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.
Typical smoker attitude. They all think just like this- that they have the right to foul everybody elses air. It is just too bad that lung cancer cannot kill them off at a very early age instead of when they are 50 or 60. That way they couldn't reproduce and further damage the gene pool.
There may be another issue here also. Some smokers can refrain from smoking until their break times, but I've seen a lot of smokers over the years that need a smoke break nearly every hour.
These people are really unproductive just like people that constantly surf the net or take numerous personal phone calls at work.
The most unproductive people I work with are not the smokers, but the people who sit on Facebook all day or on their phones text-messaging. They are far more numerous than the smokers, and waste much more time doing whatever they do (FB, texting, etc) than those who take the rare 5-min smoke break.
For the most part smokers are low class slobs. That is why cigs sell so well in ghettos and trailer parks. Most people with the IQ of a turnip don't smoke cigs.
What an attitude. Have you ever driven by a hospital and looked at the throng of hospital employees outside smoking? The high number of technicians, nurses, and *gasp*, sometimes doctors out there? Smokers can often be found in high-stress environments and not just "the trailer park". So much for your theory.
Am I the only one who is noticing that all militant anti-smokers in this thread are all nasty, mean-spirited, childish whiners who keep complaining about how rude smokers are?
"I was walking by someone smoking and all I could think about is how he should die a painful death and I should be allowed to defecate on his corpse because he allowed me to see something I vaguely disagree with for a passing moment. How rude is that?"
You know why I keep smoking? The enjoyment. Not out of nicotine, but because I know people like Kev hate it so much. When small-minded fools get enraged over such trivial matters, it lets me know that I must be doing something right.
That's a slippery slope, if they can justify not hiring because you smoke they could justify not hiring for just about any reason. What's next? Hiring bans on the obese or other medical problems?
Obese people break more chairs than skinny ones - that's an expense that must be planned for! Seriously though, "slippery slope" is a fallacy, look it up. It's not valid reasoning.
Shouldn't employers be free to hire who they want? What's this attitude that an employer should be force to hire someone? For example, iIf you own a bar & you want skinny attractive young girls working as waitresses, why shouldn't you be able to hire accordingly? I suppose the fat, ugly people would be upset, but hey, that's life!
This is a major problem for US businesses... being told how to run your company & who to hire. No wonder more & more of them are packing up to leave for greener pastures. (Mexico, UK, Brazil, Spain, India, ect) Be careful what you wish for.
Obese people break more chairs than skinny ones - that's an expense that must be planned for! Seriously though, "slippery slope" is a fallacy, look it up. It's not valid reasoning.
Shouldn't employers be free to hire who they want? What's this attitude that an employer should be force to hire someone? For example, iIf you own a bar & you want skinny attractive young girls working as waitresses, why shouldn't you be able to hire accordingly? I suppose the fat, ugly people would be upset, but hey, that's life!
This is a major problem for US businesses... being told how to run your company & who to hire. No wonder more & more of them are packing up to leave for greener pastures. (Mexico, UK, Brazil, Spain, India, ect) Be careful what you wish for.
I mostly agree with this. I think employers should be able to hire whomever they want without government interference.
However, I would not knowingly or willingly purchase anything from a business that refuses to hire smokers nor would I donate to any charity that does either.
That is the reason why the body part charities don't get a penny from me. Environment, homeless shelters, animal welfare (not animal rights), and so on will, but the Lung Foundation can go f--k itself.
Am I the only one who is noticing that all militant anti-smokers in this thread are all nasty, mean-spirited, childish whiners who keep complaining about how rude smokers are?
"I was walking by someone smoking and all I could think about is how he should die a painful death and I should be allowed to defecate on his corpse because he allowed me to see something I vaguely disagree with for a passing moment. How rude is that?"
You know why I keep smoking? The enjoyment. Not out of nicotine, but because I know people like Kev hate it so much. When small-minded fools get enraged over such trivial matters, it lets me know that I must be doing something right.
Nope. You're not the only one who thinks that! But then again anyone can say anything while hiding behind their keyboard! No wonder this country is falling apart. So now more Americans can risk being unemployed now because of trivial BS like this? We really have become a nanny state, haven't we? Why not make tobacco illegal once and for all? Oh that's right, we can't, because no matter how much the federal government launches campaigns against smoking, they're still in bed with the tobacco companies! If people think otherwise, they're fooling themselves. Smoking is big business, and big tax revenue! better yet, how about all of these control freaks out there mind their own business, and worry about their own lives instead of trying to force their beliefs on everyone else?! If you don't smoke, fine! Good for you! I respect that. In fact I don't even smoke in my home. But, don't tell me, what I can and cannot do on my own time, whether that would be my break, lunch or at home in the evening especially when I'm going outside to do so! It's one thing for someone to drink or take another intoxicating substance on their lunch break, but someone smoking a cigarette on their break is NOT going to inhibit their performance on the job.
Now excuse me while I respectfully go stand outside in the snow and go on my smoke break!
Obese people break more chairs than skinny ones - that's an expense that must be planned for! Seriously though, "slippery slope" is a fallacy, look it up. It's not valid reasoning.
Shouldn't employers be free to hire who they want? What's this attitude that an employer should be force to hire someone? For example, iIf you own a bar & you want skinny attractive young girls working as waitresses, why shouldn't you be able to hire accordingly? I suppose the fat, ugly people would be upset, but hey, that's life!
This is a major problem for US businesses... being told how to run your company & who to hire. No wonder more & more of them are packing up to leave for greener pastures. (Mexico, UK, Brazil, Spain, India, ect) Be careful what you wish for.
Gee, telling US business owners how to run their business is a bad thing?
I thought telling business owners how to run their business was a GOOD THING...........like telling a bar owner he cannot let patrons smoke in his bar.
The most unproductive people I work with are not the smokers, but the people who sit on Facebook all day or on their phones text-messaging. They are far more numerous than the smokers, and waste much more time doing whatever they do (FB, texting, etc) than those who take the rare 5-min smoke break.
How true. Ever notice how many people post on message boards from work?
How many times have you seen a poster write, "I will have to wait until I get home from work to look at that site..........it is blocked here at work."
I wonder how many antis post about smokers being unproductive from their employer's computer?
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.
- that's an expense that must be planned for! Seriously though, "slippery slope" is a fallacy, look it up. It's not valid reasoning.
No wonder this country is falling apart. So now more Americans can risk being unemployed now because of trivial BS like this? We really have become a nanny state, haven't we? Why not make tobacco illegal once and for all? Oh that's right, we can't, because no matter how much the federal government launches campaigns against smoking, they're still in bed with the tobacco companies! If people think otherwise, they're fooling themselves. Smoking is big business, and big tax revenue! better yet, how about all of these control freaks out there mind their own business, and worry about their own lives instead of trying to force their beliefs on everyone else?! If you don't smoke, fine! Good for you! I respect that. In fact I don't even smoke in my home. But, don't tell me, what I can and cannot do on my own time, whether that would be my break, lunch or at home in the evening especially when I'm going outside to do so! It's one thing for someone to drink or take another intoxicating substance on their lunch break, but someone smoking a cigarette on their break is NOT going to inhibit their performance on the job. 
