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

[Sean]

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.

[potatobroth]

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

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by potatobroth

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

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.

[potatobroth]

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.

[chuck]

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.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

...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.

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.

[Deckard]

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.

[Rog]

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) someone scores......has happened a number of times this year.
anyway, to get back to the point, i agree entirely with what Sean says

[IsiliRunite]

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?

[bryantm3]

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.