Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Okay, so I'm bummed that we lost all the old threads. The smoking ban one was a great collection of the progression of idiotic legislation and legal action taken against society in the name of "health". So I'm starting a new one, and maybe if we ever get the old one back, the two can be merged.

So anyway, I just saw this article about Sarasota county officials declaring that they will no longer hire smokers. Here's an excerpt:

SARASOTA — Citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers' health insurance, Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they no longer will hire smokers.

...New hires will be asked to submit to a drug test that detects nicotine and sign a pledge promising they have not smoked in the last 12 months. Existing employees will not be affected, but they are encouraged to take advantage of free programs to help them quit.

I have to wonder how many of the people involved with making this decision are obese, or drinkers, or have high cholesterol due to bad eating habits, or ride motorcycles, or sunbathe frequently. What is it with this laser-like, high and mighty focus on smokers? It's clearly not a health issue as they claim, otherwise none of the groups I just mentioned would be allowed to work for the county either. Bunch of hypocritical jerks if you ask me.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

As long as cigarettes are legal, I'd consider that to be of the worst display ofa hiring practice.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

that's my thought. i don't dig on smoking but as long as it's legal, it's legal. you can't keep the product and practice legal in spirit but outlaw every manifestation of it. that's a chickenshit way of making public policy.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

i'll add that I love the effect the smoking ban has in NYC because I personally cannot stand the smell/taste of cig smoke. But this 'policy' is just moronic.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

although smoking bans in clubs and bars do have their upsides - I have to say - the fartage and gaseous emissions now being dealt upon the unsuspecting public - particularly on a heavy guiness/stout night - are pretty appalling.

It's almost enough to make one take up smoking. Or just revert to drinking scotch and enjoying a cigar.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

That would be me buggered then - cos I haven't smoked for ages, but I am hooked on Niquitin Lozenges now, so I still have the nicotine buzzing around in my system.

Whoever came up with this policy is a complete moron - they can justify it all they want on "health" grounds, but at the end of the day it is about penny-pinching - reducing their contributions to their employees' health insurance.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

As I've said before, I prefer to judge these things on their own merit rather than try to adopt a blanket for/against position.

I have no problem with the smoking bans that were introduced here last year (or was it the year before?). However I have a big problem with the Sarasota Country policy.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

the only time i get pee'd off with the smoking ban is when i am watching football in the pub- it seems that every time i nip out for a crafty ciggy (yes, i smoke when i drink down the pub:o) someone scores......has happened a number of times this year.
anyway, to get back to the point, i agree entirely with what Sean says

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

If we adopt universal healthcare, there is no well in hell I am going to pay for smokers, fat, and out of shape people.

When you're sacrificing choice for socialize medicine is it really a surprise they're taking away your public smoking rights?

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

okay, if you don't want to be subjected to other people's smoke, fine, you can ban it in indoor areas.

things that are absurd:
1) banning smoking in outdoor areas (not counting around hospitals or other healthcare facilities). this is certifiably insane. in an indoor area, air does not circulate as much as it would in a natural outdoor area, and the percentage of smoke in the air will increase due to the volume of air being considerably lower. but outdoors, smoke dissipates into the air rapidly, and unless you're just right next to them breathing in all the smoke, secondhand smoke ain't gonna do shit to you. besides, it's been shown to kill you if you breathe it in everyday; ie: if you have a smoker living with you or if you go to the same bar every night and breathe in billy bob's cigar who sits next to you. it's not going to bother you at a restaurant outdoors unless you just don't like cigarette smoke.

2) people claiming they are "allergic" to cigarette smoke. tobacco smoke is no more or less toxic than woodsmoke, and probably a lot less toxic than the pollution that comes from cars every day. the thing in smoke in general that's harmful is carbon monoxide, which is a poisonous gas. but despite all that, cigarette smoke isn't something you get 'allergic' to. it doesn't cause you to get hives, it doesn't make you break out in a rash or make your throat sore in an allergic manner. it's an irritant and it can cause harm, but you're not 'allergic' to it. if anything, you're intolerant to it, but while you're bitching about a dude 20 feet away smoking a cigarette, why don't you fuss at the dude who sits in the parallel parking space with his car idling for 30 minutes?

3) this crap of not hiring people because they smoke. alright, if they smoke, yeah, your healthcare costs are going to get higher and your cost of production is going to go up. unfortunately, health care companies are only discriminating against those who smoke, and not overweight people, people who drink, people with a history of cardiovascular disease, or south africans because they're more likely to have AIDS. so yeah, if you want your cost of production to go down, don't hire smokers. but maybe people should bitch about the rising costs of healthcare in general, and discriminating against one group of people among many that are doing things that are bad for their health.

i went to the doctor's office the other day, thought i had a cold, didn't, didn't get a throat culture or anything, just the basic ear, nose and throat checkup, and it cost me $150. that's insane. and you can't even get a decent healthcare policy for less than around $300 a month, when you'll probably only need around $100 most months. pharmacuetical companies charge $250 a bottle for pills and are dicking us in just about every way, and we're concerned about people smoking? the smokers are the victims compared to these fools for God's sake. i'm all for keeping health care private and not ceding any more power to the federal government, but for goodness' sake, our house is on fire and we're trying to keep the neighbour's dog from eating our rosebushes.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

OK so what about drinkers? what about sportsmen? what about drivers?, cyclists?, skiers?, people with hi-fat diets?, people who have a genetic propensity to certain diseases, etc- all these things have a higher risk of being a burden to healthcare.......

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

When I am around smokers, my throat swells up, I have trouble breathing, and I start to cough -- in much the same way I do when the pollen count is way up. So like it or not, while I may not be scientifically 'allergic' to ciggie smoke, I don't think its a stretch to say I am.

I typically don't have idling cars at the next table over or behind me at a bar. Until the NJ indoor smoking ban I did have smokers encircling me at dinner, at bars, at clubs (the worst!)

For all the bitching I see about the bans etc, I always wonder just why it isn't sinking in that maybe, just maybe smoking it bad for 'you' and that it might be prudent to finally quit? A friend of mine just quit 'for the baby' and I asked him, "so, you weren't worthy enough? had to wait for the baby did ya?"

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

I don't think it's a question of it "sinking in" that smoking's bad for you. Frankly, anyone who doesn't know it's bad for you in this day and age has bigger problems than the health risks of smoking pose.

The real question is what's with the glaring hypocrisy? As I wondered earlier, how many of the people on an anti-smoking crusade are obese? Just can't seem to put down that triple bacon cheeseburger and fries, hm? Not sinking in that your extra-grande sausage and cheese breakfast quesadilla might be a smidge harsh on the old cholesterol levels? Or how about the people I'm sure we all know who just aren't capable of being decent human beings until they've had their personal pot of coffee to drink every single morning? It takes that healthy bucket of caffeine to really get you off the ground, yeah?

The point here is that there are many, many things out there that are just as bad or worse for people's health than smoking, and virtually everyone regularly partakes in at least one or more of them despite knowing the risks involved. To hold smokers to so much of a higher standard than every other bad-habitted (I just made that word up) person out there is hypocritical, plain and simple.

Just something to think about next time you're drunk, or in the sun for more than 10 minutes without sunscreen, or eating fried chicken, or driving while sleepy, or sky-diving, or taking a shortcut through a bad neighborhood.....

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Not that this is a statement that needs to be qualified to be discussed but why does cigarette smoking have to be compared to anything? Isn't it universally accepted at this point that smoking cigs is in all ways bad for you and in no ways good?

Eating a cheeseburger isn't bad for you. Eating them in excess is. Can the same be said about inhaling smoke? I look at all my friends that still smoke, and it seems that none of them really factor the 'its bad for me' side of things. The few that I'm friends with are still living in the 'it won't happen to me' stage that most 14 year olds shake. If I were to ask them (and by no means do I preach at them) why they don't quit I'd get the usual response of, "I don't smoke that much." We both know that is a lie. For my friends, smoking is a constant lie to themselves. I'm sure this varies greatly between smokers, but its how I see it in my circle. I even have one friend who was in the hospital because she couldn't breathe, was diagnosed asthmatic, and still wants to smoke. She is 29. I just don't get it.

All that said, I still stand by my original statement that as long as smoking is legal, it have to be regarded as such and not discriminated against in situations where it isn't bothersome to others.

Skydiving? Did you really just write skydiving? :P

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Here's a secret for you haterz. even smokers aren't fans of cigarette smoke sometimes and can be mildly put-off by someone smoking on the street around them. So really, health problems aside, its not a difference between smokers and non smokers, its a difference between people who are compelled to sanctimoniously bitch and people who aren't.

and do we want to go there? because I can start talking *a lot* of shit about the every day habits of people who don't smoke. Women who use their baby strollers as battering rams through crowded places, people who buy new SUV's drive them around with 4 dollar gas. Spitters. People who just walk out of a store and onto the sidewalk without caring to look who they run into. People who don't pick up after their pets. People who don't recycle. People who do recycle and police everyone else's recycling. part of tolerance is not so much making sure nobody does something offensive, but not being so offended yourself.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

You know, I noticed that with friends that did quit smoking. Now all of the sudden they too are put off by cigarette smoke.

As far as going there, talk all you want. None of the above makes me lose my ability to breathe properly. Sure some of the stuff above is annoying but baby strollers are rarely ever going to cause me a health problem.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

oh yeah, mate. you're off the hook. I'm talking about the people who find it socially offensive.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Because smoking is disproportionately singled out as the target for more and more intrusive legislation despite the fact that there are plenty of other activities that just as many people regularly partake in which are equally as unhealthy.

Sure. But it's legal, and it's a personal choice, just like all the other personal choices people make every day that are bad for their health.

Yes. Smoking a single cigarette is no worse for you than eating a single burger. One cigarette will not give you lung cancer just as one burger will not give you a heart attack. But the obesity epidemic that's spreading across a good portion of the planet is clearly not the result of all these people only eating the occasional burger in an otherwise healthful diet. When I refer to eating a burger, or fried chicken, or a big-ass sausage and cheese quesadilla, I'm referring to an overall unhealthy diet, as the majority of Americans and Brits tend to have.

Well this is another issue altogether. I can't speak for your friends, but I can say that I believe the "it won't happen to me" mindset is pretty common in all aspects of life. People driving with a slight buzz because causing a drunk driving accident "won't happen to me", or people having horrible diets despite the risk of heart disease because a heart attack "won't happen to me". Your friend who had respiratory problems but then went back to smoking is no different to me than an obese person starting a diet and then going right off of it. They should both be allowed to work for Sarasota county.

I did indeed. :D

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

I think where it can be differentiated from the examples Sean gives is that, without a doubt, passive smoking can have a palpable effect on the health of people who do not, themselves, smoke but who are around cigarette smoke all the time.

The case we always think about in the UK is that of an entertainer called Roy Castle who spent a good deal of his younger life doing the jazz club circuit, and who died of lung cancer even though he was a non-smoker himself.


With most other habits or lifestyle choices, the direct effect on health is only self-inflicted. (Unless you count the people who get the shit kicked out of them on a Saturday night by a drunken yob, of course. )

I still think it is wrong to try and force people to stop smoking, if that is their choice. But I think it is right to ban it in enclosed public places, such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. I have found it much easier to stick to my non-smoking nicotine habit since smoking has been banned in pubs here. Whereas before, after a few drinks with friends, I would be happily stealing their cigs from them, nowadays I am happy to stay in the pub while the smokers go outside in the cold and rain and feed their habit, while I continue to feed mine with the Niquitins :D

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Lots of commonsense posts here tonight:D....pardon my grammar:eek:

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Yes.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

whassat?

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Drugs that don't kill me :D

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

ahhhh the spouse used something similar when he first decided to quit (5 quits later it finally stuck. until next time...)

it gave him terrible heartburn.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

about a month ago i went to the ER after stupidly sticking my finger into an immersion blender. i use the immersion blender all the time and i'm always careful. this one time, this one single split second moment, i had a brain-fart and stuck my finger in there. at that moment the blender rolled in my hand, my palm came up against the power button, and the high-speed blade chopped my finger to the bone.

it was a stupid, stupid injury. i'm still reaping the rewards of it, with weekly physical therapy sessions, covered my my insurance. should i instead be sent to the poorhouse or left to suffer with my mangled digit because i did something stupid? have you ever made a stupid decision or are you above such imperfections?

and take the seatbelt example. do you think it's impossible that someone who usually wears their seatbelt might one day make the stupid decision to go without because they're just popping up the street to the corner store? is that person's life worth less than yours?

and how about the non-drinker on his 21st birthday whose friends say, "aww come on, you have to celebrate" and he binges himself into alcohol poisoning. stupid stupid mistake. should be be left to rot because you're so much smarter than that?

and "high fat diet?" heh. how often do you eat out? how often do we all eat out? how many of us have REALLY looked at the nutritional information for most of the popular mid-priced restaurants? big shocker, most of us are too stupid to realize that a simple dinner out at the local chili's restaurant packs more calories and fat than your typical thanksgiving dinner. you might be shocked to realize how many "fat" slender people are out there.

when you give yourself the right to be judge, jury and executioner on "lifestyle choices" and deem some decisions "smart" and others "stupid" and impose limitations on healthcare based on those judgments, you enter very dangerous territory where suddenly statistics will be more important than the worth of a man's life.

obama is a smoker. still trying to kick the habit, as a matter of fact. if he quit today, his lungs would still not be considered "normal" for the next 15 years. and even after that he'll spend the rest of his life at a higher risk for lung cancer than us non-smokers. now, the man could become president. he could bring peace between warring nations, he could resolve the crisis in north korea, he could turn the country around, yadda yadda yadda.

the question is, if lung cancer is in the man's cards, is his life worth less because he made the "stupid" decision to smoke? should he be rejected from healthcare coverage and forced to cope with the ramifications of his stupid decisions because you want to stick it to him for failing to pass your "smart decision" test?

you're treading dangerous waters, my friend, when you endeavor to establish limitations on who "deserves" a fighting chance at life.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

I know it is dangerous waters (I mentioned that if you read my post carefully), and that is why I don't believe it is fair to have universal healthcare. It is wrong to say who deserves something and who doesn't, and it is wrong to charge person x for person y's foolishness. Not having universal healthcare avoids both of those flaws...

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

if you have health insurance, you're already in that situation. your premiums are applied across the whole customer base to cover all of the insurance company's expenditures. so you're already paying for stupid people who pay for services with your insurance company.

what universal healthcare does is ensure that a CEO's child and a gas station attendant's child both have the same chance of fighting childhood leukemia, for example. are you saying the gas station attendant's child deserves to die because his father may not be able to afford treatment? that's precisely what denying universal healthcare says.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

So what happens if you break your leg playing football? should you have to pay then?

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Given the free market economy nature of current health insurance, it is not conceivable to have a private company that has higher standards for customers than the government would legally be allowed to. There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

It is precisely this kind of "free market" philisophy that lead to higher insurance premiums for all. The reason is simple: you are not insured and play a game of football, to take Rog's example. You have possession of the ball, another player goes for it, you trip and break your leg. The other guy has insurance. So you sue him.

In the States, most personal injury cases are dealt with by juries, rather than a single judge. And the juries award stupid amounts of compensation compared to the UK. They think to themselves "this guy has no health insurance so the other guy's insurance company will pay". And so they do. Except you all end up paying higher premiums for your insurance to cover the costs of increasingly expensive litigation. Cost to the insurance company - anything up to $500,000 plus legal costs, which they have to pass on to their customers.

Supposing you were in the UK - same scenario, leg gets broken. You go to hospital, get your leg fixed for free. It would rarely cross your mind to then decide that you want to sue the guy who tackled you on the football pitch - for a start, even if a judge were to find that your opponent was in some way negligent rather than just playing by the rules of the game, he would certainly find considerable contributory negligence on your part for participating in the game in the first place as you would know the risks. Minimal payout, if any. Cost to the public - medical expenses for one broken leg.

I know which system I prefer. And I'm a lawyer :p

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

You're talking about ambulance chasers, not free market philosophy. Granted torts cases like this do contribute to high rates, but you can't say this side effect is an inherent quality to free market health insurance.

The answer to this problem is not going to found if you limit yourself to strictly corporate or government models, free market, or socialized medicine.

An injection of free market thinking in nationalized health insurance is the only way nationalized health insurance could even work. Here in Toronto, some of my friends are complaining that there are no available family doctors or general practicioners. Period. All booked up, sorry. I mean don't get in a tizzy, and continue paying your 15% sales tax and 40% income tax, and shame on your lack of altruism if you complain that the yanks have a better system.

In the meantime take a number and wait 6 hours for the walk in clinic staff to push you through like a widget, without any information regarding your prior health history or records.

Its also a full one to one correspondence between people I know who have had an operation in a canadian hospital and who have had to go back because of cross infections.

So my point is you can't just say "hooray! we're all insured and morally upright" and walk away from the problem, the way socialized medicine supporters would have you believe, and want you to continue to believe as they get more and more dehumanizing, lazy, and bloated.

Also, regarding smoking. France, the culture of existentialism and brooding cafes, banned smoking in public places and in doors because they don't want to pay for the health problems. And you're going to see more and more of that happening, as health insurance gets more and more centralized and government administered, people's behaviors are going to be more and more dictated by laws.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

How do you define 'retards' (as offensive as it is) in this example? Do people who play sports fit into that category? Are you referring to anyone who doesn't walk about draped in bubble-wrap? While we're at it, define 'hurt yourself.'

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Could I borrow someone's lighter?

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Interesting. So sports, which are typically an excellent form of exercise, would be discouraged under your philosophy? Wouldn't this encourage people to be more sedentary for fear of risking their financial well-being, thereby making them less healthy overall, and more prone to heart disease, or circulatory problems, or obesity, etc? What would you have people do for physical exercise that would be approved as "non-stupid" in the event that they get hurt while doing it?

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Still waiting on a lighter from someone.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Sounds like any judge with sense would throw out that kind of lawsuit, maybe the problem is our collective legal system's.

By "retards" I mean the people who knowingly engage in dangerous activity with no possible benefit to their life. Sports, while beneficial for all sorts of health, is a risky behaviour. I would not mind paying for sports injuries as much as other injuries based on personal conduct, but to me paying for a cigarette smoker is just plain offensive. You're not even getting high!

And like I have said multiple times; a. we either set up illegal, discriminatory qualifications of coverage b. limit freedoms c. make wise, careful people pay for fools. One of those three is necessary for universal healthcare, and I would prefer none of the above.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

yeah, i don't know WHAT those poor people are thinking, not paying for expensive insurance! they must just want their kids to die!

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

Or, more realistically, don't understand that the customer is always right or realize they have the power to support companies that fit their needs and not pay insurance companies that are out of touch or overpriced.

Re: Another one o' them smoking ban threads....
 

i'm sure that helps the single mom who lives paycheck to paycheck, whose kid is sick, who can't afford the doctor's visit. i'm sure it's very helpful for her to know that she can simply leverage her power as a consumer and just find someone to help her pay for her kid's immediate healthcare needs.

the problem is, you're citing theoreticals and idealism. theoretically people can just leverage their power as consumers. realistically people are sick RIGHT NOW and can't afford healthcare RIGHT NOW. and not because they're "stupid," "retarded" or ignorant. it's just reality.

speculating about what the poor "should" be able to afford is a luxury of those who don't have to struggle to make ends meet.