyism is getting out of control. If a bar or restaurant allows smoking, it's their right and perogative...just as it's my right and perogative to NOT patronize the establishment.

Many cities in the Kansas City area (including Kansas City itself) enacted smoking bans throughout the past two years, and several well-known bars suffered greatly (and still are). But when it comes to hypocrisy, the ultimate insult came in the form of an exemption for the casinos. They most have better lobbyists or have lots of pictures on city councilmen in comprimising positions.

Thankfully we just elected someone into the Kansas Legislature who's challenging the notion of state-wide smoking bans. Hey, it's a start.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ironic, I just went to click back into this forum and saw Andy's introduction, something about easy chairs, drinks and cigars. 
I've been giving my computer a through cyber cleaning, mostly after a visit from a nephew.
Ah yes, It is so much fun to find a secreted file, open it trying to remember what it is, and there is lady FiFi in all her glory. And Miss FiFi asks, as a 'courtesan' that the 'gentlemen' she 'dates' kindly refrain from wearing scents, as she is allergic to anything but filthy lucre.
Ind Miss FiFi is multilingual;mentioning different langauges she speaks. 
We all have dirty habits, and conversely behaviors we find repungnant.
So, in plain english, not french or greek;
This employee is apparently not only a stubborn smoker, but a long term employee who is lazy. 
So get him fired. 
It is my experience, once companies run out of efficiency crusade strawdogs they just lay people off and hire kids and illegals at minimum wage anyway.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess people don't see those infomericals they used to show on television last year the guy with the hole in his throat or a picture of infected lungs and yellow teeth.People smoke whether there's infomercials or not.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Smoking is natural selection taking its course. 

Do you have any idea how major a concern global overpopulation is going to be over the next fifty years? :icon_pale:

The more smokers knocking-off early, the better for me, I say! :icon_smile:


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Smoking*

Gentlemen

Because of my profession, am supposed to support healthy things. I was a smoker in my young days, pot mostly!
I, over the years have encouraged my patients to quit. I will not harass them.
If they do not want to. God bless them.
It is not my business, and right to ask them to stop.
I think non smokers have become royal ass es in the world. On the verge of being placed before a firing squad.
If they need that smoke free air, climb the Andes, and live your healthy, smoke free life.
Leave he smokers alone, this is IMO.

Later


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Junk science. Has a previously robust person's health ever suffering from second-hand smoke? It's always wheezy asthmatic/allergic people who suffer further (mild) irritation, and that's it.
> Just be honest and admit to olfactory discrimination. Almost nobody really cares about the real or imagined health effects.


No, its not junk science. The only junk science is when certain groups try to inappropriately use what they call "science" to show second hand smoke does not hurt anyone. There are really too much data clearly demonstrating health risks from second hand smoke to ignore this issue.

Even if it was just sensitive groups that are affected, if you have an asthmatic child or sick elderly parent, do you think it is someone else's right to smoke in a public place and negatively affect their health? Or if it was you who was affected?

I don't care if someone smokes (and I do smoke a pipe on pretty commonly when the weather is warm) but I do care if their activities affect my health.

As to the spurious argument that someone may pose the same risk to themselves by eating fatty fast food, at least it is their choice to accept the risk. It is not my choice to accept the risk posed by someone else's second hand smoke. (Obviously, if I visit someone who smokes, I accept their smoke in their house or car, but not my house or car).

Here is an interesting link to an admittedly non-scientific study but some possible empirical evidence how prohibiting public smoking does help society in general:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/02/smoking-ban-leads-to-majo_n_154765.html

Michael


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Relayer, today is my birthday and I would have enjoyed a good smoke with you if I lived closer to Peachtree Corners. Perhaps some time we can meet for a nice cigar at NY Prime in Buckhead. Great steak place that has a nice bar area that is cigar friendly. PM me if you ever want to meet.


If you were closer to Peachtree Corners, you'd be much farther from Powder Springs...

Another Atlanta-based cigar smoker here! I live in Buckhead and sometimes go to Dantanna's - the cigar store guy does require that you smoke cigars you bought there. When the weather is warmer, the Mansion has a nice big terrace.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Once I got out of college, I vowed to never smoke again. I've been successful up to this point. I don't see myself smoking ever again. I like to run, and smoking only makes running an unpleasant experience. That, and smoking dries up one's lungs. Need I say more? Also, I find woman smokers unattractive. It seems the only way to approach and talk to one is if you have a cigarette in your mouth or hand. Then the only thing you two really have to talk about is smoking. How boring.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

First job I had in the mid 70s one of the lunch rooms was something like 20' by 60' and with all the smokers in it you could not see the other end of the room, well before the end of break came. Sometimes you couldn't even see the window 20' from the door. That is a bit rude to non-smokers, who have a right to a smoke free lunch room. It seems to me smokers have no consideration for non-smokers. A rude bunch they be.

If you are a tree huger, wacky eviromentalist, then smoking is clear air polution, and most of them smoke weed.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I suppose wine at communion is next?


I see you edited your piece above.

Have you ever been in a Baptist Church? I have never been in one that serves wine at communion. In fact, no alcohol ever on their premises. Period!!


----------



## bus station number 6 (Jul 25, 2008)

cosmotoast said:


> Yes smoking is legal, and he has every right in the world to smoke in his house or car but, can we in managment say no no no and no, you can not and will not smoke on our property or while on our clock?
> Cosmo


Absolutely you have a right to determine what legal activities you will allow on YOUR property. The anti smoking crowd wants to control a legal activity not only on public places but on private property as well. That is partly what makes this issue so insidious, private property rights are at stake.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Smoking is not a right. Nor is the drinking of alcohol, the ownership of pets or the collecting of stamps or the practice of sport or religion.

Freedoms yes but not rights!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Smoking is not a right. Nor is the drinking of alcohol, the ownership of pets or the collecting of stamps or the practice of sport or religion.
> 
> Freedoms yes but not rights!


I agree. So...by that logic...smoking bans, intoxication limits, pet bans in shops and housing complexes, limits on displays of religious symbols on public grounds are all assults on personal freedoms?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I agree. So...by that logic...smoking bans, intoxication limits, pet bans in shops and housing complexes, limits on displays of religious symbols on public grounds are all assults on personal freedoms?


I'm not sure I buy the distinction that Earl makes.

Still, with one alteration I think you're correct. I think it's accurate to say that all the examples you cite are limitations on personal freedoms. The difficulty is that this doesn't conclude the discussion: the question is whether they are _warranted_ limitations on personal freedoms.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

bus station number 6 said:


> Absolutely you have a right to determine what legal activities you will allow on YOUR property. The anti smoking crowd wants to control a legal activity not only on public places but on private property as well. That is partly what makes this issue so insidious, private property rights are at stake.


So, if your neighbor were to play his music at high volume all hours of the night, you would have no problem with that since he is on private property? 
Playing music is also a legal activity as long as doing so does not disturb the peace of others. As Jack pointed out, some limitations of personal freedom are warranted.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> So, if your neighbor were to play his music at high volume all hours of the night, you would have no problem with that since he is on private property?
> Playing music is also a legal activity as long as doing so does not disturb the peace of others. As Jack pointed out, *some limitations of personal freedom are warranted*.


Yes, some. But how much limitation is the right amount?


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

In many states it is perfectly legal for _private_ employers to require their employees not to smoke because you can hire and fire whoever you want (unless it's a racial thing) for just about any reason (this last part varies somewhat from state to state). I don't like the idea of an over-paid Fortune 500 CEO who gets a multi-million dollar bonus regardless of how well his company actually performs telling people how to live their personal lives, but the legal thinking is that employees can always choose to work someplace else... And it is also perfectly legal for an employer to require a person not to smoke outside of their mandatory break period because most employers and employees are in a "master/servant" relationship, which means that the employer can actually demand control of everything you do while you are "on the clock." Thus if they required you not to chew gum at work it's ok because, again, you can quit and work elsewhere.

California, on the other had, which is in other aspects one of the more stridently "at will employment" states in the US, has a law that prevents employers from firing people for doing things outside of work that aren't illegal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> I agree. So...by that logic...smoking bans, intoxication limits, pet bans in shops and housing complexes, limits on displays of religious symbols on public grounds are all assults on personal freedoms?





jackmccullough said:


> I'm not sure I buy the distinction that Earl makes.
> 
> Still, with one alteration I think you're correct. I think it's accurate to say that all the examples you cite are limitations on personal freedoms. The difficulty is that this doesn't conclude the discussion: the question is whether they are _warranted_ limitations on personal freedoms.


You're both jumping the gun here chaps, and interpreting what I wrote to a level way beyond what I wrote.

That was simply me defining that list by phenomena type, i.e. freedoms, interests, hobbies, lifestyles of which all on that list are all of these.

Now, part two: any freely made choice, any hobby, any interest, and any
lifestyle that is criminal (use of classified narcotics) encroaches on, threatens or puts at risk the health,welfare, and life of other people has to be legislated for and/or against.

A good example from my London police career: In the late 80s the UK passed legislation that gave the police new powers to remove children from parents who by neglect or refusal put their children's lives at risk. This legislation was fuelled to a great degree by various religious sects, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses, who would not allow their children to have blood transfusions when sick or injured and would not allow the application of plasters etc.

So, while they (Jehovah's Witnesses) have the freedom to practice their religion in the UK, they are legislated against in the area of child protection by the Child Protection Act.

And exactly the same principal applies to smoking, drinking, Formula One, and dangerous and humiliating cultural/religious practices, like the one mentioned above and for example female circumcision, which was made illegal in Sweden a few years ago to prevent all the occurences of it among Somalians.

Smoking fulfils all of the categories above, "encroaches on, threatens or puts at risk the health,welfare, and life of other people"

So legislation against smoking is not an attack on a freedom, just as the Child Protection Act is not an attack on Jehovah's witnesses, legislation in both cases is there to protect people from dangerous practices/beliefs/hobbies.

How they are both viewed socially above and beyond the obvious health risks is not of relevance to this (my) line of argumentation. 
And something as subjective as that (e.g. smokers make my clothes smell)should not cloud the issue anyway.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

^Thank you for the clarification, Earl. Good points all.

Probably my biggest gripe in the whole smoking ban issue is that, if cigarettes are so bad for you, then why not just make them illegal? Oh, that's right...because goverments make far too much money off of the "sin" taxes levied upon tobacco and alcohol to walk away from such a lucrative venture. Raising money under the guise of defending the public's welfare is a crime unto itself. Too bad the people responsible for it are never held accountable for their deeds.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

^to whit: https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-10-cig-taxes_N.htm

CHIP, of course, is a program worthy of some level of funding...but I think this supports my point. You'd think they'd be a little more creative in finding funding...like stopping payments on silly pork projects and earmarks. Cigarettes and cigarette smokers are an easy target. I guess they're going to beat this horse until it dies.

What's next? Baked goodies? Pringles? Fun-Yuns?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Do you have any idea how major a concern global overpopulation is going to be over the next fifty years?


Man,I wouldn't want to know.


----------

