U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2009, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Wyoming
9,164 posts, read 16,510,896 times
Reputation: 13349

Advertisements

I'm very disappointed to learn that Tennessee is taking this step, and equally disappointed that so many CDers seem okay with it. I don't smoke, but it's none of my business if others do. For decades group insurance plans have covered all employees at the same rate. If they start charging extra to smokers, when do they start charging extra for women, for older people, for those with a history of health problems? That has always been the big advantage of group plans.

I don't have insurance. I'm self-employed and am basically uninsurable due to health issues in the past. If Tennessee takes this step with smokers, the logical next step will be to do away with the group plans entirely and just let everyone get their own insurance -- and those like me will be without insurance or paying $2500/month for limited coverage.

Government institutions should set the example for private businesses, and I don't like the example they're setting in Tennessee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2009, 10:32 PM
 
14 posts, read 20,910 times
Reputation: 49
Every bit of the anti-smoking campaign was started 30 years ago by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit that just happens to control (own) most of Johnson & Johnson. Guess what they sell? All of the smoking cessation products are made by them. Tobacco is the competition. It is a brillian marketing strategy, I'll give them that. But at what cost? Business owners are losing constitutionally protected private property rights in the name of public health. Every one of the studies done on second hand smoke has been completely fabricated, paid for. The EPA report has been ruled null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court. That fact has not been reported by the mainstream media. People don't like smoke, don't go. Let the public decide the fate of a private business with their dollars, not the government. All laws concerning the personal habits of adults should be banned! RWJF's Agenda page also tells how they are going after alcohol and obesity also. Why would anyone want nicotine gum and patches if they want to quit nicotine in the first place? Big pharma doesn't want you to, they just want you to use their form of it! For the truth, a must see website can be found at forces.org. You won't believe the lies told for corporate greed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 10:02 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
I'm a smoker and I think this is reasonable.

If anyone wishes to overlook my posts, you can clearly see that I oppose tobacco tax increases and smoking bans, so I am not lying or self-hating.

However, smoking is unhealthy and smokers do use more healthcare than non-smokers. I think it is fair that smokers pay for the increased cost of their healthcare. Also, I think that goes for ANY activity that leads to the chance of using more healthcare: obese, extreme sports, drinking, driving SUVs, etc.

That being said, since smokers die a few years earlier, they should pay less in Social Security and Medicare, since they will use less of that on average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 10:15 AM
 
985 posts, read 2,300,348 times
Reputation: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
I'm a smoker and I think this is reasonable.

If anyone wishes to overlook my posts, you can clearly see that I oppose tobacco tax increases and smoking bans, so I am not lying or self-hating.

However, smoking is unhealthy and smokers do use more healthcare than non-smokers. I think it is fair that smokers pay for the increased cost of their healthcare. Also, I think that goes for ANY activity that leads to the chance of using more healthcare: obese, extreme sports, drinking, driving SUVs, etc.

That being said, since smokers die a few years earlier, they should pay less in Social Security and Medicare, since they will use less of that on average.
I'm against smoking bans in certain places like restaurants, theaters, etc. But what about the workplace? Another employee can't just leave if they don't like the smoking. What about people who are allergic or have respiratory problems? Do you not care if your coworker ends up in the hospital because you just had to get your fix right then and there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 10:15 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by marleneb View Post
Every bit of the anti-smoking campaign was started 30 years ago by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a non-profit that just happens to control (own) most of Johnson & Johnson. Guess what they sell? All of the smoking cessation products are made by them. Tobacco is the competition. It is a brillian marketing strategy, I'll give them that. But at what cost? Business owners are losing constitutionally protected private property rights in the name of public health. Every one of the studies done on second hand smoke has been completely fabricated, paid for. The EPA report has been ruled null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court. That fact has not been reported by the mainstream media. People don't like smoke, don't go. Let the public decide the fate of a private business with their dollars, not the government. All laws concerning the personal habits of adults should be banned! RWJF's Agenda page also tells how they are going after alcohol and obesity also. Why would anyone want nicotine gum and patches if they want to quit nicotine in the first place? Big pharma doesn't want you to, they just want you to use their form of it! For the truth, a must see website can be found at forces.org. You won't believe the lies told for corporate greed!
It was a Federal court, not the Supreme Court that threw out the EPA secondhand smoke meta-analysis. Although that was later overturned because a higher court stated the judge did not have the authority to do so, not because the judge was wrong on how badly the study was conducted.

I agree with most of what you said, although you are obviously emotionally invested in the issue and have a few (mostly minor) factual errors. I agree that we are in a period of a new form of puritanism and that smokers are the current main boogymen.

However, I do think it is fair to pay for extra healthcare you may receive. Just like I believe that if you are obese enough or tall enough to take up two seats on a plane, you should pay for it. I have no personal issues with the obese (other than not wishing to see them nude) or the very tall, but if you use it, you should pay for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 10:26 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye02 View Post
I'm against smoking bans in certain places like restaurants, theaters, etc. But what about the workplace? Another employee can't just leave if they don't like the smoking. What about people who are allergic or have respiratory problems? Do you not care if your coworker ends up in the hospital because you just had to get your fix right then and there?
Does that extend to fumes from cooking, perfumes, incense, and countless other things that aggravate respiratory illnesses?

What about peanuts? I've known people so allergic to peanuts that they will almost certainly die if they are exposed to anything involving peanuts. Their immune system will kick into overdrive and they swell up like a pufferfish while their own windpipe strangles them. Keep in mind that rules out working in many agricultural jobs and hospitality work.

Or a better way to handle it is treating secondhand smoke just like other indoor pollutants, have it follow occupational heath and safety regulations. If the compounds (carbon monoxide, particulates, etc.) in secondhand smoke are at the acceptable level, then there is no problem. It is a lot more rational and sensible than acting like smoke becomes magical when it comes from a cigarette.

Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 05-06-2009 at 11:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
657 posts, read 1,381,006 times
Reputation: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
It is a lot more rational and sensible than acting like smoke becomes magical when it comes from a cigarette.

It does! Can't say i get quite the same buzz from waking up and standing over a wood fireplace before i leave for work
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:12 AM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,141,913 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by J double R View Post
It does! Can't say i get quite the same buzz from waking up and standing over a wood fireplace before i leave for work
It's not the nicotine that smoking bans are aimed at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:25 AM
 
985 posts, read 2,300,348 times
Reputation: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
Does that extend to fumes from cooking, perfumes, incense, and countless other things that aggravate respiratory illnesses?

What about peanuts? I've known people so allergic to peanuts that they will almost certainly die if they are exposed to anything involving peanuts. Their immune system will kick into overdrive and they swell up like a pufferfish while their own windpipe strangles them. Keep in mind that rules out working in many agricultural jobs and hospitality work.

Or a better way to handle it is treating secondhand smoke just like other indoor pollutants, have it follow occupational heath and safety regulations. If the compounds (****** monoxide, particulates, etc.) in secondhand smoke are at the acceptable level, then there is no problem. It is a lot more rational and sensible than acting like smoke becomes magical when it comes from a cigarette.
Who cooks during work? Break time/lunch time, maybe, but another employee who doesn't like it can just leave during that time. You (and every other smoker) could smoke during non break time if the smoking ban was lifted, and another employee could not get away from it. I've never known of anyone who would burn incense during work. Most workplaces I know of frown on it, and most people are considerate enough not to do it. You have to have contact with something that contains peanuts, which one can be avoided, it can't really be compared to cigarette smoke that travels through the air. As for perfumes, I would be fine with banning it from the workplace. I have a friend who has respiratory problems and a woman at work wore perfume that was making her sick. She talked to the woman who wore it and the woman apologized and stopped wearing it. Would you be considerate enough to stop smoking if it was making someone sick? Or do you think your comfort is the only thing that matters? In some ideal world nothing we do would negatively effect other people, but we do not live in an ideal world. We have to be considerate of other people. Your smoking in the workplace can negatively effect the health of your coworkers, however, you not being able to smoke in the workplace is not going negatively effect your health. Sorry, but I am not convinced that multiple people smoking, through out the day, in an enclosed space is not going to effect peoples health. You have every right to risk your health, but don't force everyone else to. Btw, what exactly is the "acceptable level" and who decides? And, how do you gauge that when multiple people are smoking? P.S.- I'm talking about office type jobs here. Obviously someone who is sensitive to incense isn't going to get a job in a incense shop just like someone who is allergic to peanuts isn't going to work in a peanut factory
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:27 AM
 
985 posts, read 2,300,348 times
Reputation: 722
Uh, I tried to break that up to make it easier to read but it posted is one long paragraph and I can't fix it, sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top