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.
[quote=stillkit;22307855]Should those who suffer from AIDS, alcoholism or any other chronic disease be barred from suffering from their disease in restaurants, bars, hotels, parks and other public places? Can't a public health concerns be used to keep them out from amongst the healthy?
unds like a silly question, doesn't it? Who would want government to tell someone with a chronic disease that he's not welcome to eat out, enjoy a movie or go to the park so long as he's exhibiting symptoms of his disease? He can stay home and do his suffering there.
But, it happens every day to those who suffer from another debilitating disease and nobody seems to care too much about it: Tobacco dependence.
The American Medical Association, the World Health Association, the National Institute of Health and the Congress of the United States all consider tobacco dependence to be a chronic disease. It meets UNQUOTE
It is a good question that encourage awareness and responsibility. Doctors and patients have to speak the facts that if being in the public can increase health risk for patient or/and public then patient should be ordered to stay home. Illness concern should include infectious such as cold flu, infected eyes, chicken pox, etc.
My guess would be if you applied for a job and walked in smelling like the perfume department, you wouldn't get it in the first place. They wouldn't tell you, but you'd be roundfiled.
I have asked people with a lot of perfume to not wear it and generally they do. A small odor is smoke, however, is going to drive me out of the room. I have an extremely bad sense of smell, but my mind remembers the smell.
My guess is that businesses who agressively refuse smokers have tried it the other way and the smokers found places to sneak a few anyway.
The city busses where I used to live used compressed natural gas and didn't stink up the air at all.
One way involves smelling like cigarettes and the other ways don't. To be clear, I only said I would support a private company's policy to ban off-the-job smoking if their clientele consisted of people with sensitive smell due to medical conditions they might have. I'm not saying off-the-job smoking should be banned altogether.
I understand your point that it's not fair to regulate if and how a person takes in nicotine off-the-job. I agree. Your tactic of comparing it to people with chronic illnesses and disabled people is a weak one, though.
Question is, how you define those people. I find it highly offensive, and I can barely smell most things. But growing up around smokers, with severe ashma as a result, and other longer lasting problems, clothes smelling of smoke bother me considerably. If I walked into my kids classroom and the teacher was reeking of smoke, I'd consider it a problem.
If people are expected to show up in clean clothes and having showered, what is wrong with expecting them to show up NOT stinking of smoke? Even back when I was working, showing up drowned in aftershave or prefume would get a request to use a lot less. I'm pretty sure one coworker who loved perfume was trying to cover up the smoke stink.
Respect for the comfort of not only customers but fellow workers is part of respect. A smoker is not exempt from providing this.
Actually, alcoholism is a disease and most people accept that now.
And, it's not me saying tobacco dependence is a disease. It's the WHO, the AMA, the NIH and the Congress. You may discredit their findings, but it won't change them. You may claim that's a "sneaky attempt" on my part to reframe the debate, but I'm only reporting their findings and suggesting that because of their findings, the debate HAS been reframed.
Apparently, not many anti's agree with that assessment and that's fine. Time will change opinions on the matter, just as it has with alcoholism as a disease. And, when the public's perceptions are changed, the restrictions on smoking and the outright discrimination against those with tobacco dependence disease will be re-examined too.
It's early in the process, so let's see whether or not I'm right over time.
Yes, but if I am an employer and I hire someone who's an alcholic its my understanding that as he/she has an addiction if they wish to stay employed with me they DO NOT DRINK. If I offer those who do help and they still drink, and I can fire them. If a smoker has a dependence or addiction, shouldn't the rules be the same given that if they're smoking they'll still bring in smoke on breath and clothes. Just as I can allow someone who is addicted to other drugs to stay so long as they quit them.
The company/employer is looking at the comfort of all employees, and not just the addict.
Actually, alcoholism is a disease and most people accept that now.
All right. So then, name one company that hires people, knowing they are alcoholics. Name one company that would even hire someone that knowingly drinks excessively off-the-job.
Not only do I know places that will outright not hire you on the basis of being an alcoholic, but even if you get drunk in the context of partying and they find photos of you on Facebook or some other similar evidence, that's considered grounds for firing someone.
Quote:
And, it's not me saying tobacco dependence is a disease. It's the WHO, the AMA, the NIH and the Congress. You may discredit their findings, but it won't change them. You may claim that's a "sneaky attempt" on my part to reframe the debate, but I'm only reporting their findings and suggesting that because of their findings, the debate HAS been reframed.
Apparently, not many anti's agree with that assessment and that's fine. Time will change opinions on the matter, just as it has with alcoholism as a disease. And, when the public's perceptions are changed, the restrictions on smoking and the outright discrimination against those with tobacco dependence disease will be re-examined too.
It's early in the process, so let's see whether or not I'm right over time.
All right, so it's the WHO, AMA, NIH, and Congress that have decided to name nicotine addiction a chronic illness. But are they using the label as an attempt to criminalize discrimination against smokers in the hiring process? Or is that a tactic that you personally came up with, consciously or subconsciously, for the purpose of this thread? When the WHO, AMA, NIH, and Congress decided to label smoking "nicotine dependence," was it with the intention of creating programs to help them quit smoking, or was it with the intention of protecting them under the ADA? Who was it that made an analogy between smokers and disabled people?
Yes, but if I am an employer and I hire someone who's an alcholic its my understanding that as he/she has an addiction if they wish to stay employed with me they DO NOT DRINK. If I offer those who do help and they still drink, and I can fire them. If a smoker has a dependence or addiction, shouldn't the rules be the same given that if they're smoking they'll still bring in smoke on breath and clothes. Just as I can allow someone who is addicted to other drugs to stay so long as they quit them.
The company/employer is looking at the comfort of all employees, and not just the addict.
How will you know they are alcoholics unless you ask them, which you legally cannot do? You may test for the presence of alcohol in your pre-employment screening, but just the presence of alcohol in someone's blood (or the presence of other post-digestion markers in the urine) is not proof of alcoholism. It's just proof that they've used some alcohol within the past few days. Would you refuse to hire someone who has evidence of alcohol in their system without knowing whether or not they are raging alcoholics? If not, why would you do the same to the person who smokes at home and does not let in interfere on the job?
As for someone who smells of tobacco on their clothes? Is that a health hazard to other workers and, if so, does it warrant dismissal? If not a legitimate, threatening health hazard, it's just an obnoxious smell problem and, if you fired him for that, wouldn't you then have to justify NOT firing everyone wearing a cologne or perfume which someone else found offensive, or firing the guy who just came from the gym? I don't think that would be a very good way to retain good employees, do you?
The point is that we all have to tolerate some things in the work environment. It only remains to be seen what we'll tolerate and why. Since tobacco is now the issue du jour, there isn't as much tolerance for them as there is for other smells and, if you fall among the intolerant, you should ask yourself why you're not willing to be as tolerant with smokers.
All right. So then, name one company that hires people, knowing they are alcoholics. Name one company that would even hire someone that knowingly drinks excessively off-the-job.
Not only do I know places that will outright not hire you on the basis of being an alcoholic, but even if you get drunk in the context of partying and they find photos of you on Facebook or some other similar evidence, that's considered grounds for firing someone.
I've worked around a lot of alcoholics. So has anyone who has spent any time in the work force.
Yes, an alcoholic can be fired for being drunk on the job, but barring that, what's his crime? His disease?
Quote:
All right, so it's the WHO, AMA, NIH, and Congress that have decided to name nicotine addiction a chronic illness. But are they using the label as an attempt to criminalize discrimination against smokers in the hiring process? Or is that a tactic that you personally came up with, consciously or subconsciously, for the purpose of this thread? When the WHO, AMA, NIH, and Congress decided to label smoking "nicotine dependence," was it with the intention of creating programs to help them quit smoking, or was it with the intention of protecting them under the ADA? Who was it that made an analogy between smokers and disabled people?
So far as I know, they're doing nothing along those lines yet.
I'm just asking the question whether or not we should bar sufferer's of chronic diseases from public places, such as the work environment. In light of their findings, I think it's a legitimate question to ask. You may call it a "tactic," which implies that I'm being dishonest, but it's still a question which will probably, at some point, be determined by a court.
Question is, how you define those people. I find it highly offensive, and I can barely smell most things. But growing up around smokers, with severe ashma as a result, and other longer lasting problems, clothes smelling of smoke bother me considerably. If I walked into my kids classroom and the teacher was reeking of smoke, I'd consider it a problem.
If people are expected to show up in clean clothes and having showered, what is wrong with expecting them to show up NOT stinking of smoke? Even back when I was working, showing up drowned in aftershave or prefume would get a request to use a lot less. I'm pretty sure one coworker who loved perfume was trying to cover up the smoke stink.
Respect for the comfort of not only customers but fellow workers is part of respect. A smoker is not exempt from providing this.
Exactly. I'm blind and go to a school for the deaf, and used to be deaf-blind. As a result, I use tactile sign language interpreters. This requires a close level of proximity. We have to be sitting close enough for me to place their hands on theirs.
Some of my interpreters smoke, and while it does bother me a little, they are polite enough to go outside and smoke. I don't complain about it. They don't smell like an ash tray because they are careful to smoke outside and not smoke too much during the day, when they know they will be in forced close proximity with many deaf-blind people. They also chew gum or use mints to mitigate their smoky breath. I extend the same courtesy by chewing gum or having a mint so they don't have to smell my bad breath, and I make sure not to wear too much cologne or perfume either. They also take off any rings or jewelry to facilitate tactile signing.
All of these are about common courtesy. It has nothing to do with discriminating against smokers or people who wear perfume or who wear rings. It has everything to do with day-to-day politeness. If I smoked, I would extend the same courtesy. If I wore rings, I would extend the same courtesy. And I do wear deodorant and sometimes some oils, but I make sure not to overdo it.
There have been a few times where I had an interpreter who smelled very strongly of smoke or perfume, or who wore a really big ring on their hand. In extreme cases, when I really couldn't focus on or understand what they were saying, I asked politely if they could wear less/take off their ring. They were happy to accommodate me. It's just out of common courtesy.
Trying to label smoking as a chronic illness or disability is an attempt to let smokers off the hook from the same everyday standards of common courtesy that everyone is held up to. Chances are, if you have a pungent smell--any kind of smell, not just cigarette smoke--people will be less willing to hire you or hang around you. It is only polite not to smell strongly of something for the people around you.
What's next--perfume addiction and aversion to showering will be considered "chronic illnesses" so that those people don't face "discrimination" in the workplace? What happened to common courtesy? Why can't you just not do something you know inconveniences others instead of trying to label your habit a disease?
Exactly. I'm blind and go to a school for the deaf, and used to be deaf-blind. As a result, I use tactile sign language interpreters. This requires a close level of proximity. We have to be sitting close enough for me to place their hands on theirs.
Some of my interpreters smoke, and while it does bother me a little, they are polite enough to go outside and smoke. I don't complain about it. They don't smell like an ash tray because they are careful to smoke outside and not smoke too much during the day, when they know they will be in forced close proximity with many deaf-blind people. They also chew gum or use mints to mitigate their smoky breath. I extend the same courtesy by chewing gum or having a mint so they don't have to smell my bad breath, and I make sure not to wear too much cologne or perfume either. They also take off any rings or jewelry to facilitate tactile signing.
All of these are about common courtesy. It has nothing to do with discriminating against smokers or people who wear perfume or who wear rings. It has everything to do with day-to-day politeness. If I smoked, I would extend the same courtesy. If I wore rings, I would extend the same courtesy. And I do wear deodorant and sometimes some oils, but I make sure not to overdo it.
There have been a few times where I had an interpreter who smelled very strongly of smoke or perfume, or who wore a really big ring on their hand. In extreme cases, when I really couldn't focus on or understand what they were saying, I asked politely if they could wear less/take off their ring. They were happy to accommodate me. It's just out of common courtesy.
Trying to label smoking as a chronic illness or disability is an attempt to let smokers off the hook from the same everyday standards of common courtesy that everyone is held up to. Chances are, if you have a pungent smell--any kind of smell, not just cigarette smoke--people will be less willing to hire you or hang around you. It is only polite not to smell strongly of something for the people around you.
What's next--perfume addiction and aversion to showering will be considered "chronic illnesses" so that those people don't face "discrimination" in the workplace? What happened to common courtesy? Why can't you just not do something you know inconveniences others instead of trying to label your habit a disease?
Nobody is TRYING to label smoking as a chronic disease. They HAVE labeled it as such and that's the new reality of it. A lot of people won't like that, just as they first resisted the designation of alcoholism as a disease, but that didn't stop it from becoming widely accepted first in the medical field and then by the courts, did it?
Tobacco dependence as a chronic disease will find legal acceptance too and that will change the dynamics of the debate, whether anybody likes that or not.
I've worked around a lot of alcoholics. So has anyone who has spent any time in the work force.
Yes, an alcoholic can be fired for being drunk on the job, but barring that, what's his crime? His disease?
Exactly. The alcoholic employee doesn't have to be committing a crime for people to decide not to hire or to fire them.
Same goes for smokers. It's not a crime either, but a lot of people don't want to hire a smoker, just like they don't want to hire an alcoholic.
ETA: I don't know what field you work in, but I started in the workforce in 2003 and had several jobs and have never come across someone who was knowingly an alcoholic. My parents sell alcohol for a living and even they don't hire someone they know has a drinking problem, and they fire anyone they find out does.
Quote:
I'm just asking the question whether or not we should bar sufferer's of chronic diseases from public places, such as the work environment. In light of their findings, I think it's a legitimate question to ask. You may call it a "tactic," which implies that I'm being dishonest, but it's still a question which will probably, at some point, be determined by a court.
In any case, why not have this conversation?
How are smokers being discriminated against in any way related to barring people with chronic illnesses from the workplace? Even if smoking has been renamed and rebranded a "chronic illness", once you look past the terminology, it still remains a choice. Quitting smoking rids you completely of this "chronic illness". People with actual chronic illnesses and disabilities don't have the choice, and more often or not, there is no perfect cure. There might be treatments and aids available that mitigate the illness or disability, but the person will always have the chronic illness/disability.
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.
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.
Q
