Rights group blasts 'non-smoker' stipulation for job

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Actually I used the term morbidly obese.

equating the furthest end of the obesity spectrum with the 'smoker' is not really a fair comparison.

If someone is a chain smoker (if we're talking furthest ends of the spectrum), they won't fit into an office setting without taking too many breaks, etc. THEN smoking impacts job performance. But until it proves itself to impact in any way shape or form, the ability of someone to run a computer, there's no valid reason to demand that a webmaster be a non-smoker.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So smokers are junkies now?

By definition. They're addicted to a drug that't more addictive than marijuana.


And what kind of message is being sent when you are willing to work with people who never smoked before, or have quit, but won't even look twice at someone who still smokes and might actually want to quit?

You care about your health. If he really wanted to quit, he'd quit. If he walks into the office and on the question 'are you a smoker' answers 'not anymore, I quit for good upon walking through this door, and I mean it', then maybe we can consider it.

They sure don't have a problem getting business from smokers, but have an issue with working with them?

I've witnessed a restaurant in China ask a cutomer to leave with his cigarette and come back when he's finished smoking. If a friend smokes, I go for a quick walk till he's finished. So if we do this even to friends, trust me, we do it to customers too. We'd rather be that much poorer but live in a breathable environment than have a little more cash but go home feeling nauceous.

If they're going to give off the image that smokers arn't worth their time for employment, then what kind of people are they to get help from?

Once you walk through that door to get help, you leave your smoking behind. If you want help, you have to reach half way and try too.

And how does it make more sense to hire someone who has never smoked before in their lives, to help others quit smoking or to never start up, who have no damn clue what it's like, over someone who's gone through or still going through the processes in order to relate to those they wish to "Help?"

A person who'd never smoked before knows how to avoid it. Obviously a smoker doesn't. An ex-smoker knows how to quit. Obviously a smoker doesn't. Common sense.

Oh wait, that's right, they're trying to "Prevent" smoking, rather then "help." So I guess smokers are simply a lost cause to them..... and since preventing smoking in general is kinda impossible while it is still legal..... wtf does this company exist in the first place and taking money for their non-profit company to do what they will never accomplish?

Hey, I'd be all for contorolling nicotine and making it a restricted drug obtainable at drug treatment clinics only. Now all we need is the political will power on the part of politicians.

When I was a kid I dreamt of smoking when I grew up because I saw adults do it. Luckily enough, my dad quit before I was legal age, and that sent me a message. No smoking adult is setting any worthy example for the kids in his local community, let alone his own kid if he has one. What kind of community member is that? And if he has a kid, what kind of parent is that?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
As far as I'm concerned, the only reasons nicotine and alcohol are legal is because they're the white mans' drug. Nicotine is more addictive than marijuana, almost as addictive as cocaine! Alcohol decreases mental functions more than marijuana does, so why is it legal and pot isn't? Simple answer. Traditionally, marijuana wasn't the white man's drug of choice. From a strictly medical standpoint, both alcohol and tobacco would have been classified as narcotics a long time ago. But we saw during prohibition what happens when society experiences withdrawal symptoms on a mass scale.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I'm glad you said that.

In all seriousness, every smoker I have ever known is either stupid or weak. I would not hire one and since they aren't protected in the constitution, let them spew their emotional dribble. Anybody that sticks burning leaves in their mouth and sucks in the smoke is far to stupid to work for me. I would be quite happy if they never left their houses.

And I'm quite happy leaving you in your own ignorance of view if you want to look at smokers that way.

And perhaps the Karma will come around when you get into some horrible accident and the only person around to save your sorry ass is a smoker.

Darn..... guess you'll be dying on the curb.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Yeah, how many of your extended or close family smoke?

Think about that for a couple of seconds.

Neither my parents nor my wife's parents ever smoked. None of my brothers or sisters smoke or their spouses. None of my wife's brothers or sisters smoked but one of her sister's husband smoked before they were married. I've included a picture below.


 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I have friends who feel the same way Caunnck does, about coffee drinkers and those who imbibe alcohol. I scratch my head at them as well when they get up on their high horses.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Damn smokers..

CTV.ca | Mother sentenced for allowing 3-year-old to smoke

LONDON -- A British woman has pleaded guilty to child cruelty for allowing her three-year-old to smoke in front of her. Prosecutor Jonathan Rees says video taken by a mobile phone showed the small child popping a cigarette into his mouth, lighting it with a lighter and taking a drag. Rees told a court in the Welsh town of Merthyr Tydfil that the boy's mother, 24-year-old Kelly Marie Pocock, was sitting next to him and talking on the phone at the time.
The film was shot by Pocock's friend, Natasha Dudley, who showed the footage to social workers.
Judge John Curran said Thursday it was clear Pocock's child was a habitual smoker and called the situation appalling.
Pocock was given a 40-week suspended sentence.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
As far as I'm concerned, the only reasons nicotine and alcohol are legal is because they're the white mans' drug. Nicotine is more addictive than marijuana, almost as addictive as cocaine! Alcohol decreases mental functions more than marijuana does, so why is it legal and pot isn't? Simple answer. Traditionally, marijuana wasn't the white man's drug of choice. From a strictly medical standpoint, both alcohol and tobacco would have been classified as narcotics a long time ago. But we saw during prohibition what happens when society experiences withdrawal symptoms on a mass scale.

Tobacco is the white mans drug is it? I would re-read your history on substance, and on the substance of Marijuana if you are unfamiliar with where it originated. It was a common drug in classical western civilization and eastern europe. Tobacco is a more recent drug (A few hundred years) and is by no means a "White mans drug".

Narcotic also has a very specific scientific meaning. Neither marijuana, nor tobacco could be considered narcotics from any medical standpoint.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
By definition. They're addicted to a drug that't more addictive than marijuana.

Well frig, Coffee is more addictive then Marijuana..... all those co-workers who gotta have their coffee fix in the morning have to be junkies by your reasoning as well.

Then again, the Coffee and Smokes don't affect your work all that much do they?

And as I see it, a junkie is someone who allows a narcotic to completely take over their lives, their work, their ability to function properly in society. If people can work and do their jobs well, and not have to smoke during the entire time they are working, then that's not a junkie.

And if it is to you, then the world must be one big sh*tty place for you to live in because you're outnumbered. Just about every single person on this planet has a vice.... be that coffee, alcohol, tobacco, weed, chocolate, food, cars, women, sex or any of the hard drugs..... and if it's none of that, their vice is the continual avoidance of those things. None of them are healthy or have any valid benifits for your life, except something to call your own away from all the other crap in the world.

But to each their own..... it's just too bad some people don't follow that.

You care about your health. If he really wanted to quit, he'd quit. If he walks into the office and on the question 'are you a smoker' answers 'not anymore, I quit for good upon walking through this door, and I mean it', then maybe we can consider it.

And what's stopping someone from saying they quit, only to just not smoke while on the job? I care about my health as well, just because I smoke, doesn't mean I don't..... I just have different priorities towards my health and well being, both mental and physical. Just because I'm not doing what others think are the right things (Even though there are no laws to dictate one way or another) doesn't give them the right to label me differently from anybody else.

While someone who pigs out on food constantly is seen as a sympathy case who's got an addiction and medical condition.... someone who's actually doing something, as you even said, more addictive then food..... there's no sympathy, they can quit, they shouldn't get jobs, might as well shoot them and rid society of the likes of them.....

Yeah, and the fat ass could quit eating so much too.... oh but that's different, I forgot.

I've witnessed a restaurant in China ask a cutomer to leave with his cigarette and come back when he's finished smoking. If a friend smokes, I go for a quick walk till he's finished. So if we do this even to friends, trust me, we do it to customers too. We'd rather be that much poorer but live in a breathable environment than have a little more cash but go home feeling nauceous.

That doesn't even compare to what is being talked about.

If your friend is smoking in his own home.... too bad, it's his home, not yours and if you have to go for a walk while he smokes, then that's your problem.

As for the guy who smoked in the restaurant, you're not allowed to do this period.... it doesn't matter if you're working or eating somewhere.... that's the law. Nobody smokes while they work and if they smoke on their breaks.... it's their breaks and by law the company has no real control over what someone does on their breaks, so long as it's not illegal..... since smoking isn't, it's not an issue.... still.

Once you walk through that door to get help, you leave your smoking behind. If you want help, you have to reach half way and try too.

And it's medically well known that some people can't physically just stop without some form of assistance or help in doing so.... some people's brains and how they deal with addictions are much different from the next person. My girlfriend has smoked for a few years now..... myself, only for two years now. In her family, they have a hard time quitting things that cause the brain to be addicted to things..... for me and my fathers' side of the family, if we want to quit.... as you said, we simply stop and leave it behind..... she goes through withdrawls and side effects..... I don't.

Everybody is different, therefore the same approaches don't always work for everybody.... that's why there's gums, patches, books, and companies like this one out there..... and if they had half a brain in what they were doing, they'd know this.

A person who'd never smoked before knows how to avoid it. Obviously a smoker doesn't. An ex-smoker knows how to quit. Obviously a smoker doesn't. Common sense.

That common sense is missing some points to hold it together. A smoker could have quit and avoided smoking for years or decades, then decided to start up again. My dad used to smoke all the time when I was growing up (I wonder why) and then quit and hasn't smoked for about 15 years. He started back up about a year and a half ago.

Many smokers know how to quit and keep off smokes for a long time.... just because later on they choose to smoke again doesn't mean anything except their ability to choose remains solid. In the short period of time I have been smoking, I have stopped for a couple of weeks, a month, two months, and then I chose to smoke again.

And when you revolve your whole life around avoiding something you once were addicted to, then the addiction is still controlling your life, isn't it?

Hey, I'd be all for contorolling nicotine and making it a restricted drug obtainable at drug treatment clinics only. Now all we need is the political will power on the part of politicians.

And that's the big kicker right there..... the government rakes in way too much money from the taxes they get from smokes and smokers to even fathom making it restricted or even illegal.... that's why it hasn't happened yet and probably never will.

In fact many of the things you take for granted in this country has been paid from the taxes on smokers.

You're welcome.

And I'd probably even quit if smoking became illegal.... but if the government doesn't have the willpower to pull itself from it's addiction on the money they get from it..... why should I have the willpower to quit? If it's legal, then I'll quit by my own choice, not by someone else's based on their moral issues.

I get enough of that crap from the religious fanatics..... I don't need it from fear mongering health nuts.

When I was a kid I dreamt of smoking when I grew up because I saw adults do it. Luckily enough, my dad quit before I was legal age, and that sent me a message. No smoking adult is setting any worthy example for the kids in his local community, let alone his own kid if he has one. What kind of community member is that? And if he has a kid, what kind of parent is that?

Oh Pa'leeze..... you're now going to finger point and judge other people's parenting abilities based on if they smoke?

My entire family smoked growing up.... that was the times.... it had no effect on their parenting abilities.... I have never been arrested, I have never broken the law, I haven't be put in jail.... I never killed or crippled anybody in my life, I treat others with respect when respect is earned, and they helped me and still help me in times of need, just as I would for others if I could.

Smoking doesn't turn you into a satanist murderer and it doesn't spawn evil children.

Just because you got sucked into the whole wanting to smoke because it was cool, doesn't mean everybody else does.

As mentioned before, my dad smoked most of my childhood. Many in my family smoked..... I never had a desire to smoke.... not once while I was a kid. To me, it was unhealthy, it was a bad habbit and I decided not to take up smoking while the rest of the people in my school did. I never started up smoking until I hit the age of 26..... and I started smoking because I made the decision to. I started smoking because I didn't see the logic in me finger pointing and telling others they shouldn't smoke, unless I went through what they do and understand it completely. I live for experiences in life, both good and bad. I try to put myself in other people's shoes.... so I decided to start smoking..... and when I am ready, I will decide not to.

But I sure as hell won't let someone else dictate to me what I can and can not do..... I don't do it to other people with what they personally choose to do in their lives, I'd expect the same. If not.... then they can kiss me arse.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
That would be preferable to being helped by a smoker. You never know what cooties they may have picked up from the sheep.

I'll certainly keep that in mind if I ever come accross you in an accident.

Just imagine, the last thing you see is me bending down to blow smoke in your face as you die..... a smoker out lives a non-smoker.... go figure the irony in that.

I have no problems helping people when they need/want help.... but if someone doesn't want my help.... don't worry.... that's their choice, I got better things to do then save some complainer.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Why would anyone want to hire someone who was killing him/herself with cigarette smoke? Why should they have to? A smoker is not only a danger to his own and other's continued health, he is a potential fire hazard. For those reasons alone I wouldn't hire a smoker. Grow up smokers. If you want that job, quit smoking.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Why would anyone want to hire someone who was killing him/herself with cigarette smoke? Why should they have to? A smoker is not only a danger to his own and other's continued health, he is a potential fire hazard. For those reasons alone I wouldn't hire a smoker. Grow up smokers. If you want that job, quit smoking.


Well now, you seem to be equating smoking on your own time with smoking at work? I don't have a problem with them saying they want a non-smoker, but what right do they have to keep an adult from spending their leisure time doing what they want? They aren't paying for your off hours, if they fire you for smoking on your time, what grounds do they have?

Can they choose to fire you for having pre-marital sex?

What abou for eating too much?

What if you have a drink on weekends?

What if you drink coffee?

What if they just won't hire you if someone you are friends or family with smokes "Ditch the wife or find other work"



Perhaps you would like to return to serfdom? Maybe go with an old chinese communist system where you have to ask your boss permission to marry someone, to make sure your boss agrees with that marriage?

They pay you to work certain hours, what you do on their time is their business, what you do on your time is your business.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Why would anyone want to hire someone who was killing him/herself with cigarette smoke? Why should they have to? A smoker is not only a danger to his own and other's continued health, he is a potential fire hazard. For those reasons alone I wouldn't hire a smoker. Grow up smokers. If you want that job, quit smoking.

Sweet murciful jesus, the excuses against tobacco are getting about as foolish as the ones against weed.

How the hell can a smoker be a fire hazzard at a job when they're already not allowed to smoke on the job and in most cases, not even on the property?

Speaking of growing up..... if you want to be taken seriously, start making some sense.

But once again, I suppose someone killing themselves with drinking or over eating, or with high blood pressure from drinking coffee all day is perfectly fine?

Man, see this is why I took up smoking in the first place.... so I could better understand how screwed up the situation is towards smoking and smokers.

This is completely rediculous.

So long as the government is taking money from smokers from buying tobacco products legally and using the money for all these wonderful services they claim it goes to, then smokers should have the same rights to not being selected out of society based on completely foolish assumptions and screwed up logic.

If the government is going to be all happy with taking all that tax money and at the same time pissing away smoker's rights and freedoms for practicing something that they deem is still "Legal" ..... then I don't see why smokers should put up with buying legal smokes and pissing their money away to fund a government that doesn't really give a rats ass about anything but their money.

The government is screwing people over and collecting money from people's addictions, just as they do with casinos..... and here in Nova Scotia, just as they do with alcohol..... the government is no better then mafia controlling territory. The only real difference between the mafia and the government, is that the government is openly hypocritical in their actions and reasons.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
We know without a doubt that smoking is bad for our health. We also know without a doubt that secondhand smoke is dangerous for people around us. A person who continues to smoke, knowing the dangers to himself and others, is not the person I want on my workforce. I was a smoker quite a few years ago. I am not now. Anyone who still smokes in the face of all the information we have about the dangers of smoking, is not somebody I would hire.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
Alcoholics and people who abuse other things such as prescription drugs and liquid paper shouldn't be hired based on the risks they pose to others.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
We know without a doubt that smoking is bad for our health. We also know without a doubt that secondhand smoke is dangerous for people around us. A person who continues to smoke, knowing the dangers to himself and others, is not the person I want on my workforce. I was a smoker quite a few years ago. I am not now. Anyone who still smokes in the face of all the information we have about the dangers of smoking, is not somebody I would hire.

That's your perogative. Myself, I wouldn't hire anyone who is incapable of understanding the concept that you cannot discriminate against someone for having a hobby outside of work.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
That's your perogative. Myself, I wouldn't hire anyone who is incapable of understanding the concept that you cannot discriminate against someone for having a hobby outside of work.

Surely you are not calling smoking a "hobby"? That is an illusion. Burning tobacco and drawing the carcinogens into your lungs is stupidity plain and simple. I know. I've done it.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Surely you are not calling smoking a "hobby"? That is an illusion. Burning tobacco and drawing the carcinogens into your lungs is stupidity plain and simple. I know. I've done it.

Yeah and I am doing it, I know fully well what I am doing.... and for the most part, it is a hobby.... so you say one thing, I say another, therefore that cancels everything all out now doesn't it?

Burning tobacco and drawing all that crap into your lungs isn't any different then someone shoving caffine, fats, sugars, prescriptions and many other things into their bodies, no matter what reasons you think you can come up with.

We all know coffee isn't good for our hearts and blood pressure, yet millions/billions do it everyday around the world. We know eating a lot of food isn't good for our bodies in just about every aspect and can lead to things such as diabetes. We know some people get hooked on prescription pain killers or just simply use them for the hell of it.

Thinking smoking is anymore different is the illusion.

Added:

Oh and last I checked, doing stupid things isn't illegal either.... if it was, then a crap load of people would be in jail already..... maybe that'd be a good thing, but it isn't the right thing.