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.
All of those are carcinogenic or otherwise bad for you if you use them on yourself. Smoking is bad for the people around the smoker, who are not themselves smoking. I can choose not to use a certain deodorant or mouthwash with carcinogens in it (which I do--I am very specific about my hygiene products and only use products with non-toxic ingredients). I cannot choose to keep the carcinogenic particles of second-hand smoke from going into my nose/mouth.
So, refusing to hire someone, or firing them, for the use of a legal substance away from the work place, a substance which does not affect their on the job performance, is alright with you?
Boy, that opens the door wide to a LOT of people not getting a job, doesn't it?
Just how WOULD you define discrimination?
Have you been reading my posts? I specifically said I'm not opposed to people taking in nicotine in non-obtrustive ways, provided it doesn't impair their judgment.
If it doesn't impair their judgment on the job, I'm not opposed to it. I already said that I think it's unfair to impose a nicotine ban on people.
Then I said to play devil's advocate, it could be argued... etc. But I didn't say that's what I believed myself (cause I don't).
Please go back and re-read my posts before asking me questions I already answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
I agree that banning someone from using a nicotine patch is unreasonable. The main reason I am opposed to smoking is because of the imposition it puts on other people, but if someone is taking in their nicotine in a way that does not harm others and does not impair their own judgement, then I don't think there is a logistical reason to discriminate against them.
Have you been reading my posts? I specifically said I'm not opposed to people taking in nicotine in non-obtrustive ways, provided it doesn't impair their judgment.
If it doesn't impair their judgment on the job, I'm not opposed to it. I already said that I think it's unfair to impose a nicotine ban on people.
Then I said to play devil's advocate, it could be argued... etc. But I didn't say that's what I believed myself (cause I don't).
Please go back and re-read my posts before asking me questions I already answered.
Why should it matter HOW they get nicotine so long as it's off the job and is not a work related issue?
Why should it matter HOW they get nicotine so long as it's off the job and is not a work related issue?
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.
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.
It's not a "tactic" if tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, is it?
The point is that if the chronic disease of tobacco dependence can be an excuse to deny people employment, bar them from renting habitation in many places or otherwise treat them differently from "normal" folks, it can also be done to those who suffer from any other chronic disease.
As am sure you know, our entire system of law (with the exception of Louisiana) is based upon Common Law, which literally means "that which has come before." In other words, precedent weighs heavily in court decisions, often being the deciding factor. Consequently, if a precedent is established that a business or person may legally discriminate against a person with ANY chronic disease, they may legally discriminate against ALL chronic diseases if they so chose.
Never forget the process of incrementalism. What begins small and un-noticed tends to grow to gargantuan proportions until someone stops it. Until, and unless, enough people say, "Enough. This far and no more," the legal authority to discriminate against those with recognized chronic diseases will continue to grow and spread. Right now, the new target seems to be those who suffer from chronic obesity. What's next? Where does it stop? Does it stop?
Even anti-smokers need to see the danger to their OWN liberties and support overturning or redefining much of what passes as "health" regulations on smokers. I'm not suggesting we return to the days where anybody can smoke anywhere, but if the brakes aren't applied to down-ward skid into government mandated behavior in the name of health, I don't think even the most ardent anti-smoker will like where it ends up. If we're willing to tolerate or support laws and rules targeting legal behaviors and ill people simply because a person smells bad, well....Good Lord! What can't we do to one another?
It's not a "tactic" if tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, is it?
The point is that if the chronic disease of tobacco dependence can be an excuse to deny people employment, bar them from renting habitation in many places or otherwise treat them differently from "normal" folks, it can also be done to those who suffer from any other chronic disease.
As am sure you know, our entire system of law (with the exception of Louisiana) is based upon Common Law, which literally means "that which has come before." In other words, precedent weighs heavily in court decisions, often being the deciding factor. Consequently, if a precedent is established that a business or person may legally discriminate against a person with ANY chronic disease, they may legally discriminate against ALL chronic diseases if they so chose.
Never forget the process of incrementalism. What begins small and un-noticed tends to grow to gargantuan proportions until someone stops it. Until, and unless, enough people say, "Enough. This far and no more," the legal authority to discriminate against those with recognized chronic diseases will continue to grow and spread. Right now, the new target seems to be those who suffer from chronic obesity. What's next? Where does it stop? Does it stop?
Even anti-smokers need to see the danger to their OWN liberties and support overturning or redefining much of what passes as "health" regulations on smokers. I'm not suggesting we return to the days where anybody can smoke anywhere, but if the brakes aren't applied to down-ward skid into government mandated behavior in the name of health, I don't think even the most ardent anti-smoker will like where it ends up. If we're willing to tolerate or support laws and rules targeting legal behaviors and ill people simply because a person smells bad, well....Good Lord! What can't we do to one another?
There are already laws to protect people with chronic illnesses. If you read the link that described what questions an employer can and cannot ask someone before he is hired, you would see that the employer cannot even ask about medical history before offering a job.
Even if the potential employee has an obvious disability, such as a wheelchair or nimchimpsky's white cane, the only questions that may be asked are whether the candidate can do the job.
The people who refused to hire nimchimpsky solely because of his very real disability were in violation of the ADA.
The difference is that nicotine dependence is not a disability (because it is remedial) and is not protected. Therefore, it is legal to discriminate against people who smoke. Employers can do it and landlords can do it.
The slippery slope you envision is a figment of your imagination.
It's not a "tactic" if tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, is it?
The point is that if the chronic disease of tobacco dependence can be an excuse to deny people employment, bar them from renting habitation in many places or otherwise treat them differently from "normal" folks, it can also be done to those who suffer from any other chronic disease.
As am sure you know, our entire system of law (with the exception of Louisiana) is based upon Common Law, which literally means "that which has come before." In other words, precedent weighs heavily in court decisions, often being the deciding factor. Consequently, if a precedent is established that a business or person may legally discriminate against a person with ANY chronic disease, they may legally discriminate against ALL chronic diseases if they so chose.
Never forget the process of incrementalism. What begins small and un-noticed tends to grow to gargantuan proportions until someone stops it. Until, and unless, enough people say, "Enough. This far and no more," the legal authority to discriminate against those with recognized chronic diseases will continue to grow and spread. Right now, the new target seems to be those who suffer from chronic obesity. What's next? Where does it stop? Does it stop?
Even anti-smokers need to see the danger to their OWN liberties and support overturning or redefining much of what passes as "health" regulations on smokers. I'm not suggesting we return to the days where anybody can smoke anywhere, but if the brakes aren't applied to down-ward skid into government mandated behavior in the name of health, I don't think even the most ardent anti-smoker will like where it ends up. If we're willing to tolerate or support laws and rules targeting legal behaviors and ill people simply because a person smells bad, well....Good Lord! What can't we do to one another?
I get your point. I just think it's a lame one. Because your whole precedent argument depends on the idea that smoking is a disease, which I already disagree with.
Speaking of precedents, if we label nicotine addiction a disease, what else is a disease? Drinking? Cheating? Lying? Murder? Should we just label those chronic diseases so that we can protect those people under the ADA too? Calling smoking a chronic disease and not an addiction is a deliberate attempt to frame an addiction as something that is helpless and beyond the person's control.
Real diseases can be treated and mitigated, but the disease itself is beyond the person's control. Smoking is not beyond a person's control. Nicotine addiction is not beyond a person's control. There are programs to help get someone off nicotine, so that they no longer have this "chronic disease".
So yes, because of the sneaky attempt at reframing an addiction as a disease, it is a tactic, and a pathetic one at that.
I get your point. I just think it's a lame one. Because your whole precedent argument depends on the idea that smoking is a disease, which I already disagree with.
Speaking of precedents, if we label nicotine addiction a disease, what else is a disease? Drinking? Cheating? Lying? Murder? Should we just label those chronic diseases so that we can protect those people under the ADA too? Calling smoking a chronic disease and not an addiction is a deliberate attempt to frame an addiction as something that is helpless and beyond the person's control.
Real diseases can be treated and mitigated, but the disease itself is beyond the person's control. Smoking is not beyond a person's control. Nicotine addiction is not beyond a person's control. There are programs to help get someone off nicotine, so that they no longer have this "chronic disease".
So yes, because of the sneaky attempt at reframing an addiction as a disease, it is a tactic, and a pathetic one at that.
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.
There are already laws to protect people with chronic illnesses. If you read the link that described what questions an employer can and cannot ask someone before he is hired, you would see that the employer cannot even ask about medical history before offering a job.
Even if the potential employee has an obvious disability, such as a wheelchair or nimchimpsky's white cane, the only questions that may be asked are whether the candidate can do the job.
The people who refused to hire nimchimpsky solely because of his very real disability were in violation of the ADA.
The difference is that nicotine dependence is not a disability (because it is remedial) and is not protected. Therefore, it is legal to discriminate against people who smoke. Employers can do it and landlords can do it.
The slippery slope you envision is a figment of your imagination.
That's right. An employer can't ask certain things, but he CAN require a physical and drug screen before hiring you. That amounts to a defacto determination of whether or not you have some chronic diseases, whether you tell him or not.
Using the information gleaned from those things, and given the kind of broad powers you think he should have in regards to nicotine, there is no reason for him to hire ANYONE suffering from any chronic disease.
[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 ..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.
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.
