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.
This would still not allow smoking in an room with others. Doing harm to one's self is one thing. You can't say that you HAVE to smoke in all places and at all times since you are causing direct harm to others.
I would see nothing wrong with smokers being hired providing they agree to NEVER smoke on the job. Lunch, a break outside, but not in the presense of other coworkers. Should they do it its grounds for being fired.
Drinking can't be compared in those terms since you taking a drink does not immediately harm me, but you lighting up where I have to breath it most certainly does.
I'm not talking about drunks. I'm talking about those who suffer from the disease of alcoholism. Nobody suggests they should not be allowed to drink in bars, but suffers of the chronic disease of tobacco dependence are told they can't smoke.
Why and what's the difference?
ps: Don't say second hand smoke unless you're willing to admit there is no secondary health danger from an alcoholic who's had too much to drink.
Tobacco dependence, according to the Mayo Clinic, is actually Nicotine dependence. The smoker is hooked on the drug, Nicotine, not tobacco itself. If the smoker needs a steady stream of Nicotine, they can get a patch, chew gum, or chew tobacco -- all without creating harmful smoke.
You're missing the key point. Tobacco dependence is no longer just an addiction; it is a DISEASE.
Other sick people are not told they can't be sick in bars, restaurants or hotels right? So, why are smokers told that? What's the justification?
Nobody says they can't go these places, just not smoke. They are filling the air which others breath with a poison. If someone is sick with a comunicalble disease which is airborne when they breath, or with a touch to the skin, they won't be out having dinner in your favorite restraunt. It's called responsibility. If someone with aids has sex with someone and does not tell, its considered their responsibility.
Disease and cronic conditions abound but do not bar you from entering buildings unless something you carry is dangerous to others. Like it or not, smoking kills. Smokers do not have the right to claim they must smoke where others object.
You're missing the key point. Tobacco dependence is no longer just an addiction; it is a DISEASE.
Other sick people are not told they can't be sick in bars, restaurants or hotels right? So, why are smokers told that? What's the justification?
Tobacco dependence is Nicotine addiction. You're an addict. We don't allow Heroin addicts to lawfully shoot up in public, do we? We have Methadone clinics for them.
The 2008 Public Health Service guideline identifies four combination therapies (i.e., two tobacco-dependence medications taken simultaneously) as being effective in treating tobacco-dependence: 1) nicotine patch and nicotine gum, 2) nicotine patch and nicotine nasal spray, 3) nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler, and 4) nicotine patch and bupropion SR (3). The most commonly covered combination of tobacco-dependence treatments among the Medicaid programs was the nicotine patch and bupropion SR (33 programs), followed by the nicotine patch and nicotine gum (21 programs), the nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler (21 programs), and the nicotine patch and nicotine nasal spray (19 programs).
But, they are covered by the ADA. If restaurants must accommodate say, people in wheelchairs, why not those who have tobacco dependence syndrome or disease?
Because, as has been pointed out numerous times, smoking is not a disease. Lung cancer is a disease, but smoking is an addiction. The cure to that ailment is withdrawal of the addictive substance. Giving a smoker free rein to harm others with your second hand smoke doesn't "treat" the alleged illness.
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.
Not it doesn't. There is a difference between a condition and an action, and you're mixing the two up to come up with an illogical argument. Being a tobacco addict is a condition. Nobody bars tobacco addicts from a place based soley on their condition. Smoking is the action that many tobacco addicts partake in as part of their condition. The action is what is barred, not the condition.
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.
