The south is rather notorious about this, especially in the form of being "right to work" states, where bosses can fire workers for pretty much any reason.
-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Smoking
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
The south is rather notorious about this, especially in the form of being "right to work" states, where bosses can fire workers for pretty much any reason.
Rose
>(@.@)>#
New York has a few companies that do it, and so does every Otis Spunkmeyer factory.
I just think if they are going to tell you that you can't smoke at home on your own time, then it just shouldn't be allowed period.
The school is obvious with why they are doing this, Smoking is bad for you. If you smoke you are a health risk, and when you become sickly the school has to pay for your out days, and the subs, and the everything else.
Just to keep this on the smoking topic lets look at other things that this can lead too. Say you made a mistake as a kid, you smoked, but you quite, because you didn't want to hurt your body that way anymore. Well now you have quite smoking, but you have a history as a smoker. You have the potential to start smoking again, and possible health risks that are associated with having smoked at one point in time.
They can claim the same thing, "They are a health risk because they have been smokers in the past," once again they can deny you the job, and despite that you stopped smoking you wont have a chance for the employment.
What about the kids that have parents that smoke, second hand smoke is just as bad, if not worse, and even though they had little to no control over it, and they now have a history of regular exposure to smoke, and also a health risk. Can they deny them as well?
Smoking is bad, that is the bottom line, but if they are allowed to claim you are a health risk and keep you from working, then once the whole first hand current smokers are no longer a problem, what about the additional possibility of them moving on to other things besides smoking, like previous cancer patients, age factors, diabetes, and obesity among other things.
Someone can also claim discrimination, being a smoker does not inhibit your ability to teach, it can mess up your health, and cause the school to be looking for a different teacher sooner, but doesn't change that you are a still licensed teacher, and qualified for doing the job.
If you don't want them to smoke, and enough companies are doing this, and if the government wants to allow them too, then they should make it illegal. Not try to be sneaky, because being sneaky can only mess with more people, and if you start with a ban on smoking what is to stop it from snowballing to include the health risks previously mentioned.
If the health risk is costing so much money that you wont give these people jobs, then just make it illegal. It isn't helping anyone, besides the people that make tobacco products.
Valerunner
Probably shouldn't be here.
- Pronoun
- She/her
It's easy to say BAN IT BAN IT and I feel like a broken record now but consider this:
Smoking is now banned in the United States. Thousands of jobs are lost in the tobacco industry, and many stores lose their profits from selling tobacco. Farms are now deemed illegal, and shut down. Some of these people have just had their only livelihood rendered illegal. Their farms are still functional, so they're sold. And who's gonna buy the land? Criminal organizations who plan on profiting from the now withdrawing smokers. Most will say no because it's illegal now, but there will be a minority who won't mind as long as they get their fix. Demand will be much higher despite the customer base shrinking. In short, a new drugs trade which the government now needs to pour money into.
I think Tailsy's right in suggesting ridiculous taxing. Give the government an extra cash boost, changes public opinion (smoking's too expensive now), which means if society views it as evil and not just unnecessary, there will be a movement calling for it to be banned. There will still be the inevitable drugs trade, but it will be much easier to control due to size and due to public opinion.
Tarvos
helt plötsligt blev det tyst
this is why drugs need to be legal - it keeps them out of criminal control, under that of the government, who can then levy taxes out of it like an idiot and make it fuck all expensive - i.e. nobody wants them and people who do want to spend tons on fucking up their own body willingly can do whatever they want.
do this with ~all drugs~
do this with ~all drugs~
This would be fine and dandy if we actually had government willing to raise taxes. People from the northeast US will drive *all the way* down to South Carolina to just buy cigarettes in mass bulk. A pack of cigarettes that cost $8.50 in New Jersey costs $3.50 in South Carolina.
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
Vladimir Putin's LJ
your blood flows through my veins
Dannichu
Tragically unbeyachted.
I'm asthmatic and have relatives who've died from smoking-related lung cancer and while I'm not a fan of smoking as such, the superior attitude lots of non-smokers have towards people who do annoys me more than people smoking in public places.
People smoke for a whole ton of reasons, and most of them start in childhood (you're more likely to smoke if your parents smoke, if your friends do, and if you're from a lower class background), and smoking is very hard to give up. Intelligent people smoke. Nice people smoke. Yes, it's a health risk, but people who ride motorbikes are statistically endangering themselves and others, but nobody judges them for it.
I agree that smoking is bad, but if you think someone who's been smoking for years doesn't know that already, you're a fool.
(I don't really support smoking in public places, and agree strongly with all the money NHS spending on helping smokers quit/advertising the health risks. Smokers need help, not your judgement.)
People smoke for a whole ton of reasons, and most of them start in childhood (you're more likely to smoke if your parents smoke, if your friends do, and if you're from a lower class background), and smoking is very hard to give up. Intelligent people smoke. Nice people smoke. Yes, it's a health risk, but people who ride motorbikes are statistically endangering themselves and others, but nobody judges them for it.
I agree that smoking is bad, but if you think someone who's been smoking for years doesn't know that already, you're a fool.
(I don't really support smoking in public places, and agree strongly with all the money NHS spending on helping smokers quit/advertising the health risks. Smokers need help, not your judgement.)
- Pronoun
- she/her
see, this is why you need to be The First Ever Swedish President of the United States.
goldenquagsire
Rubber dinghy rapids, bro!
While I myself have chosen to stay drug-free (so I'm not just trying to cover my arse), you can't really use the "illegal = worse" argument here since tobacco is worse than marijuana in pretty much every which way; mainly, marijuana is far less addictive. There are other illegal drugs that also rank less addictive and less harmful. Tobacco is really only legal because it's been a cash crop for centuries.
@Dannichu: I definitely agree that smokers deserve help. Between advertisements and peer pressure, it's very difficult to not get tempted at a young age and it's really not that hard to get cigarettes, especially if friends or family smoke (as I've mentioned, the teen smoking rate here is about 1-in-3; cigarettes are cheap, commonplace, and nearly everyone in rural areas smokes). Many people actually want to quit. I can't say I feel sympathetic for those who actively desire to smoke, though. These people tend to also be the sort to ignore no-smoking signs or not use designated smoking areas.
Harlequin
Active member
In fairness, cannabis smokers are usually far less obnoxious about smoking cannabis than tobacco smokers are. There's also the point that cannabis is far less dangerous than tobacco as far as health is concerned and it's usually smoked in private or amongst other smokers -- tobacco used to be everywhere whether or not you wanted it to be.
I totally support everything the government's been doing to stop smoking, and I believe that the NHS programmes aimed at helping smokers to quit are necessary. If we don't provide any help for people who genuinely want to stop smoking then how should we expect people to stop smoking? It's addictive and hard to give up, and people shouldn't have to do it alone or be judged harshly because they've tried without help and failed.
I know a lot of smokers who want to quit but don't feel quite ready to try yet, and they tend to be quite considerate about their smoking. A good example of this is a friend of mine. We all used to smoke cannabis in the kitchen, but whenever he wanted a cigarette he'd go outside for it because nobody else smoked tobacco whereas we all smoked cannabis. Another friend of mine will never smoke in someone else's car or house unless that other person is also a smoker.
Raising tax on cigarettes is a great way to dissuade people from smoking, or at least getting them to cut back a little bit (it also provides a wonderful boost to foreign economies, what with tobacco tourism: a friend of mine never buys cigarettes in the UK and instead goes to Spain to buy them in bulk for like €3 a pack).
Phantom
Uh, I didn't do it.
I smoke but I hardly consider myself a smoker. I mean like half a pack every few months? I think I still have an opened pack of Camel's in my truck.
Cannabis is just as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Pot doesn't cause physical dependency, but some people who use it can become psychologically dependent on it. Cannabis smoke is carcinogenic, and can contribute to lung cancer just as much as tobacco smoke. And going without once "addicted" it can lead to many long term side effects.
Taken from newspaper, "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia."
Cannabis is just as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Pot doesn't cause physical dependency, but some people who use it can become psychologically dependent on it. Cannabis smoke is carcinogenic, and can contribute to lung cancer just as much as tobacco smoke. And going without once "addicted" it can lead to many long term side effects.
Taken from newspaper, "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia."
Lord of the Fireflies
Back in black.
All depending on the type of cannabis you smoke. Usually, cigarettes pack a much larger amount of chemicals (couldn't tell exactly what it is), while cannabis obtained from a honest source (relatively speaking) is more... natural or something. Still very damageable for the lungs, though. Just... less.
As for the dependence point, I agree. A friend of mine completely lost contact over the normal world, and now he smokes nearly everyday... He got used to it, and now the only way he can have what he would call fun is by smoking.
Like, we invite him to a party or something, the first thing he asks is if there would be pot. If yes, he considers coming (over staying alone in his room and smoking) and if not, he says "hmmaybe..." He never comes.
Sad.
leo33wii
want to feel tingly?
first we have to recognize what is being argued here. one side argues that smoking not only harms the individual, but the people around them. one side argues that people should be allowed to their liberty, in other words, be free to smoke when and where they want yet being considerate of others.
so lets dissect the first argument "second hand smoke is dangerous." from what i've seen so far it suggest this:
we don't care of the well being or health of the individual who is smoking, what really matters is the possibility of my personal well being and health. if it comes down to it, we would rather have smokers be killed so that non-smokers will be left.
while the other party suggests:
i don't mind people who smoke, i smoke as well, and think that people who smoke should be responsible and consider the people around them when they smoke because, as a smoker, i do that. i know that not everyone does, but that should be enforced instead of abolishing the act all together.
many of the members here are against the death of "harmless innocents" who succumb to second hand smoke, but do agree with a violant demise of smokers. while the only person here who actually smokes, does little of it and is considerate of others health and well being.
smoking in a well ventilated area will prevent the build up carbon monoxide that could potentially kill a person, in restaurants, being a public building, is well ventilated.
in actuality it isn't tabacco that is causing the cancer or other illnesses, it's the chemicals that are added to make it more addictive that are dangerous. the chemicals that make the burning slower while keeping a pleasant taste for the smoker which is dangerous....
it's all these extra chemicals that appear to be the dangerous element that many of you seem to hate.
so a hypothetical cigarette that wasn't dangerous and didn't cause cancer, would any of you here be against it? the only draw back for this hypothetical cigarette would be the smoke scent. what would you think of smokers and the habit then?
also to consider the food industry with processed foods (like fast food's food to groceries that sell hotdogs and like meat products). processed meat and other consumables as treated with a good amount of chemicals that at a certain stage the food is considered toxic and then at a later stage, taste nothing like the meat it is... is given a chemical that mimics the flavor of beef or chicken.
chicken nuggets that you buy at a store is processed food, it's been treated and has all these chemicals added to it. many foods like peanuts to candies are treated with chemicals. what about the waste used to make those products? where do they go? i can tell you that many of them go to our environment which kill the animals we all love and adore to the ugly animals that people don't want to save because it isn't a puppy or a baby seal.
these are more lethal and dangerous to humans that can put cigarettes to shame. however none of this matters because:
"cigarettes are bad and the only concern i have is my health and well being"--- average arrogant self centered american/online member
so lets dissect the first argument "second hand smoke is dangerous." from what i've seen so far it suggest this:
we don't care of the well being or health of the individual who is smoking, what really matters is the possibility of my personal well being and health. if it comes down to it, we would rather have smokers be killed so that non-smokers will be left.
while the other party suggests:
i don't mind people who smoke, i smoke as well, and think that people who smoke should be responsible and consider the people around them when they smoke because, as a smoker, i do that. i know that not everyone does, but that should be enforced instead of abolishing the act all together.
many of the members here are against the death of "harmless innocents" who succumb to second hand smoke, but do agree with a violant demise of smokers. while the only person here who actually smokes, does little of it and is considerate of others health and well being.
smoking in a well ventilated area will prevent the build up carbon monoxide that could potentially kill a person, in restaurants, being a public building, is well ventilated.
in actuality it isn't tabacco that is causing the cancer or other illnesses, it's the chemicals that are added to make it more addictive that are dangerous. the chemicals that make the burning slower while keeping a pleasant taste for the smoker which is dangerous....
it's all these extra chemicals that appear to be the dangerous element that many of you seem to hate.
so a hypothetical cigarette that wasn't dangerous and didn't cause cancer, would any of you here be against it? the only draw back for this hypothetical cigarette would be the smoke scent. what would you think of smokers and the habit then?
also to consider the food industry with processed foods (like fast food's food to groceries that sell hotdogs and like meat products). processed meat and other consumables as treated with a good amount of chemicals that at a certain stage the food is considered toxic and then at a later stage, taste nothing like the meat it is... is given a chemical that mimics the flavor of beef or chicken.
chicken nuggets that you buy at a store is processed food, it's been treated and has all these chemicals added to it. many foods like peanuts to candies are treated with chemicals. what about the waste used to make those products? where do they go? i can tell you that many of them go to our environment which kill the animals we all love and adore to the ugly animals that people don't want to save because it isn't a puppy or a baby seal.
these are more lethal and dangerous to humans that can put cigarettes to shame. however none of this matters because:
"cigarettes are bad and the only concern i have is my health and well being"--- average arrogant self centered american/online member
Rose
>(@.@)>#
Here is my problem with this statement.
About four percent of the weight of a tobacco plant is nicotine. Processing puts in more nicotine true, but nicotine is present before ANY processing is done.
Nicotine is a poison that is within the plant, normally used to discourage insects and animals from eating the said plant. With every cigarette smoked about 1 milligram of nicotine is taken into the body. Now the amount of nicotine a cigarette contains, depending on the brand, varies from about 7 to 20 milligrams. Where do you think all those extra milligrams of nicotine go, if only 1 is taken into the body? So even with no chemicals second hand smoke is still way more dangerous then first hand, which even with no one else present, the smoker would be inhaling it anyways.
Putting the chemicals that is added to a cigarette aside, say you didn't add ANY chemicals, and it was just tobacco, you would still fail in making a cigarette that wasn't deadly because the second thing plants that contain nicotine, like the tobacco leaf, are harvested for is the mass production of pesticides.
So, technically a cigarette, made of tobacco, can not be safe, as tobacco is a poisonous plant. If you made a cigarette out of something else then there wouldn't be the same smoke smell, also it wouldn't be so addicting, you can't really win with that point, because you can not, under any circumstances, make a tobacco product that does not have the potential to kill.
- Pronoun
- she/her
I'm sorry, what? where are you getting this from? I don't think anyone's suggesting that smokers should be killed (MD was being facetious). Personally, I just think they should be taxed and not advertised, and I don't think people should smoke in public unless it's an open outdoors area away from buildings. :|
again; where are you getting this from?
since when are restaurants significantly ventilated to allow smoking? pretty sure smoking in an enclosed room at all is a health risk, and most restaurants tend to be enclosed? Cigarette smoke also damages paintwork and the smell lingers in paint and furniture, too.
here's a list of health effects from non-cigarette tobacco products (hookah, cigars, chewing tobacco & snuff), tobacco is also addictive because it contains nicotine.
if it didn't pose a health risk to me or anyone else, I actually wouldn't care about smokers or smoking at all. The reason why I dislike smoking so much is that it poses such a health risk to other people; obviously if this element was removed I wouldn't dislike smoking? The smell's not pleasant, but if it's not harming me then I wouldn't care so much.
this is irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you brought it up. Yes, processed food can be bad for people and the environment and animals - but you can choose not to eat processed food (or choose to eat less of it). If someone smokes next to me, I'm forced to breathe in cigarette smoke. There's also the fact that cigarettes you know, cause cancer and stuff.
please don't say stuff like this if you can't source it. I've never heard anything about processed food being worse for people than cigarettes. If you're going to make a statement like this, back it up, because it sounds an awful lot like you're just saying it so cigarettes sound less bad.
what exactly is arrogant about having concern for my health and wellbeing? it's not my responsibility to care for a smoker's wellbeing; they can do that for themselves. I really don't understand why you're antagonising like this, but you should be aware that generalising non-smokers as a whole and calling them 'arrogant' (without actually replying to anyone's specific claims) is both rude and inappropriate in this forum.
Wobbles
The Wobbuffet Fan
I'm sorry, I know this is off-topic, but this just pisses me off. You're being racist, you know that? Stereotyping Americans as arrogant is just as bad as saying something like, oh, I don't know...
EVERYTHING IN THIS SONG.
Just...
Don't. It makes people angry, and it's just not okay, okay?
ON TOPIC:
My Grandma actually smokes, and we're trying to get her to stop. She has a multitude of other problems as well, which are compounded by the expense of cigarettes.
Dannichu
Tragically unbeyachted.
Saith
New member
Yeah, my cousin's started quitting because, and this is pretty damn funny, but where he lives, weed is cheaper.
Also, he just got his own place, and spent his Crisis Loan on a white carpet.
He's kicked so many asses for smoking in there.
[Also I swear I've seen your sig before, somewhere. An embarassing part of me wants to say Horrible Histories. >__>; ]