Smokers need not apply

[Lolly]

this is the mark of a totalitarian state.

Yes. That is my objection to it, but it goes even further than totalitarianism in that it isn't only putting power in the hands of the State, but in the hands of private individuals to control and exclude others who aren't conforming to what they'd like. Marginalising people by denying employment solely on the basis of behaviour that you don't like sets an unfortunate precedent and promotes this idea that nobody has to deal with anything they don't approve of.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

My question is what if I use an e-cig? Why should I be punished for the recreational use of nicotine when the means under which I use it is not the same as tobacco and on its own nicotine is not a health hazard in the levels I use it?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

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

That is the scientific consensus currently, and has been for a few decades.

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

I do not know about England and Wales, but it is common that being drunk in public is illegal in US jurisdictions.

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.

That is a different thing. Both laws are common in the US and I would have thought they would be in the UK as well.

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 )

Agreed here as well. Personally I wouldn't mind smoking in outdoor public areas if the culture were to change that smokers had to be considerate of others in such settings. I think we are getting close and there is a rough "hate the smokers" period we are going through first. I am fine with someone smoking at the park if they clean up after themselves, but don't do it while hanging out by the swingset even if it is currently empty.

 

[gumboot]

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

No it's because the scientific consensus at present is that second hand smoke carries health risk to those who breathe it in.

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

I don't need to check it, because I am absolutely sure it's true.

Every person found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale], and on a second conviction within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale], and on a third or subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable to a penalty not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

Licensing Act 1872
Offences Against Public Order
12 - Penalty on Persons Found Drunk

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.

I know it's not the same thing. I know exactly what I am saying. I am sure there's by-laws in some UK towns and cities that ban alcohol in public places. It's still illegal in England and Wales to be drunk anywhere in public.

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.

Wife-beaters don't generally get away with blaming the fact they were drunk either, so I'm not sure you've got a very strong point here.

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 )

With some exceptions, the British Judiciary system seems to have a pretty sensible and practical approach to their law. For example while it's illegal to be drunk in public anywhere in England or Wales, and while the fine is set at 200 pounds for doing this, actual prosecutions are very rare as police will use their discretion and generally either take you home, get you a taxi, or throw you in a cell to sober up for the night then send you packing in the morning.

 

[Stray Cat]

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).

And here's the start of the problem for anyone using this as a defense for drinking.
You can smoke in a public place without it having any affect on anyone else also. But the legislation (and specifically the subject we are discussing in this thread) doesn't take circumstance in to consideration. I'm fully aware that you can get drunk without it having any affect on a third party too. But the comparitive issue here is apparently that we have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

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

But you can smoke without it affecting anyone else under many circumstances. So remember your justification that you can drink without getting drunk. Sorry but you drinkers can not be trusted to prevent your alcohol consumption from affecting others under any circumstance.

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 don't think that any drug should be illegal. (I don't take any myself BTW and never have done, except tobacco). However, stronger controls would need to be implemented to ensure that people's drug taking had no affect on third parties (ie: driving under the influence etc). And that's 'real' affect, not imagined health issues or 'ooo that smells bad' issues.

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).

In England it is illegal for a landlord to serve a drunk person with alcohol. You have to wonder how so many people get stinking drunk and how so few (zero) landlord ever get prosecuted for breaking this law.
And yes, you can be arrested for being drunk in public, but it's only an issue if you are 'kicking off' and the police are around. Otherwise you will not be arrested and drinkers can break the law (and indeed do so in vast numbers in every town and village every weekend).

As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty consistent policy.

No it's not, it's hypocrisy.

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.

Oooo no, I wouldn't want to do that again

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 if you are in that public space on your own?
There is no health risk to anyone else from someone smoking if there is no one within 20 feet of them (I would dispute there is any statistically relevant health risk at all within 2 feet in the open air).

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.

We agree on that then
I an ideal world, people should be hired and fired on ability to do the job. Baseless prejudices shouldn't come into it. But people do have baseless prejudices and whilst some are legislated against (age, race, religion etc), some are endorsed by governments.

(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.)

I also know stories of people who beat up their wives because their football team lost. The fact that they go home drunk apparently isn't the problem, it's all about the football.

 

[Stray Cat]

Mentioned above was the concept of a smoking club that would only hire smokers. That is also legal in some states..

I am in England, it is completely illegal to open such a club.

 

[Stray Cat]

How so?

Sorry I missed this one earlier.

Tauri is not a 'short term' smoker. She's a relatively long time occasional smoker.

If you can show me a functioning heroin addict who has had their habit for seven or eight years, you may have a point with the post of yours I responded to.

 

[23_Tauri]

No it's because the scientific consensus at present is that second hand smoke carries health risk to those who breathe it in.

Indeed, but that consensus is based on junk science being accepted after years and years of pressure from the anti-smoking establishment, and not on the evidence.

Look at the 64 studies of non-smoking wives who are married to smokers and there is no evidence that this increases your risk of lung cancer:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs/passivesmokinglungcancer.pdf

Of the epidemiological papers that studied the effect of secondhand smoke on nonsmoking wives, 9 found a statistically significant positive association, 3 found a statistically significant negative association and the remaining 52 found no statistically significant association either way.

That is not strong evidence. And these are individuals exposed to SHS being surrounded by second hand smoke day in, day out, 365 days a year for the whole of their married life. So, what's the risk to health to someone who might be exposed to SHS standing at the bus stop for 10 minutes, or even in a pub for a couple of hours twice a week?

However, if you want to discuss the evidence for second hand smoke being a danger to health, I would suggest we start another thread or even resurrect last year's discussion on the topic.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri is not a 'short term' smoker. She's a relatively long time occasional smoker.

Correct. Been smoking since my late 20s, am in my early 40s now. As for amounts, the late, great Bill Hicks would probably take one look at me and say "smoking? you call that smoking?!"

However, on the point about addiction, even if I, or any of the smokers here on this thread, did fall into the definition of someone addicted to tobacco going by the accepted definitions, so naffin' what? If it's not affecting our personal relationships, or our ability to do our jobs, or leading us to steal to feed our habit, then what's the problem? It's already been pointed out that smokers pay huge taxes throughout their smoking lives for any additional cost that they might or might not impose on the health system, so them being a burden to others in that respect is not an argument for banning smoking. Indeed, governments just love that tax revenue, which is why they don't want to make tobacco illegal.

 

[Stray Cat]

Correct. Been smoking since my late 20s, am in my early 40s now. As for amounts, the late, great Bill Hicks would probably take one look at me and say "smoking? you call that smoking?!"

There was me wondering how to answer that question without giving your age away and wording my answer ambiguously enough to get away with it and then you come along and blow the gaff!

I still think it would be funny for you to do another marathon and stop half way round for a cig break though.



I've been smoking since I was 9, becoming a full time smoker in my very early teens and I'm a few years older than Tauri.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I am in England, it is completely illegal to open such a club.

Well, the hospitals banning smokers from employment was also in the USA as per the OP.

 

[Stray Cat]

Well, the hospitals banning smokers from employment was also in the USA as per the OP.

You mean the US were private clubs are increasingly not allowed to chose smoking or non smoking?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0439.htm

Where as I was talking about the UK were the same baseless discrimination against smokers is legal.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Indeed, but that consensus is based on junk science being accepted after years and years of pressure from the anti-smoking establishment, and not on the evidence.

Or based on study by independant organizations.

Look at the 64 studies of non-smoking wives who are married to smokers and there is no evidence that this increases your risk of lung cancer:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/pdfs/passivesmokinglungcancer.pdf

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence
Both of these seem to refute your sources. I admit to lack of the technical knowledge to compare the collected sources to the one you presented.

That is not strong evidence. And these are individuals exposed to SHS being surrounded by second hand smoke day in, day out, 365 days a year for the whole of their married life. So, what's the risk to health to someone who might be exposed to SHS standing at the bus stop for 10 minutes, or even in a pub for a couple of hours twice a week?

Fair enough. I developed my second hand smoke related issues when I was child and exposed to it daily. My lungs have improved with lack of constant exposure. As a teenager sudden second hand exposure was painful and resulted in coughing fits, confirmed by various doctors and never disputed, though now my minor coughing reactions to pollutants in the air have been deemed psychosymatic from years of conditioning. I do not think anyone is disputing less exposure equates to less risk.

However, if you want to discuss the evidence for second hand smoke being a danger to health, I would suggest we start another thread or even resurrect last year's discussion on the topic.

Probably best. While related the validity of scientific consensus to laws is less distracting when explored separately from the law itself.

 

[bigred]

Addiction is classified as a disability

Pls tell us you aren't trying to lump cig or other "junkies" in with people who are blind or missing limbs etc ie "disabled." Who is doing this "classification?"

to discriminate against these people, or set up a system in which they are discriminated against for attempting to stop their addiction, would be something a lawyer would have a field day with.

Yeah, but not in the direction you seem to be implying.

And beyond that, they don't have to hire me, but they don't have to not either. As we see every day here, lying is an effective method to get what one wants, and if they are going to have a system that can be taken advantage of, why even bother making it a policy?

Ah the old "if it's not perfect don't do it" logic. Based on that let's eliminate all laws then, since most if not all can be taken advantage of.

That said, I agree this is a stupid policy and what you do on your own time should be your own business. If the "you cost us more in health care costs" bit is presented, then charge smokers more for their coverage or some such. But refusing to hire such people (or firing them) is stupid in a wide variety of ways and actually not in a company's best interest. Classic corporate short-sightedness (something which is IMO rampant).

Smoking should simply be banned, its that vile an addiction.

Not to sidetrack, but smoking is not necessarily an "addiction."

I can't wait for someone to take this silliness even further and call it a "disease."

If you want to exclude people because of what they choose to do in their spare time, then I wouldn't employ anybody who watches "reality" tv.

:thumbs up: Anyone that stupid I wouldn't want working for me either.

Is suicide considered a crime, or self-endangering psychological abberation where you live? other than legality, what is the difference between a tobacco addict, a caffeine junky and a functional heroin addict?

Pls tell us you're trolling and not really incapable of grasping the rather obvious answer to this question.

Coffee.

The doctors are not few who estimate that caffeine is a more harmful substance than many substances which now are illegal

Yeah right.

Some of you really need to lean on this "slippery slope" argument a bit less, as the more you do, the sillier it gets. Exhibits A and B above.

 

[bigred]

Or based on study by independant organizations.


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Who should I believe, the National Cancer Institute or some guy who wrote a book about non-smoking advocates and apparently tries to equate them to Nazis, championing the chicken little slipper slope thing....that's a toughie

 

[23_Tauri]

There was me wondering how to answer that question without giving your age away and wording my answer ambiguously enough to get away with it and then you come along and blow the gaff!

And who says smokers are inconsiderate?

I still think it would be funny for you to do another marathon and stop half way round for a cig break though.

Funny you should say that, because after running my last marathon in a respectable 4 hrs and 12 minutes, I did contemplate running my next one in aid of raising money for Forest, so that I could wear a pro-smoking T-shirt whilst running the marathon.

 

[23_Tauri]

Or based on study by independant organizations.


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence
Both of these seem to refute your sources. I admit to lack of the technical knowledge to compare the collected sources to the one you presented.

Do they? I don't see the ETS 'factsheet' from the National Cancer Institute citing any of the 64 studies. The citations are to reports by such bodies as the Center for Disease Control. Reports are not the research.

That first page is chock full of the kind of stuff that passes as scare-mongering, because there's no evidence cited there. For example:

At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5, 6). These include the following:

then there's a list of chemicals. Nothing in the way of scientific research that demonstrates that these substances, in the quantities found in SHS, have proven harmful to health. Yes, sure these substances can cause cancer in large enough quantities, but everything is toxic at a high enough dose.

 

[23_Tauri]

Who should I believe, the National Cancer Institute or some guy who wrote a book about non-smoking advocates and apparently tries to equate them to Nazis, championing the chicken little slipper slope thing....that's a toughie

You don't have to believe the author of the book. I linked to that appendix because it lists, in detail, each of the 64 longitudinal studies that have been done looking at correlation between being married to a smoker and lung cancer. That you are prepared to believe the dictats National Cancer Institute without and understanding of the history of anti-smoking lobbying of government and health agencies, and how this has moulded policy, and not look at the evidence, well that's not a very sceptical way of approaching a subject, is it?

 

[gumboot]

And here's the start of the problem for anyone using this as a defense for drinking.
You can smoke in a public place without it having any affect on anyone else also.

So what? You can get utterly hammered without it affecting anyone either. The difference is you can drink without there being any possibility of that causing harm to anyone else. You can't say that for smoking.

But you can smoke without it affecting anyone else under many circumstances.

Potentially, but potentially not.

So remember your justification that you can drink without getting drunk. Sorry but you drinkers can not be trusted to prevent your alcohol consumption from affecting others under any circumstance.

Except they quite clearly can. Millions upon millions upon millions of people do that every single day. I've never seen a smoker who could smoke a cigarette without putting poisonous chemicals in the air.

I don't think that any drug should be illegal. (I don't take any myself BTW and never have done, except tobacco). However, stronger controls would need to be implemented to ensure that people's drug taking had no affect on third parties (ie: driving under the influence etc). And that's 'real' affect, not imagined health issues or 'ooo that smells bad' issues.

It's already illegal to drive under the influence of drugs here.

In England it is illegal for a landlord to serve a drunk person with alcohol. You have to wonder how so many people get stinking drunk and how so few (zero) landlord ever get prosecuted for breaking this law.
And yes, you can be arrested for being drunk in public, but it's only an issue if you are 'kicking off' and the police are around. Otherwise you will not be arrested and drinkers can break the law (and indeed do so in vast numbers in every town and village every weekend).

What's your point?

No it's not, it's hypocrisy.

Why?

And if you are in that public space on your own?
There is no health risk to anyone else from someone smoking if there is no one within 20 feet of them (I would dispute there is any statistically relevant health risk at all within 2 feet in the open air).

That becomes far too difficult to manage. I'm for keeping it simple.

We agree on that then
I an ideal world, people should be hired and fired on ability to do the job. Baseless prejudices shouldn't come into it. But people do have baseless prejudices and whilst some are legislated against (age, race, religion etc), some are endorsed by governments.

Thankfully we live in democracies.

I also know stories of people who beat up their wives because their football team lost. The fact that they go home drunk apparently isn't the problem, it's all about the football.

I think you missed the point. The problem is they're a violent wife-beating a-hole. Alcohol doesn't turn loving gentle husbands into monsters, no matter how much you drink.

 

[gumboot]

Indeed, but that consensus is based on junk science being accepted after years and years of pressure from the anti-smoking establishment, and not on the evidence.

What's the "anti-smoking establishment" and how are they managing to control the opinions of the WHO, the governments of 168 nations, and countless scientific and medical research institutes?

I mean, if what you're saying is true (and to be honest it sounds a little bit like a loopy conspiracy theory) we basically can't trust a single piece of medical knowledge can we? If the WHO and our own governments and the CDC and basically all the world's doctors (and heck, even our COURT SYSTEMS) are all lying to us just because "the anti-smoking establishment" told them to... we're pretty much ****** aren't we? What other "establishments" are out there hamstringing reality?

The "too much sugar is bad for you" establishment? The "the earth is round" establishment?