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.
Whenever I'm visiting the Assisted Living facility, there's always a bunch of the staff (mostly women) outside smoking. I'm somewhat appalled that, if anyone out there should know better, it would be these people. I have to wonder why smoking is so prevelant in these environments?
When I worked as a manager in a housekeeping department at a large resort in the Branson area fully 100 percent of the non-management personnel smoked. In my opinion, smoking is usually associated with a lower class of person. Of course, this is not always true - the GM of the resort smoked (although, I strongly suspected that he was low class that "made good").
Anyway, you will find that the more intelligent, capable, worldly, and sophisticated a person is, the less likely they are to smoke (in this country, not elsewhere). My guess the ladies that you saw out front were nurses aids which (in Missouri), does not require any specialized training and tends to appeal to a lower class of person as a job option. (just sayin')
I realize I am making generalizations here and certainly, there are exceptions to the rule, but my personal experience has shown this to be mostly true.
When I worked as a manager in a housekeeping department at a large resort in the Branson area fully 100 percent of the non-management personnel smoked. In my opinion, smoking is usually associated with a lower class of person. Of course, this is not always true - the GM of the resort smoked (although, I strongly suspected that he was low class that "made good").
Anyway, you will find that the more intelligent, capable, worldly, and sophisticated a person is, the less likely they are to smoke (in this country, not elsewhere). My guess the ladies that you saw out front were nurses aids which (in Missouri), does not require any specialized training and tends to appeal to a lower class of person as a job option. (just sayin')
I realize I am making generalizations here and certainly, there are exceptions to the rule, but my personal experience has shown this to be mostly true.
20yrsinBranson
Oh, crap! Here we go again!
Smokers are just uninformed low-lifes who can't POSSIBLY be as smart as we well educated elites who certainly know better than to smoke.
Whenever I'm visiting the Assisted Living facility, there's always a bunch of the staff (mostly women) outside smoking. I'm somewhat appalled that, if anyone out there should know better, it would be these people. I have to wonder why smoking is so prevelant in these environments?
If you're a consumer of any alcoholic beverage then obviously you would know better to do so whilst keeping well away form those who DON'T drink...for fear of your second hand alcoholic breath increasing the risk of liver damage to others, I could be somewhat appalled if you didn't, IF I was a non drinker. Non drinkers don't want to put up with anothers stinking alcoholic breath I would imagine.
If you consider this to be a ridiculous comment, you'd be right, but no less ridiculous than those who whine about second hand cigarette smoke, and I may not be too enthusiastic about inhaling someone elses second hand carbon dioxide which interferes with my inhalation of air either...but we all do...amidst all else we inhale.
Smokers are just uninformed low-lifes who can't POSSIBLY be as smart as we well educated elites who certainly know better than to smoke.
The hubris just drips from this post, doesn't it?
Hubris or not its the truth....
Every study ever done on the subject has always shown higher smoking rates in lower socioeconomic groups and less educated people.
You may not like it, but its an undeniable fact.
"According to the study, the people hardest hit by the tobacco epidemic are those among vulnerable populations, including people with lower levels of educational attainment. In 2008, 41.3 percent of persons with a General Education Development certificate smoked cigarettes, compared to 5.7 percent of persons with a graduate degree."
Also, it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire smokers.
You can't claim discrimination as smokers are not a "protected class" and are not entitled to protection under the law. Any company can (and many have) make it their policy to deny employment to smokers and there isn't anything you can do about it.
Lastly, try lighting up inside your local statehouse or state capitol and tell us again how you smoke on any publicly built property....
Smoking may be legal but it isn't a right....the use of the product can be limited by any public or private entity.
Every study ever done on the subject has always shown higher smoking rates in lower socioeconomic groups and less educated people.
You may not like it, but its an undeniable fact.
"According to the study, the people hardest hit by the tobacco epidemic are those among vulnerable populations, including people with lower levels of educational attainment. In 2008, 41.3 percent of persons with a General Education Development certificate smoked cigarettes, compared to 5.7 percent of persons with a graduate degree."
If that makes someone feel superior, have at it. Of course, the "better" educated elite aren't smart enough to avoid ALL harmful activities, so it becomes nothing more than judgmental self-righteousness to look down their patrician noses at the poor, uneducated, unwashed masses.
Quote:
You can't claim discrimination as smokers are not a "protected class" and are not entitled to protection under the law. Any company can (and many have) make it their policy to deny employment to smokers and there isn't anything you can do about it.
Are you sure about that? Can a company deny employment to someone suffering from a chronic, but not communicable disease? For instance, can they refuse to hire someone with AIDS or diabetes? They might try that, but I doubt they'd get away with it.
So, what does that have to do with smoking? Take a gander at the Public Law putting tobacco under the control of the FDA. In the part of the bill called "findings," you'll see that tobacco use is defined as a "chronic disease," and the use of tobacco by children as a "pediatric disease."
Now THERE'S a field of law just begging to be explored by some activist smoker!
Quote:
Lastly, try lighting up inside your local statehouse or state capitol and tell us again how you smoke on any publicly built property....
Inside? No, that's a whole other issue involving an encloses space and is applicable to places other than public property. I can, do and have lit up outside our nation's capitol and some state capitol buildings, though, and nobody seemed to mind.
And, by the way, I'm not aware of any capitol building which doesn't have a smoking room just off the legislative chamber. Are you?
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.
