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.
Nice try, but nobody said smokers cannot rub elbows with nonsmokers ANYWHERE THEY WANT. What some are saying is don't smoke when you do it. Just like we mostly ban public nudity or public sex acts. Just like we ban public use of illegal drugs. Just like we frown on assaults, robberies and murders. Just like not being allowed to ride your horse inside public buildings. The horror, i REALLY wanted to do the last one.
I'm not suggesting that a company should hire smokers and let them smoke on the job (however, if they wanted to, I see no reason why they couldn't, do you?). That's not what companies are doing. They are refusing to hire people simply because they smoke, regardless of whether or no smoking is allowed in the workplace.
Yes, some chronic diseases are not good for some certain occupations. As you say, a person with Palsy probably wouldn't make a good brain surgeon. But, I dare say a hospital would be opening themselves to a law suit if they refused to hire an otherwise qualified candidate with Palsy, don't you? If the candidate had a medical degree and the demonstrated ability to do the job, in spite of his disease, then refusing to hire him because he has Palsy would be risky. That would seem to be a clear case of discrimination.
However, when it comes to those with chronic tobacco disease, otherwise capable and qualified candidates CAN be refused employment for no other reason than that they have nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, in their blood.
You tell me....why is it unfair to refuse to hire the qualified sufferer of Palsy, but OK to refuse the hire the one with chronic tobacco disease?
From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website:
Even people who are deaf, blind, or in a wheelchair do not have the right to specifically demand a certain type of accommodation, if more than one accommodation would work. I don't understand why people who smoke, who may not even be disabled, expect businesses to give them a precise accommodation, when even people with real disabilities like deafness, blindness, and limited mobility, aren't always entitled to their preferred accommodation.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we considered all nicotine-dependent people "disabled", giving smokers breaks throughout the day is a completely fair and reasonable accommodation. So regardless of whether smoking is considered a disability or not, expecting the whole world to breathe in smoky air at the hands of a few smokers is well within the bounds of "too difficult" and "undue hardship".
Throughout this entire thread you have said tobacco dependence is a disease.
One would think that if it were a disease as you constantly say it is the CDC would have references to this disease on their website since their sole purpose is:
Mission Statement
Collaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats.
Yet they don't which leads one to come to the conclusion that
A. You have been lying throughout this thread
-or-
B. Your rabid hatred for tobacco and smokers has destroyed your common sense and logic and the sole purpose of this thread is to advance your flawed thinking.
I don't know what your fixation with the CDC is, but this is the last time I'll respond to such foolishness.
The CDC IS NOT THE ONLY BODY WHICH DETERMINES SUCH THINGS. They say tobacco dependence is similar to a disease AND I NEVER SAID THEY SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT! The CDC may be the only one you're inclined to accept, but that doesn't necessarily mean those OTHER organizations I mentioned are wrong.
I'm not suggesting that a company should hire smokers and let them smoke on the job (however, if they wanted to, I see no reason why they couldn't, do you?). That's not what companies are doing. They are refusing to hire people simply because they smoke, regardless of whether or no smoking is allowed in the workplace.
Yes, some chronic diseases are not good for some certain occupations. As you say, a person with Palsy probably wouldn't make a good brain surgeon. But, I dare say a hospital would be opening themselves to a law suit if they refused to hire an otherwise qualified candidate with Palsy, don't you? If the candidate had a medical degree and the demonstrated ability to do the job, in spite of his disease, then refusing to hire him because he has Palsy would be risky. That would seem to be a clear case of discrimination.
However, when it comes to those with chronic tobacco disease, otherwise capable and qualified candidates CAN be refused employment for no other reason than that they have nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, in their blood.
You tell me....why is it unfair to refuse to hire the qualified sufferer of Palsy, but OK to refuse the hire the one with chronic tobacco disease?
Actually, the ADA doesn't protect people with disabilities if their disability interferes with the very nature of the task. Cerebral palsy interferes with the very nature of surgery. If I filed a discrimination lawsuit because a cab company or pilot school turned me down on the basis of blindness, I would have no case. And that is fair. Yes, disabled people can do many things that the general population assumes they can't, but that doesn't mean their disability completely vanishes. There are still some things disabled people cannot do. I can't drive. A person with cerebral palsy that severely affects their hand-eye coordination cannot perform surgery. I can't perform surgery. There's nothing unfair about that. "Why is it unfair to refuse to hire the qualified sufferer of Palsy?" The answer to that question is: it's not. And no one was claiming it was. Your whole argument is based on claims no one else made but yourself.
I should also remind you that smoking, in and of itself, is not a disability. You're comparing apples to oranges by trying to make any analogy between a surgeon with CP and a smoker.
I don't know what your fixation with the CDC is, but this is the last time I'll respond to such foolishness.
The CDC IS NOT THE ONLY BODY WHICH DETERMINES SUCH THINGS. They say tobacco dependence is similar to a disease AND I NEVER SAID THEY SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT! The CDC may be the only one you're inclined to accept, but that doesn't necessarily mean those OTHER organizations I mentioned are wrong.
Your rabid aversion to tobacco is noted, next time you open a thread on your fixation make it clear in the title of the thread instead of being sneaky about it....
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?
Sounds 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 the five criteria the AMA uses to consider a condition an actual disease: a pattern of symptoms, chronicity, progression, subject to relapse, and treatability.
Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease that often requires repeated intervention and multiple attempts to quit.
Tobacco dependence disorder is a chronic relapsing condition….A chronic disease management approach increases both short- and long-term abstinence from smoking.
Yet, in spite of this, chronic tobacco users are routinely banned from mingling with non-users by law, something which would never happen to those with a different disease.
Does this change the dynamics of the smoking debate? Is it now a civil rights issue relating to those who suffer from chronic diseases? Why, or why not?
Any type of disease affect how the individual is treated. You do not even have to have a disease to be banned from a public place.
If you go to a store and you scream around and curse in front of children, should you be taken out of the store and probably even banned at least for a while? I would support that if the store owner feels you are affecting his business. Another example if you go to a church and curse with the people as you talk. Should they be OK to ban your from their church? I have not problem with that either.
Now, if any disease does affect the community in some form that goes beyond the reasonable accomodations, I have not problem if that person is restricted in some form from being at a certain public place unless he or she is supervised to avoid problems.
Now, I venture to guess you simply do not like smoking being banned in stores for example so to me you simply stretch the issue by citing the disease arena.
However, I will give you my response on the smoke banning. You can smoke all you want. However, if I had a store and felt that your smoking affected my business, I would have no problem telling you you could not smoke in my store. Outside? Have at it.
The problem with smoking is that when you smoke the second hand smoke DOES affect people's health. Sadly, many smokers used to have this uncaring and insenstivie attitude that they can smoke anywhere anytime with no consideration of those around them. In time that resulted in people reacting to it by pushing for local ordinances against smoking in public places like stores, theaters, etc.
I do not see a problem if the local community take action on what they think is best for them. They are no banning your right to smoke because you have what you or others consider a disease. Take care.
I'm posting this to clarify who the ADA actually protects. First of all, the ADA defines "disabled" as the following:
Quote:
(1) Disability
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).
(2) Major Life Activities
(A) In general
For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
(B) Major bodily functions
For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
Unless a smoker is at the point where their habit interferes with their respiratory or other bodily system, and unless it severely interferes with their ability to breathe, stand, walk, or perform another major life activity, they are not considered disabled. In other words, the smoker has to be severely limited by their habit before they are considered disabled.
The definition of a "qualified individual" according to the ADA is as follows:
Quote:
The term "qualified individual " means an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this subchapter, consideration shall be given to the employer's judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.
Therefore the ADA does not cover a blind person applying to be a cab driver, or a person with cerebral palsy trying to be a surgeon, because they would not be considered qualified.
Who the ADA protects and how is only relevant to this discussion if that smoker meets the criteria outlined by the ADA for a 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.
