Smoking

: >: You know, I did quite just the other day but many of you do seem to
: >: think you have the right to tell someone else how to live their lives.
: >
: >Only the religious right does that. Others, like me, are trying to point
out
: >the dangers of cigarette smoking. I guess I hit a nerve with you.
:
: Actually it looks like I am the one who hit the nerve. But I am not
: surprised at all.

You're the one who responded so vehemently, accusing me of things....

: Yada...yada...yada.. Don't you think we have all heard it before?
: Another thing...you do realize that people get emphysema that have
: never smoked? It has been caused from plenty of other things around
: all of us every day but you wouldn't want to admit that.

My sister-in-law now has emphysema because her husband is a life-long
smoker. She never smoked. The doctors told her that his smoking was the
cause of her illness.

:
: I was RIGHT and that is what bothers you. It is up to the person who
: smokes. Don't like it? Then move you ass away from the smoker.

No, you're not right. I have 2 relatives with bladder cancer, 1 with aortic
aneurism, 1 with breast cancer, 1 with a major stroke, and 2 with salivary
gland tumors---all caused by smoking cigarettes. In case you haven't
noticed, you smokers don't have as many rights as you used to have. I wonder
why that is? Because you're "right"? I don't think so.

: >I would be willing to bet that you also believe that Pot will
: >: lead you to use Heroin too. hahahahaha That is another of the
: >: government lies. There are all kinds of stuff that aren't good for the
: >: body and I would be willing to bet that you do or consume some of them
: >: so really none of you have any right to put someone else down for
: >: smoking. And the worse thing in the world is a damn reformed smoker,
: >: kind of like an idiot who has supposedly been saved and all.
: >:
: >: GQ (off soapbox now)
: >
: >I don't believe "pot" will lead to heroin use. You are projecting your
fears
: >on other people. "The right to put someone else down for smoking" is from
: >experience of the dangers of smoking. The "worse thing in the world" is
not
: >a reformed smoker---it's people like you who try to deny deny deny there
is
: >a problem.
: >
: >Pat in TX
: >
: NO, you are the one who has and will continue to project your fears of
: smoke off onto others. The problem in this country are people like you
: who want to control others.

Now be a good little boy and go outside and smoke. Can't do it indoors? Oh,
I wonder why not?

:
: Here is something that bothers me to no end because I believe in the
: Constitution of this country, unlike yourself I am sure.
:
: A restaurant is privately owned and the government has no right to
: make laws telling that owner how to run his restaurant, except of
: course the basic health laws. If you didn't or don't like people
: smoking around you when you eat then go to one that doesn't allow
: smoking instead of making everyone around you miserable. See what I
: mean? Reformed smokers and people such as yourself who believe you
: have the right to take away people's freedoms. Sick...so sick!!!
:
: You will now be able to argue with yourself because I have you on
: ignore with this thread. I will not argue with someone who knows so
: little.

You must be ignoring yourself a lot, then, there in your womb of denial. You
may claim the government "has no right", but the government is the people.
Think about that for a moment before you go to the hospital.

Pat in TX

"Dan"
: My, my. Perhaps a little nicorette...

It reminds me of a toddler screaming because he doesn't get his way all the
time.

Pat in TX

Hi,

G.Q. said:

Thanks for your luck but I really don't need it. I am one of those
people they were discussing in here earlier that can smoke and quit
any time I choose. I might smoke a carton over a two week period and
then not touch them for months on in. I am lucky that way.

Indeed you are. Maybe you don't process nicotine the way most people
do. Perhaps it's due to a receptor mutation or low numbers of
receptors.
I lucked out when I quit at 19. I was evil for two weeks but I think
most people have more trouble quitting than I did. Yeah for being
"special"!

Quoted message said:

I can think much stupider behaviors that humans do and one would be
attacking countries that did nothing to deserve it. :-)

Uh oh, now you've done it. Kevin's gonna sic the Secret Service, the
Pentagon, the FBI and the DSS on yer backside now for your
impertinence missy! Aren't you skeered? <BEG>

Take care,
Carmen

--
Please note change in Reply To address carmensrt <at> gmail <dot> com
Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is
not illegal (disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take
the business risks, pay taxes, license fees, wages, rent,
etc., I should set the rules on whether to allow smoking or
not. If you don't smoke and don't like to be around it, you
have the choice of going to a restaurant that doesn't allow
it. Our health commissioner tried to ban smoking everywhere
in our city, but that got shot down by the state supreme
court because he overstepped his bounds. Then our city
council tried to do the same thing. It went to the voters,
who shot it down by a four to one margin. It isn't anyone's
place to tell a business owner how to run HIS business. And
don't give me that [censored] about the poor employees, who have a
choice to work there or not. Instead of sticking it to the
business owner, get involved in programs that try to get
smokers to quit. Now, with all that being said, I think
smoking stinks and it definitely endangers your health.

Marsha/Ohio (former smoker)

I wouldn't dream of giving you any "[censored]" Marsha, but having worked in
restaurants I can tell you that many of the jobs in the food industry
are employment of last resort for those performing them, and the degree
to which they have much choice in working in the industry is a lot more
limited than it may appear. Does this make these employees less worthy
of consideration? Businesses, restaurants included, must comply with a
range of regulations in order to safeguard and promote the safety and
health of both the public and their employees. Would you say the owner
of a factory should be able to expose his employees to whatever
dangerous chemicals and/or conditions he so desires and finds profitable
simply on the grounds that it's "his business" and the people "don't
have to work there"? Maybe you would, but generally the law and I
believe most people would disagree.

Dan

Marsha said:

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is not illegal
(disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take the business risks, pay
taxes, license fees, wages, rent, etc., I should set the rules on
whether to allow smoking or not. If you don't smoke and don't like to
be around it, you have the choice of going to a restaurant that doesn't
allow it. Our health commissioner tried to ban smoking everywhere in
our city, but that got shot down by the state supreme court because he
overstepped his bounds. Then our city council tried to do the same
thing. It went to the voters, who shot it down by a four to one
margin. It isn't anyone's place to tell a business owner how to run HIS
business. And don't give me that [censored] about the poor employees, who
have a choice to work there or not. Instead of sticking it to the
business owner, get involved in programs that try to get smokers to
quit. Now, with all that being said, I think smoking stinks and it
definitely endangers your health.

Marsha/Ohio (former smoker)

Dan said:

I wouldn't dream of giving you any "[censored]" Marsha,

Well, my post did have a bit more bite then I intended, but
this is a hot topic to me.

but having worked in restaurants I can tell you that many of
the jobs in the food industry

Quoted message said:

are employment of last resort for those performing them, and the degree
to which they have much choice in working in the industry is a lot more
limited than it may appear. Does this make these employees less worthy
of consideration?

I respectfully disagree. If a person feels that strongly
against working in a place that allows smoking, I believe
they always have a choice of selling themselves out either
temporarily or permanently, or finding another way to uphold
your beliefs.

Businesses, restaurants included, must comply with a

Quoted message said:

range of regulations in order to safeguard and promote the safety and
health of both the public and their employees. Would you say the owner
of a factory should be able to expose his employees to whatever
dangerous chemicals and/or conditions he so desires and finds profitable
simply on the grounds that it's "his business" and the people "don't
have to work there"? Maybe you would, but generally the law and I
believe most people would disagree.

Dan

As lousy as it sounds, the business owner is still the one
putting out the money and taking the risks. After council
tried to pass their law here, a lot of businesses closed
within months because of loss of revenue, which put their
employees out of jobs. A no-win situation. Rules and
regulations have changed over the years, and I expect
smoking in any place except your own home will eventually be
banned at some point in the future. I do want you to know
that I believe getting involved in programs that try to get
people to quit smoking is the way to go.

Marsha/Ohio

Marsha said:

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is
not illegal (disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take
the business risks, pay taxes, license fees, wages, rent,
etc., I should set the rules on whether to allow smoking or
not.

it's illegal to smoke in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc. in
california.

thank dog.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marsha said:

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is
not illegal (disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take
the business risks, pay taxes, license fees, wages, rent,
etc., I should set the rules on whether to allow smoking or
not.

Quoted message said:

And
don't give me that [censored] about the poor employees, who have a
choice to work there or not.

Yeah, really! And while we're at it, if it's my business, I shouldn't have
to clean anything either. It shouldn't be illegal to have a filthy, dirty
employee bathroom with overflowing toilets, and if my employees don't like
it, they can work somewhere else or just hold it until they get home. And
I can save a lot of money if I never turn on the heat or the lights, they
can just wear coats and bring flashlights.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.Q. said:

For the people who want to control everyone else and tell them what
and when they can do anything, here is something you are bound to
love. It is called FASCISM!!!!

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its
employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke
cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be
fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or
at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the
higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits --
estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the
policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking
before the policy went into effect.

Good for them. If the company, which is made up of individuals by the way,
is FORCED by law to pay health insurance, then they should get a say in
which people they want to insure.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.Q. said:

For the people who want to control everyone else and tell them what
and when they can do anything, here is something you are bound to
love. It is called FASCISM!!!!

It has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a form of government, this
is a _company_ imposing a policy, not the government. In a free society,
companies have the right to choose who they hire. The gas station up the
street wouldn't hire me when my hair was pink, is that fascism too? lol

Quoted message said:

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its
employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke
cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be
fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or
at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the
higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits --
estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the
policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking
before the policy went into effect.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

The Queen of Cans and Jars said:

Marsha said:

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is
not illegal (disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take
the business risks, pay taxes, license fees, wages, rent,
etc., I should set the rules on whether to allow smoking or
not.

it's illegal to smoke in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc. in
california.

thank dog.

Heh. That worked because it was state-wide. I don't agree
with it, though.

Marsha/Ohio

Luna said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.Q. said:

For the people who want to control everyone else and tell them what
and when they can do anything, here is something you are bound to
love. It is called FASCISM!!!!

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its
employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke
cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be
fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or
at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the
higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits --
estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the
policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking
before the policy went into effect.

Good for them. If the company, which is made up of individuals by the way,
is FORCED by law to pay health insurance, then they should get a say in
which people they want to insure.

Should they also fire employees who engage in anything on
their own time that is considered dangerous to their health
like speeding, eating junk food, driving an old beat up car
in need of repairs, drinking a bit too much, and any number
of other things?

Marsha/Ohio

Luna said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marsha said:

Dan said:

I don't recall smoking ever being mentioned as an inalienable right in
the constitution, bill of rights or elsewhere, but as the old saying
goes, your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

Sorry for butting in on this conversation, but smoking is
not illegal (disgusting yes). If I own a restaurant, take
the business risks, pay taxes, license fees, wages, rent,
etc., I should set the rules on whether to allow smoking or
not.

Quoted message said:

And
don't give me that [censored] about the poor employees, who have a
choice to work there or not.

Yeah, really! And while we're at it, if it's my business, I shouldn't have
to clean anything either. It shouldn't be illegal to have a filthy, dirty
employee bathroom with overflowing toilets, and if my employees don't like
it, they can work somewhere else or just hold it until they get home. And
I can save a lot of money if I never turn on the heat or the lights, they
can just wear coats and bring flashlights.

I don't think a business owner who does any of that would
get any business, let alone any employees. OSHA would take
care of it anyway.

Marsha/Ohio

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marsha said:

Luna said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.Q. said:

For the people who want to control everyone else and tell them what
and when they can do anything, here is something you are bound to
love. It is called FASCISM!!!!

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its
employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke
cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be
fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or
at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the
higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits --
estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the
policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking
before the policy went into effect.

Good for them. If the company, which is made up of individuals by the way,
is FORCED by law to pay health insurance, then they should get a say in
which people they want to insure.

Should they also fire employees who engage in anything on
their own time that is considered dangerous to their health
like speeding, eating junk food, driving an old beat up car
in need of repairs, drinking a bit too much, and any number
of other things?

Marsha/Ohio

Sure, why not? And, if they place too many restrictions, they'll have to
pay so much money for salaries to lure people to work there, that they
won't be able to make a profit anyway.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.