Let smokers smoke.

Post Reply New Topic

I've filed harassment charges against co-workers for literally blowing smoke in my face while on the job, and won.

Now my company has a strict "No Smoking on Company Property, While Conducting Company Business, While Wearing a Company Uniform, or Within Company Vehicles Under Penalty of Immediate Dismissal" policy.

Neener.
Neener.
Neener.

Pfffff
Pfffff
Pffff

On that same premise, it might well be argued that no one should have to put up with the physical, health damaging stress of putting up with arrogant, pompous, a-holes like ourselves. I have witnessed the physical manifestations of this stress myself on many occasions, in the form of red faces, veins bulging from necks and foreheads, etc.. Aspies should be immediately ejected from the workplace, and society as a whole for the good of the collective.

I'll meet you at the bottom of the slippery slope.

First, they have to identify us as Aspies.

Then they sack us.

Then we sue for discriminatory dismissal.

Then we own the company.

Unless you happen to be Sherlock Holmes - I am not - odds are any deleterious substances you ingest do enhance your on the job skills and performance.

If a Spectral is hired [assuming this person is not seen as desirable simply by reason of nepotism] it is to be presumed, given the basic goal of maximizing return on investment, that the Spectral's skills and talents and knowledge base will improve the employing agency's position.

SINCE those skills, talents, and databases are going to be to a large degree a result of the Spectral's mental makeup, the Spectral is unlikely to be let go because of mental makeup unless there are meltdowns because of immature coworkers who cannot engage in a civil discussion.

Sherlock Holmes and others [one hears of them in literature, though I have not met any in real life] whose skills are ehanced by tobacco, alcohol and other substances will likely be encouraged to indulge in the workplace, but others [like one I know] who duck out for a smoke or a drink so often you rarely seem them at their desks may expect to have their indulgence restricted or penalized.

From a medical perspective any attempt to support smoking is spurious. There is no benefit from smoking that cannot be substituted in some other, less harmful way.

But even in a civilized country in which medically necessary care is available to all, I wouldn't countenance an outright ban. Tax it to the hilt, and place restrictions on its free exercise. But I can't see a justification for an outright ban.

I have absolutely no concern about erosion of the capacity of smokers to smoke in places to which the public has access. No smoking in workplaces, within 6m of a doorway or ventilation intake, I'm good with those.

But I draw the line at private homes. I recognize that in apartments and townhouses there will be cross contamination, but that's a choice that we make when we opt for condominium or townhouse living.

I understand if people have issues with smoking indoors or near entrances, but goddamn that should be enough.

True, that does sound quite unfair. I'm unfamiliar with what you are referring to specifically though.

problem with trying to use law as a means of "comfort" to people it doesnt concern will never end well,
of course there are health risks for the smoker but second hand smoke outside pose absolutely no health risk to others,
then people will argue about the cost of healthcare for the individuals without taking heavy taxation into account.

of course these arguments work against something in everyones lives every day, we cant and shouldnt allow it to become legislation in any way.
if free choice is the goal let the owner of said facility decide, people are free to leave or not but in reality i think the amount of people smoking indoors would still be relatively low, i always smoke outside unless i literally cant light it with a storm lighter outside.

I do not recall a lot of people choosing to go outside to smoke in the 60s if there was an indoor option.

Around 1963 I remembere writing a somewhat facetious piece, suggesting that there might be less smoking in the university lecture halls if they removed the No Smoking signs from te walls and substituted "Smoking Required".

I have noted this:

Most people are NOT sensitive to and considerate of the concerns of others.

Unless you live in an at will employment state, then they can fire you whenever they want without giving a reason and you won't likely come up with evidence of ADA discrimination.

I live in an at-will employment state and they can fire you with or without telling you their actual reasons for firing you. They can invent reasons that are legalistically acceptable or they can just toss you out on your ear regardless.

Not forgetting that often smokers, heavy drinkers and overweight people often pay heavily in taxes for what they consume and die off early in any case. But that doesn't matter to them. Anti-smokers/fatties/drinkers just want excuses to pour scorn on and discriminate against these groups.

Prohibition, or the new form of prohibition we see today (neo-prohibition) never works. The cure is, without exception, always worse than the disease. Always.

And Prohibition never worked - in fact, more people drank, the government handed the legit alcohol industry over to criminals, violence soared and the middle-classes lost respect for the law.

The same will happen again with tobacco and alcohol. Mark my words down.

The more you tax something pleasurable so that it is priced out of the range of ordinary people, the more likely people are to break the law or make their own to feed that need for that thing that they like.

Banning non-harmful things doesn't ever work.

Oh, and let me say this to anyone here who approves of even further punishment and harassment of smokers: you're next. A case could be made for banning the things you enjoy, too.

all to easy,

in denmark we have a political party actually trying to make obsity among children child abuse, sure there might be cases where it is but seriously?

What's the party? Are they in Government?