Rights group blasts 'non-smoker' stipulation for job
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
You said you wouldn't want a junkie working for you in reference to this topic and subject, and clearly linked your reasoning with the likes of these people who are discriminating against smokers. And with the above you just said directly confirms your stance as smokers being junkies and no better then heroin addicts, based on a couple of bad experiences you encountered in your life with slum ass people who put their addictions ahead of their families.
Hmmm. I wouldn't want a Presbyterian working for me or for that matter a Baptist as they would "probably be promoting religion as a facet of the program put forth.
That's pretty much along the smae line as excluding "smokers"
Hmmm. I wouldn't want a Presbyterian working for me or for that matter a Baptist as they would "probably be promoting religion as a facet of the program put forth.
That's pretty much along the smae line as excluding "smokers"
So diddling farm animals is ok?
Good to know
Those of the cloven hoof variety.. Definite no.no
All others are fair game
Nice come back and argument.
Doesn't change the fact that what I am saying makes more sense.... you just don't like that smokers should have a say in the matter and that some actually have some valid points.
There have been people who marked their 100+ birthdays who still smoke to this day and even have some wine or a beer once in a while...... you're not doing anybody any good by trying to oppress what they are legally allowed to do, where they can do it, and what kind of jobs they should get for doing it..... it shouldn't matter.
There are school teachers, doctors, dentists, care takers, etc.... in each group there are people who smoke, and they do their jobs just as good, sometimes better (sometimes worse) then those who don't smoke.... they shouldn't be judged on what they do in their own spare time..... they should be judged based on how good they are at what they do...... that's the whole point and no other point should matter.... or it's discrimination.
Oh and by the way..... this is me grown up.... once again, deal with it.
And every single person deals with it differently. Just because you might have gotten through it no problem, or even if it was hard as hell, doesn't mean you can judge everybody else based on your own yard stick, just as I don't.
I have started and stopped countless times now, and when I don't want to smoke anymore, I don't. When I got nothing better to do and don't really care, I'll smoke again. Right now I'm smoking again..... next month I might not.
Some people can't simply do that. Some people may even have it easier then I, but I don't tell others how to deal with their habbits, just as I don't tell them how to deal with theirs..... let alone what jobs they're allowed.
As another example, I might have a small alcoholic drink once every two months..... usually nothing to even get buzzed off of. Drinking just isn't my thing...... it's legal just like smoking. drinking has limitations on what you are allowed to do while drinking.... you are also limited on where you can drink just like smoking...... should I be able to pick and choose who works for me based on their social habbits?
No.
Oh I'm about to go even further.
Smokers gotta go and that's that. Slow but sure, we'll weed them out and that will be the end of it. Filthy habit anyway.
Is a fat person less knowledgeable about good diet, exercise, etc? KNOWING it, and putting it into personal practice aren't the same thing. Being able to advise, empathize, and inspire a fat person, believe it or not, is not the sole realm of the slim. There are big women who run weight watcher's meetings. Who are nutritionists. Who own gyms. Who teach aquacize, swim lessons.... trust me... I've seen them, with my own eyes.
I say the organization is correct on the following argument:
Its mandate is to promote a smoke-free lifestyle. This being the case, ideally they'd like for their staff to be able to provide useful feedback on how to avoid the temptation to start smoking in the first place or, alternatively, how to quit smoking. Obviously a current smoker is not qualified to give concrete advice on either of these points. Add to that that if the organization receives clients who are trying to kick the habbit, the last thing it wants is for one of its staff to go out for a smoke break just to tease the clients walking in.
So in this case, yes it's a very legitimate essential qualificaiton for the job.
Its mandate is to promote a smoke-free lifestyle. This being the case, ideally they'd like for their staff to be able to provide useful feedback on how to avoid the temptation to start smoking in the first place or, alternatively, how to quit smoking. Obviously a current smoker is not qualified to give concrete advice on either of these points. Add to that that if the organization receives clients who are trying to kick the habbit, the last thing it wants is for one of its staff to go out for a smoke break just to tease the clients walking in.
So in this case, yes it's a very legitimate essential qualificaiton for the job.
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.
Last edited:
So diddling farm animals is ok?
Good to know
100% of smokers diddle animals so, NO.
That argument doesn't fly. You cannot discriminate against a person because they smoke. Not until smoking is illegal. It doesn't matter what the organization is, you cannot discriminate for such reasons. Period.
So smoking is a legal addiction. What happens when an addict doesn't get a cigarette? doesn't have the money for it? SHould I have used a prescription medication addict instead?
I wouldn't one working in my pharmacy.
You all disagree with my opinion. That's fine. I still hold it that I wouldn't want a smoker telling me how to quit. If I was running that same operation I wouldn't want smokers either.
You can disagree all you like. Just don't go getting your undies in a bunch. It ain't worth it. It's just a forum.
I wouldn't one working in my pharmacy.
You all disagree with my opinion. That's fine. I still hold it that I wouldn't want a smoker telling me how to quit. If I was running that same operation I wouldn't want smokers either.
You can disagree all you like. Just don't go getting your undies in a bunch. It ain't worth it. It's just a forum.
Sure you can. They're doing it now. They'll continue to do it until a court rules they're wrong. I have my doubts it will happen. It's probably in the same category as discrimination based on your credit history, or your history as a tenant, or trying to rent a car when you're 17 years old.
It's legal only because it's one of the white man's drugs of choice. It's more addictive than marijuana and is so toxic that it has been proven to contribute to SIDS in enclosed vehicles! I myself can feel nauseous if in an enclosed area with a smoker for any lengh of time. So it might be legal, but not on medical grounds, strictly on political grounds. On medical grounds alone, it would likely have been treated like any narcotic, sold by prescription and administered at clinics.
So do you really want to hire a drug addict who has already proven himself to lack good judgement, will power, self-discipline, concern for his own health, and for others? Do you really want an empoyee who smells like an ashtray when greeing customers? You might not notice it, but I've smelled a strong concentrated odour of tobacco smoke on a smoker's clothes in the office when I'd entered only to find out that he had smoked outside an hour earlier. Who wants to work in such an unpleasent environment. Non-smokers can have noses as sensitive as dogs'. Smokers just don't notice it because their nostrils are filled with soot.
You have every right to discriminate against an employee who doeas anything on his own time that impacts directly on his performance at work. That being the case, any company would have every right to state that if colleagues complain of having to put up with the unpleasent overwhealming smell of stale cigarette smoke on a smoker's clothes and breath even at a normal social distance, then it's reasonable to suppose that it might turn employees off too. We don't need any stinker scaring off the customers.