OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places

On 2006-03-20, Fat Freddy penned:
"Those who smoke out of doors are hurting only themselves, and so
far, that's still their right."

Then why do not heroin, cocaine, or meth addicts have that same
right? Tobacco users should be subject to the same regulations and
controls as users of other deadly addictive drugs.

I would take the same question and come to an opposite conclusion.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2006-03-20, CatNipped penned:

Researchers have found that it doesn't matter how much you smoke
(except that it increases your chances), it only takes one time for
the chemicals in smoke or second-hand smoke to mutate a gene that
causes lung cancer.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/communications/news/pr_09.html

That being the case, even a whiff of smoke could be deadly.


If that's true, we've all already rolled the dice. We just won't know
what numbers we got until later in life.

I can't imagine a ban on all smoking being even remotely enforcable.
I mean, *no one* smokes pot anymore, right?

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2006-03-20, wrote:
wrote:

Another aspect that I find peculiar are the employers who forbid
employees to smoke, period. Even away from work. I mean, what's next?
Forbidding employees to eat Krispy Kremes? That's not healthy either,
no?

Exactly! Who are we to dictate health codes to other people? And worse,
to make it an issue of moral character?

If there really are employers who forbid an employee to smoke even when
off work, I'm surprised nobody has brought a lawsuit against them. That
can't be constitutional (in the US - can't speak for other places).

An employer can hire just about whomever he pleases. If he
wants only nonsmokers he has the power to do so. Laws prevent
unfair discrimination on the basis of race or sex and some
other things, but smoking isn't one of them.

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

On 2006-03-20, William Hamblen penned:

An employer can hire just about whomever he pleases. If he wants
only nonsmokers he has the power to do so. Laws prevent unfair
discrimination on the basis of race or sex and some other things,
but smoking isn't one of them.

According to my husband, who recently took management classes, it's
also legal to decree that no men may wear beards. I assume that this
would be legal unless it were attempted on a person who had to wear a
beard for religious reasons.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

wrote:


Another aspect that I find peculiar are the employers who forbid
employees to smoke, period. Even away from work.

That part would be a bit difficult to enforce, IMO! I think
nearly everyone who works in a smoke-free environment
appreciates it (even the smokers, who don't really seem to
mind "taking their butts outside"). I personally would have
no objection to a smoke-free apartment building, and usually
request a non-smoking hotel room when I travel. However,
trying to regulate an employee's home life is just a bit too
fascistic for me! Even though I don't smoke, I figure what
I do in my spare time is no concern of my employer, so long
as it doesn't affect my work.

wrote:


I wish I could remember the name of the corporation--it was on the news
a couple years ago and I remember the story distinctly because I was
pretty horrified. Employees had to have their blood tested for
nicotine, and were given a three-strikes-and-you're-out ultimatum.
Of course there was all the propoganda about wanting employees to be
healthier and it was "for their own good." They were given all kinds of
help to stop. But still, it creeped me out.
My FIL, who was at Pearl Harbor, talks about how the Red Cross would
ship cigarettes to the GI's. That's mind-boggling, too. :-)

You'd find it less so if you put it in historical context!
The studies involving the health effects of smoking were
still a long, long way in the future, at that point - no one
looked upon smoking as harmful, so cigarettes were just one
of the "comforts of home" that GI's missed and couldn't
always get. Haven't you watched any of the old movies on
Turner Movie Classics? Nearly everyone in them smokes, the
first thing most of the characters do after a stressful
moment, or just sitting down to relax, is to light up a
cigarette! That's pretty much the way it was, then - if
people stopped smoking, it was mostly to save money (even
though cigarettes cost less than $2 a carton, back then).

Fat Freddy wrote:

"Those who smoke out of doors are hurting only themselves, and so far,
that's still their right."

Then why do not heroin, cocaine, or meth addicts have that same right?

Perhaps because their "drug of choice" impairs judgement?
Aside from the issue of "second-hand" smoke, tobbacco
doesn't cause the user to put the lives of others at risk!
(On the other hand, "driving under the influence.....")

---MIKE--- wrote:

The only reason smoking is not illegal in the US is because of a very
strong tobacco lobby. At the Bretton Woods ski area, smoking is not
allowed inside the lodge. At the Whales Tale Water Park (in the summer)
smoking is only allowed in a designated area that is far removed from
the water attractions and not allowed in any buildings.

I don't think you can blame it on the "tobbacco lobby" - it
has a great deal more to do with how individual people
regard smoking. (And there is no such thing as a tobbacco
lobby in Europe, where smoking in public is still perfectly
legal, almost everywhere.)

Much as I dislike it, personally, I don't think it should be
ENTIRELY outlawed (we tried that with alcohol in the 1920's,
remember - with what effect?). Regulation, by all means, so
that people who dislike it are not forced to breath
second-hand smoke, but if you "outlaw" something that a
large number of people regard as their right, you only give
organized crime another means to make a profit.

On 2006-03-20, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:

William Hamblen wrote:

An employer can hire just about whomever he pleases. If he wants
only nonsmokers he has the power to do so. Laws prevent unfair
discrimination on the basis of race or sex and some other things,
but smoking isn't one of them.

However, invading an employee's personal life IS! (Although with
our current president it becomes less so.) An employer has a right
to impose a "no smoking" rule on his premises, and perhaps to hire
only non-smokers. However, he has no right to "police" their homes
to insure they comply outside of working hours!

What about drug tests? (Which I also don't approve of, but many
companies do it.)

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

wrote in message
oups.com...

I wish I could remember the name of the corporation--it was on the news
a couple years ago and I remember the story distinctly because I was
pretty horrified. Employees had to have their blood tested for
nicotine, and were given a three-strikes-and-you're-out ultimatum.
Of course there was all the propoganda about wanting employees to be
healthier and it was "for their own good." They were given all kinds of
help to stop. But still, it creeped me out.
My FIL, who was at Pearl Harbor, talks about how the Red Cross would
ship cigarettes to the GI's. That's mind-boggling, too. :-)



If you've ever seen early (black and white) Television programs from the
fifties, Cigarettes were often touted as being healthy for you. They
cleared your throat, helped you de-stress after a long day, etc. I used to
find it funny, but am now horrified how people were propagandized into
smoking. Back in WWII, testing was just started on the effects of smoking.
It was about that time that marijuana was made illegal, and LSD was thought
to be a safe pastime. Do you know that cocaine was only made illegal in the
30s, if I recall correctly. It was still used for medical purposes in the
mid-70s. I was given some when I had a bunch of broken facial bones put
back into place. There's a wholeeeeee story about that.

Pam S. remembering