You Mean They Can Legally Not Hire Me Because I Smoke?
- Thread starter conlejm
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
There already exist numerous lobbying organizations which look out for the interests of the tobacco industry. They bring suits against anti-smoking laws, donate to campaigns, testify in front of legislative bodies and the like. They are fighting a losing battle as there appears to be little public support for anything tobacco related. Keep in mind that people are short sighted and most are usually interested only in what affects them. Smokers are a small minority of society (pipe users are only a small percentage of that demographic) and as such possess insufficient horse-power at the ballot box to have any effect in the process. Certainly not enough voting power to merit any recognition by the parties or elected officials.
The obese, when their time comes, are also a small segment of society and will soon face the opprobrium of society as we smokers do. The stage is currently being erected for that debate.
Nicotine isn't the killer in tobacco. While it is the addictive agent, it is the poisons in the gases caused by combustion that are agents that may adversely affect the immune system allowing the cancers to get the upper hand.
It's been tried with alcohol as you should recall. Popular opinion rolled back those laws. Smokers enjoy no such popular support.
We are on the losing side of this fight and I see nothing on the horizon that will change the tide to our favor or even slow its progress. I doubt that smoking at home will ever be banned but, smoking will certainly become a vice requiring a better than average income to enjoy.
The obese, when their time comes, are also a small segment of society and will soon face the opprobrium of society as we smokers do. The stage is currently being erected for that debate.
Nicotine isn't the killer in tobacco. While it is the addictive agent, it is the poisons in the gases caused by combustion that are agents that may adversely affect the immune system allowing the cancers to get the upper hand.
It's been tried with alcohol as you should recall. Popular opinion rolled back those laws. Smokers enjoy no such popular support.
We are on the losing side of this fight and I see nothing on the horizon that will change the tide to our favor or even slow its progress. I doubt that smoking at home will ever be banned but, smoking will certainly become a vice requiring a better than average income to enjoy.
I agree, but unfortunately the obese are not a small segment of society. They make up 35.1% of adults in the United States, or about 77 million people.
If one buys into the current definition of obese, that is true. So the obvious response is to redefine the term, a tactic frequently employed to reduce the numbers impacted and therefore the indignant uproar from the targeted demographic. There will be a large list of exempted cases. All obese individuals are obviously overweight. All overweight people are not obese. Some obesity is caused by genetic make-up. Mental conditions contribute to obesity. Therefore a percentage of obesity cases will fall under the "Americans With Disabilities Act." Try to discriminate anyone, anytime, under any circumstances and the entire weight of the Federal Government will interject itself into the dispute. That is except in cases involving "drug addiction" when the drug is nicotine.
The various governments and its subordinate agencies attacking obesity in general will be a fascinating circumstance to watch unfold. Some agencies will be on the attack while others will defending the "rights" of the obese.
I love the ADA for its entertainment value as well as it's stated purposes when logically applied. I remember when the new police academy was inspected for infractions and we were required to replace all posted name, location and safety plates so that they included braille. Even the inspector thought it ludicrous as the department was not contemplating hiring and arming the blind as patrol officers any time in the foreseeable future.
The various governments and its subordinate agencies attacking obesity in general will be a fascinating circumstance to watch unfold. Some agencies will be on the attack while others will defending the "rights" of the obese.
I love the ADA for its entertainment value as well as it's stated purposes when logically applied. I remember when the new police academy was inspected for infractions and we were required to replace all posted name, location and safety plates so that they included braille. Even the inspector thought it ludicrous as the department was not contemplating hiring and arming the blind as patrol officers any time in the foreseeable future.
I understand that a large, intrusive government is something many people desire. I fully understand that I am in the minority when I opine that people should be accountable for their bad decisions regarding diet and life style. I abhor the idea that I must pay for the medical care of people who cannot or will not pay their own way.
Obesity is becoming a crises only because some want it to be. There is money to be made and paid out for votes. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the various governments to take care of me from cradle to grave. Nor do I believe that my neighbor is to be held responsible for my health care any more than I should be deemed accountable for his/her health concerns.
People are going to die at some time no matter what the government does or doesn't do and I do not believe that it should be up to the government to decide when and or to what I should succumb.
Obesity is becoming a crises only because some want it to be. There is money to be made and paid out for votes. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the various governments to take care of me from cradle to grave. Nor do I believe that my neighbor is to be held responsible for my health care any more than I should be deemed accountable for his/her health concerns.
People are going to die at some time no matter what the government does or doesn't do and I do not believe that it should be up to the government to decide when and or to what I should succumb.
I've really enjoyed this thread.Someday I'd like to be as academically versed as some of you fellas. To be able to comb through layer after layer of bullshit to acquire a nugget of truth. All for what? For it to be contested by some other?
"If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. If I've made you mad, f#%k you!" -Willie Nelson
"If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. If I've made you mad, f#%k you!" -Willie Nelson
If you take into account nobody can claim the right to be hired, that would be true, and I honestly believe that should be a constitutional right. As a matter of fact, they can refused hiring you for whatever the reason; that is, because you are fat, ugly, if your breath smells, or if you are a woman, or a man, if you are gay, or very short with your legs, or maybe too tall, if you lack intelligence, or if you have a very high IQ, if you are a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, if you are pregnant, if you are not married, etc. The right of association is voluntary, and this right is prior to anything else you might be able to claim as an individual. Individuals can discriminate other individuals for whatever the reason. To deny this would imply that you have a right to enforce friendship, or any other form of association, on other individuals.
You obviously do not have an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in your country. Certain protected classes cannot be discriminated against in the US. And then there is the American with Disabilities Act. The right of free association is a tightly regulated right. Further, if your company receives any Federal funds at all, it really has to "toe the line" with respect to reasons for denying employment.
I live in the UK. Of course, I am not stating facts (I am well aware of these pieces of legislation), but I don't agree with them.
I know the feeling. I used to enforce the laws, some of which I disagreed with. But, you "ride for the brand."
I was lucky in the we had a very fair and sophisticated screening process when I was in-charge of the hiring. So I didn't really run into that problem of having to meet quotas. Had to be very cognizant of the law though. Each step of the screening process had to pass government scrutiny.
Long before I joined the department the powers that be understood that a police force needed to be diverse, not for political correctness, but for better performance. Minorities just had to make it through the same screening as everyone else. So we were spared the angst of having to suddenly comply with a new, sweeping law. We were already in compliance. Anchorage didn't have the well established good old boy networks and Civil Service where one needed a "rabbi" to get hired as a cop. No walls or resentment and I consider the Department very lucky in that sense.
Long before I joined the department the powers that be understood that a police force needed to be diverse, not for political correctness, but for better performance. Minorities just had to make it through the same screening as everyone else. So we were spared the angst of having to suddenly comply with a new, sweeping law. We were already in compliance. Anchorage didn't have the well established good old boy networks and Civil Service where one needed a "rabbi" to get hired as a cop. No walls or resentment and I consider the Department very lucky in that sense.
This thread is (well, was) about corporate power over individual private life.
I recommend avoiding the seductions of those who have tiresome axes to grind about social justice issues.
For myself, I've never had to endure a drug test in my life, and find the idea strange. I had no idea they were as common as they seem to be. Perhaps they are more concentrated in some industries and states?
I recommend avoiding the seductions of those who have tiresome axes to grind about social justice issues.
For myself, I've never had to endure a drug test in my life, and find the idea strange. I had no idea they were as common as they seem to be. Perhaps they are more concentrated in some industries and states?
If we privatized everything, that is, the police force, government, hospitals, schools, etc., we would not have any of these problems.
" I am pained to hear Robin rail at our Nazi state and hope that he represents a tiny and diminishing view point. "
It isn't and he doesn't. The more crap like the topic of this thread comes to be the more it will rise..
It isn't and he doesn't. The more crap like the topic of this thread comes to be the more it will rise..
Seems to me that it is time to create the Church of Smokers and the sacrament of the tobacco plant.
How did I miss this one? Alaska Airlines, somehow it's ironic that a company from a state that seems to be one of the last with personal freedoms would have this policy. What I do in my home as long as it''s legal is my business.
Anyone remember that our president is a chain smoker?
Anyone remember that our president is a chain smoker?
You know, it would be interesting to do a little research to find out if there are any faiths in which tobacco smoking plays a part. NA, for example comes to mind as a possibility but I'm also thinking that there may be faiths south of the US, Mexico and Brazil, where tobacco may play a role. In its way taking tobacco is a sacrament for me just as someone taking wine and bread is for them. Why shouldn't it be religious?
- Status