User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you support a public smoking ban?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, I support a smoking ban both indoors and outdoors

    17 22.08%
  • yes, I support a smoking ban, but only indoors

    32 41.56%
  • no, I do not support a smoking ban/keep things as they were

    28 36.36%
First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 212

Thread: smoking ban

  1. #181
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,121

    Default

    oh what has my thread become! I wanted to know people's thoughts on the smoking ban, not smoking versus fast food or whatever!

    glad you guys are having fun though!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #182
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    The slope is very slippery.

    Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat - Health News Story - KNSD | San Diego

    Quote Originally Posted by ARTICLE
    A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

    Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

    More?

    NJ Department of Law & Public Safety - News Release

    Quote Originally Posted by ARTICLE
    Abbe Favocci, of Brick Township, Ocean County, alleges in her discrimination complaint that, by terminating her for being overweight, Weight Watchers failed to accommodate a physical disability Favocci suffered due to chemotherapy treatments she had undergone after being diagnosed with colon cancer, and that Weight Watchers knew of her disabling condition.
    There's more if you want to find them. Well... maybe we'll worry about rights and freedoms after we get rid of those pesky smokers.

    Here's some fluff...
    Quote Originally Posted by Pastor Martin Niem
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

  3. #183
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    You mean the article where they give out free gym memberships and state

    But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release. "Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

    How... slippery.

    Oh, and the one where there was legal recourse against the "unfair" firing? Gosh.

    There's more if you want to find them. Well... maybe we'll worry about rights and freedoms after we get rid of those pesky smokers.
    The only issue here is that the US is a "at will employer". They can fire you for any reason (yes, many states have various degrees of controls). The price you pay for a regulation free environment is that it cuts both ways.

    The only right you are violating is saying that they can't fire you for whatever reason they want. That is their right, unless you are supporting increased legislation on who they can or cannot hire to work for them.

  4. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    You mean the article where they give out free gym memberships and state
    Same article where it also says

    Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

    You see the intent is there. There just has to be a little momentum generated before the next step can be taken.


    Oh, and the one where there was legal recourse against the "unfair" firing? Gosh.
    So easily dismisive. Just because it goes to trial does not mean anything will be done about it. Smokers have taken things to trial too. That sure worked out for the smokers that were fired by Howard Weyers the king of control freaks.


    HR Magazine - February 2003: Off Duty, Out of Work

    Quote Originally Posted by ARTICLE at above link
    Peter Oiler was a competent truck driver with a 20-year record of exemplary service at Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. He showed up on time, performed his duties well and caused no problems while on the job. But it was his off-the-job behavior—cross dressing—that ultimately got him fired in January 2000. The 47-year-old resident of Avondale, La., likes to wear women’s clothing, accessories, makeup, wigs and fake breasts.
    I admit the dangers his second hand breasts could have on society is a real concern but I think it's a little more about control and less about danger.

    Just you wait, you'll be next... or last, either way nobody will help you either. Well I might but that's because I hate to see others lose their rights and freedoms. That's not such a big deal for most people though.

  5. #185
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    Just you wait, you'll be next... or last, either way nobody will help you either. Well I might but that's because I hate to see others lose their rights and freedoms. That's not such a big deal for most people though.
    No, the point is that you are trying to reduce freedom. Employers can hire and fire for any reason they want and you want to tell them what they can and cannot do.

    No one has lost a right or freedom. There is no 'right' to employment in the states.

  6. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No, the point is that you are trying to reduce freedom. Employers can hire and fire for any reason they want and you want to tell them what they can and cannot do.

    No one has lost a right or freedom. There is no 'right' to employment in the states.
    So, I can fire someone because they are white or black? I can fire someone for being gay? I can fire someone for being a woman?

    Nope that's illegal.

    And what right would I be looking to take away? The employers right to restrict other peoples rights and freedoms? Sounds good let's write it up!

  7. #187
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    So, I can fire someone because they are white or black? I can fire someone for being gay? I can fire someone for being a woman?

    Nope that's illegal.
    Because that's what society decided (sex, religion and a few others). Those are rights restrictions, which you seem to support. They are there for society's benefit.

    See, that's the irony. You say "loss of rights" when in fact it is a distinct protection of rights. You wish to limit rights. I could sit here going "slippery slope" - if we prevent people from hiring or firing smokers then one day we'll be told who we can hire and fire and the economy will collapse! It's actually an argument used by libertarians.

    And what right would I be looking to take away? The employers right to restrict other peoples rights and freedoms? Sounds good let's write it up!
    The right to hire or fire who they wish.

    That's the difference. Smoking is not a protected right - it's considered a choice. Weight is not - it is considered a physical issue, which falls under disability protections.

  8. #188
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pastor Martin Niem View Post
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.
    First of all, I don't think that quote was ever posted by Pastor Martin Niem.

    Secondly, there's a law against rape. I guess that makes rapists oppressed.
    So who's going to speak out for the rapists? If we don’t, then that must be a bold step toward Fascist oppression, right?

    Jew =/= Smoker. Not the same kind of thing.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    See, that's the irony. You say "loss of rights" when in fact it is a distinct protection of rights. You wish to limit rights.
    What? Are you serious? I mean I see where you are coming from but any right or freedom that gives people or entities the ability to take away other peoples rights should be taken away to insure that all other rights and freedoms remain intact. It's not ironic it's completely logical.


    If people or entities are given the right to indiscriminately reduce, limit, or take away the rights of others then only the mighty and powerful will have any rights at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That's the difference. Smoking is not a protected right - it's considered a choice. Weight is not - it is considered a physical issue, which falls under disability protections.
    Yes because it has become the accepted belief common among the majority sheep. Today the sheep are mainly influenced by political correctness.

    No mater what the mantra the sheep are chanting we should fight for the rights and freedoms of others even if we dislike those rights and freedoms. Many of the sheep mantras have caused more harm than good. Such as "Jews are bad" was commonly accepted in Germany before WW2 and "negroes are inferior" before the civil rights movement.

    Just because it's accepted among the majority sheep does not make it right. Which is why such bans and attacks on personal liberties should always be met with resistance.

    But if you would rather governments and big business make all the decisions for everyone else that’s your decision. Just be aware that others will fight too keep theirs.

  10. #190
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samIam View Post
    What? Are you serious? I mean I see where you are coming from but any right or freedom that gives people or entities the ability to take away other peoples rights should be taken away to insure that all other rights and freedoms remain intact. It's not ironic it's completely logical.
    Right, therefore it is logical for companies to be allowed to fire workers that smoke.

    You are saying that smoker's have a right not to be fired because they smoke. That right is in direct opposition of free association - an actual right. You are forcing a person, through a law, not to be able to excersie their at-will employment.

    Therefore you are the one adding a limitation to the free association right. The worker has no 'right' to work there anymore than the company has the right to force someone to work. Both can walk away at any time, for any reason, unless you put a limitation on this.

    If people or entities are given the right to indiscriminately reduce, limit, or take away the rights of others then only the mighty and powerful will have any rights at all.
    There is no right to smoke and there is no right to employment. The only right that applies here is one of free association - and the right not to associate as an extension.

    No mater what the mantra the sheep are chanting we should fight for the rights and freedoms of others even if we dislike those rights and freedoms.
    You are not championing rights here, you are championing against a fundamental right - the right to have who you want working for you.

    Just because it's accepted among the majority sheep does not make it right. Which is why such bans and attacks on personal liberties should always be met with resistance.
    You should be also allowed to fire people based on sex, race, disabilities then, right? I mean, that's the logical conclusion. You are, afterall, saying that any attack on a liberty should be resisted.

    [quote]But if you would rather governments and big business make all the decisions for everyone else that

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Smoking Ban
    By WildCard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 12:33 PM
  3. Smoking ban decreases heart attacks
    By burymecloser in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 03:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO