Smokers need not apply

[23_Tauri]

There are functioning heroin users that fit your routine and rationales of use, would you consider them addicts?

Without heroin or a substitute like methadone, would those 'functioning users' not experience physical withdrawal?

 

[GlennB]

I wish that smokers and their sympathisers would stop whining about being discriminated against for engaging in a filthy, disgusting, hazardous addiction, and stop making a general nuisance of themselves.

That's just plain silly.

The current discussion is not about 'discriminating' against smokers who are inflicting their nasty habit and its consequences on others. It's about discriminating against those who are smoking at home (or chewing nico gum) but being tested for residues to deny them employment.

Perhaps you should have started reading this thread from the beginning? Check out the o/p.

 

[Trakar]

Without heroin or a substitute like methadone, would those 'functioning users' not experience physical withdrawal?

So you are basing "addiction" primarily upon physical dependence?

Actually, there are some functional heroin users who do not develop physical dependance, at least in the short term, much the same as "social smokers."

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh, sure ...[...snip...] ...throw a bar-b-cue in your room.

The Fnord is strong in this one.

Take a leaf out of your signature.

Hail Eris.

 

[Stray Cat]

So you are basing "addiction" primarily upon physical dependence?

Actually, there are some functional heroin users who do not develop physical dependance, at least in the short term, much the same as "social smokers."

Then your definition does not describe Tauri.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

If an employer feels that strongly about smoking, then they can lobby a politician to get it banned. Going around shunning people when their activities are legal is not the way to go.

How does it make sense that you would rather have someone attempt to have smoking banned completely, than to simply choose not to hire smokers at a business they own? Your logic is faulty.

Simply choosing not to hire them is much more of a "live and let live" attitude than "let's lobby to pull the cigarettes out of everyone's hands and throw them in jail or levy fines against them if they dare to smoke."

 

[Stray Cat]

How does it make sense that you would rather have someone attempt to have smoking banned completely, than to simply choose not to hire smokers at a business they own? Your logic is faulty.

Simply choosing not to hire them is much more of a "live and let live" attitude than "let's lobby to pull the cigarettes out of everyone's hands and throw them in jail or levy fines against them if they dare to smoke."

There is no "live and let live" attitude when smoking is the subject.
If there were a level playing field, I doubt anyone would have such concerns.

And to qualify my PoV, I think any private employer should be able to set his/her own rules within their own business. Sadly they are not allowed to when smoking is concerned. And now this ridiculous situation is extending to what people do in their own time that more than likely would have zero effect on a person's ability to do a job.

If "I aint hiring you because you is black" is not acceptable, why are other baseless prejudices tolerated?

Answer: because smokers are demonised and any intollerence is encouraged by the government.

Live and let live my arse!

 

[Trakar]

Then your definition does not describe Tauri.

How so?

 

[Whiplash]

there is no official policy. it is just the way things work. and yes, i could stand around outside for 5 minutes here and there, but i would get yelled at.

Life's not fair.

 

[mikeyx]

"I don't drink, and I'll do everything in my power to keep you from drinking."

That attitude's worked really well for marijuana (granted not an addictive drug), cocaine, alcohol, heroin, methamphetamines, PCP, LSD, crack, etc...

drinking doesnt produce second hand smoke genius, not the same

 

[Stray Cat]

drinking doesnt produce second hand smoke genius, not the same

And people don't go home from the bar and beat up their wives because they've been smoking too much, people don't beat up strangers in the street or in taxi ranks because they've been smoking too much. People don't get in a car and plough into pedestrians or other motorists because they have been smoking too much... genius
So try and justify your unhealthy, life wrecking, judgment clouding habit if you want, but it doesn't wash.



Not that I'd want to ban anyone from drinking being a live and let live kind of person.

 

[Lolly]

How does it make sense that you would rather have someone attempt to have smoking banned completely,

Because the employer is excluding people for engaging in a lawful activity. If they want to exclude people, first have the activity declared unlawful. Then you've got a legitimate basis for exclusion. Arbitrarily excluding people from employment for something that they are legally entitled to do is not on.

 

[gumboot]

I'm pretty anti-smoking, but I agree with those who think this isn't reasonable or fair. As long as a worker is abiding by company policy while performing their employment duties, it's none of the company's business what they do in their spare time.

Having said that, I don't really see any reason to kick up a fuss about this happening with smokers in particular. This sort of thing seems to be the norm in the USA now. Hardly a week goes by but we hear about some poor worker in the USA who has lost their job because of a photo on their facebook page or because of some other activity they undertook outside their work hours.

It's bollix. We are not serfs. Our employers do not own us. But increasingly, they're acting like they do. And increasingly we're letting them get away with it.

I'm just glad I'm an independent contractor.

 

[gumboot]

And people don't go home from the bar and beat up their wives because they've been smoking too much, people don't beat up strangers in the street or in taxi ranks because they've been smoking too much. People don't get in a car and plough into pedestrians or other motorists because they have been smoking too much... genius
So try and justify your unhealthy, life wrecking, judgment clouding habit if you want, but it doesn't wash.

The problem you have here is that you can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You cannot smoke without producing second-hand smoke (at least I don't think you can).

I, for example, believe that smoking in public should be illegal, period. Inside or out. But I also think smoking marijuana should be legal in the private home, and am pretty open to extending that to a variety of other drugs. I also think drunkenness should be illegal in public (I believe it is, in some jurisdictions - it's an offense to be drunk in public in England and Wales, for example).

As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty consistent policy. Put simply, if you want to do something in private at home, go for it (as long, obviously, as it doesn't cause direct harm to an unwilling participant). I don't care how much it harms you, how sordid or disgusting or immoral I might think it is. Fill ya boots.

You want to light up a joint, masturbate to dog porn until your knob falls off, and then chop your own head off with a saw mounted on a giant dildo? Go for it.

In public, you don't get to do whatever you like. If it's detrimental to the health of those sharing that public space with you, you can't do it. Wait til you get home.

And as I've already said, what you're doing privately at home is none of your work's damn business, unless it starts to inhibit your work performance. If you spend all night puffing away on marijuana and then get up in the morning and go work at a drug rehabilitation centre performing all of your duties to a satisfactory level, I have no issues with that at all. If you start trying to sell marijuana to your patients or smoking at work, or coming in late, or your performance drops because you're tired or hung over or your brain has been fried, your work can kick your ass to the curb.

(Incidentally, on the domestic violence front, I do know of instances of husbands who beat up their wives because they were agitated because they'd run out of cigarettes. Some people don't need much of an excuse.)

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Because the employer is excluding people for engaging in a lawful activity. If they want to exclude people, first have the activity declared unlawful. Then you've got a legitimate basis for exclusion. Arbitrarily excluding people from employment for something that they are legally entitled to do is not on.

So can I assume that you feel drug tests by employers are okay, and that excluding those who smoke marijuana from the workplace is perfectly reasonable, even if it is not affecting their performance at work? After all, smoking marijuana is illegal. You said something illegal would be a legitimate basis for exclusion.

 

[23_Tauri]

So you are basing "addiction" primarily upon physical dependence?

Actually, there are some functional heroin users who do not develop physical dependance, at least in the short term, much the same as "social smokers."

No, I'm not basing addiction primarily on anything, but as a non-medic I have to go to others to see how the medical industry defines addiction. wiki cites the definition of addiction used by The American Society of Addiction Medicine:

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

I referred to physical dependence because I don't recognise any signs of physical dependence (i.e. physiological withdrawal symptoms that negatively impact on my daily life) if I don't have a cigarette for 24 hours.

How so?

Then your definition does not describe Tauri.

So, how do you define 'short term'?

What makes a heroin user an addict? What makes a tobacco user an addict? What makes a cream bun eater an addict? All these people enjoy the pleasurable effects of their chosen substance. What dynamic needs to play out in order for them to be addicts and not - for want of a better word- recreational users?

 

[Lolly]

So can I assume that you feel drug tests by employers are okay, and that excluding those who smoke marijuana from the workplace is perfectly reasonable, even if it is not affecting their performance at work? After all, smoking marijuana is illegal. You said something illegal would be a legitimate basis for exclusion.

If it is employment which requires you to have all of your faculties unaffected by drugs or alcohol, like operating heavy machinery or driving haulpaks or something like that then yes, I think it is reasonable to require drug testing - this forms part of the terms of employment when you take the job and if you want to do dope, that isn't the job for you.

Suddenly deciding to drug test existing employees who are not operating dangerous machinery and who have not agreed to it as a condition of employment is an intrusion and not the employer's role - the employer is not the police. It is not something that an employer can suddenly decide to do and then sack people if they don't pass or comply.

If smoking marijuana is illegal, then it is open to an employer to decide that they won't employ people who are choosing to break the law in that way.

Again, the legislature makes the laws and if you don't like something, you try to effect a change in the law, you don't just decide to make your own laws.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

In most states of the US the non-smoking policy is legal even though it is draconian. Mentioned above was the concept of a smoking club that would only hire smokers. That is also legal in some states. Though personally I have a hard time seeing someone working in a smoking club who does not smoke when a bar would be similar without the second hand smoke in the many states that ban smoking in bars. In Oregon we now have pot clubs for people with medical marijuana cards. Not just dispenseries, but a place to hang out. If I recall correctly one of the requirements for employment was having the card yourself. Some of my younger friends implied they wanted to try and get a job there.

By and large I think this non-smoking in your private life mandate is silly. I think it will lose popularity in time. Just like non-drinking mandates are unpopular and costly to maintain.

 

[23_Tauri]

Because the employer is excluding people for engaging in a lawful activity. If they want to exclude people, first have the activity declared unlawful. Then you've got a legitimate basis for exclusion. Arbitrarily excluding people from employment for something that they are legally entitled to do is not on.

Indeed. What concerns me about excluding people from employment on the basis of what they choose to do legally, in their free time as consenting adults is that this is the mark of a totalitarian state. This is not just about smoking. Excluding people from the job market is taciting saying "you are not allowed to participate in society because of your lifestyle choice". I think this is another example of a continuing, wider shift in power from the individual to the state, illustrated by increased surveillance, less trial by jury etc.

It is not melodramatic to ask "and where will it end?"

It is a slippery slope and I think whether we are smokers or not this should concern people who value living in a liberal democracy. I am heartened that there are several non-smokers posting on this thread who recognise this also.

 

[23_Tauri]

I, for example, believe that smoking in public should be illegal, period. Inside or out.

Is this because you believe that second hand smoke carries health risks to those who breathe it in?

it's an offense to be drunk in public in England and Wales, for example

Is it? That's the first I've heard. I'd check that if I were you, gumboot.

I think you'll find that there are by-laws in some towns that forbid street-drinking i.e. drinking from cans and bottles whilst standing on the public highway, but that's not quite the same thing.

(Incidentally, on the domestic violence front, I do know of instances of husbands who beat up their wives because they were agitated because they'd run out of cigarettes. Some people don't need much of an excuse.)

Yeah, that's an excuse. I don't think you can blame ciggies there. That's like blaming the eggs in that recent case where a man in the USA murdered his wife for cooking his eggs wrong.

Apart from that, basically I agree with what you say about the public and private realms. We should be free to do what we like behind closed doors as long as everyone is consenting, no matter how weird we might consider it to be. (There was a case years ago here in the UK about a group of fetishists who nailed bits of wood to their penises. It made it to the courts, I can't remember why, but thankfully the judge acknowledged that as adults these crazy folk were free to do what they liked with their tackle. As long as it didn't make them late for work on Monday I guess )