Workplaces ban not only smoking, but smokers themselves

There are 16 comments on the WBIR-TV story from Jan 5, 2012, titled Workplaces ban not only smoking, but smokers themselves. In it, WBIR-TV reports that:

As bans on smoking sweep the USA, an increasing number of employers - primarily hospitals - are also imposing bans on smokers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WBIR-TV.

Hugh Jass

Seattle, WA

#2 Jan 6, 2012
Saying "the tobacco industry and the American Civil Liberties Union" is redundant. The ACLU got outed a long time ago for selling out to the tobacco industry.

The claim that "As a result, 29 states and the District of Columbia passed smoker-protection laws" is also disingenuous, given that, in many of those places, the claim of protection is based on interpretation/application of non-specific laws.

Pretty clear bias in the "reporting" in this opinion piece.
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#3 Jan 8, 2012
Hugh they saw it comming with the bans, discrimination against smokers was dealt with back in the 80s and 90s to keep smokers from being discriminated against in the work place. Its nothing new:

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

Its a passing phase and it will end just like before.......smokers always win!

If we didnt pay billions in revenues to the governments it might be a diferent story,smokefree costs the governments revenues in lost taxes and in enforcement costs.....That sets the stage for smoking bans to be repealed as the depression worsens around the world.....
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#4 Jan 9, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Its a passing phase and it will end just like before.......smokers always win!
Well, it hasn't yet! Imagine that!
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#5 Jan 10, 2012
Nevada,northern kentucky counties by cincinatti,the netherlands and its comming around everywhere...........smoking = revenue dollars = jobs
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#6 Jan 10, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
smoking = revenue dollars = jobs
You mean: smoking=inefficient workers=jobs
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#7 Jan 11, 2012
Whats next hugh,not eating or drinking in the workplace. twinkie bans,cup cake bans,soda bans,candy bar bans etc..........smoking bans in the workplace caused smokers to have to take smoke breaks thus reducing productivity before that no losses in productivity time. Now we have employers not hiring smokers at all for trumped up insurance rate savings,the same can be said for anyone in the workplace. If you reqire health insurance its gonna cost regardless of your lifestyle. The same knock on effect used against smokers will be used against people who are obese and people who eat sugary products or drink after work..........theres no end hugh with the agenda of public health wars on we the people.

The next will be genetic markers for pre-dispositions to disease in non-smokers or anyone to drive up healthcare premiums.......your a salesman for high rates hugh and you dont even relaise it!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#8 Jan 11, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Whats next hugh,not eating or drinking in the workplace. twinkie bans,cup cake bans,soda bans,candy bar bans etc.
LMAO. That's the absolute LAMEST effort at providing analogies for smoking that I have seen for a long time.
confederate1989 wrote:
smoking bans in the workplace caused smokers to have to take smoke breaks
Nope. Sorry to pop your bubble, Mr. Denialist, but it is NICOTINE ADDICTION that caused that.
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#9 Jan 11, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO. That's the absolute LAMEST effort at providing analogies for smoking that I have seen for a long time.
<quoted text>
Nope. Sorry to pop your bubble, Mr. Denialist, but it is NICOTINE ADDICTION that caused that.
Nope it wasnt,it was you progressive eletists that conjured up smoking bans from the past! A failed attempt at social engineering that failed everytime its been tried..........

wanna debate it!

Since: Jan 12

Australia

#10 Jan 11, 2012
Isn't that discrimination and illegal?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#11 Jan 11, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope it wasnt,it was you progressive eletists that conjured up smoking bans from the past! A failed attempt at social engineering that failed everytime its been tried..........
wanna debate it!
Do you mean that smokers would have to go outside if they weren't addicted to nicotine?

Regulations don't force smokers to go outside. They only deny them the right to smoke inside. Smokers are welcome--and free under the regulations--to remain indoors and refrain from smoking. You lose.
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#12 Jan 12, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean that smokers would have to go outside if they weren't addicted to nicotine?
Regulations don't force smokers to go outside. They only deny them the right to smoke inside. Smokers are welcome--and free under the regulations--to remain indoors and refrain from smoking. You lose.
You defeat your own argument..........ever heard of catch 22
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#13 Jan 12, 2012
Besides there even outlawing smoking outdoors,it leaves going back inside the only option. Back to where it started!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#14 Jan 12, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
<quoted text>
You defeat your own argument..........ever heard of catch 22
Sure, but it doesn't apply here and my argument remains a simple statement of truth, however uncomfortable you may find taking responsibility for your own decisions. Being a "smoker" does not require that you spend 100% of your time smoking, and so you are welcome indoors when NOT indulging.If you CHOOSE to smoke at any given moment, it is your DECISION that forces you outside, not the regulation that says you can't do that inside.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#15 Jan 12, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Besides there
Presumably "there" is supposed to be "they're". "They" is "we", since the regulations are mostly the result of representative democracy.
confederate1989 wrote:
even outlawing smoking outdoors
There are regulations in many places that restrict the number and type of outdoor area where smoking is permitted, but the time is not yet here when it is entirely illegal outdoors. Again, if you must engage in the activity, find a place where it is permitted.
confederate1989 wrote:
it leaves going back inside the only option. Back to where it started!
You continue to ignore the point. You have the option of refraining from smoking in any and all of these situations, AND you have the option of quitting. If you find smoking too inconvenient a pastime, I suggest you look into getting help with the latter. Sorry for your affliction, but rendering me collateral damage is no longer one of your legal options.
confederate1989

Franklin, KY

#16 Jan 12, 2012
Actually I find breaking your laws a great past time,especially in places you might frequent........Ive begged em to ticket me countless times,somehow they just dont wanna. ,ight be because I will drag the junk science into court everytime.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#17 Jan 12, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Actually I find breaking your laws a great past time,especially in places you might frequent........Ive begged em to ticket me countless times,somehow they just dont wanna.,ight be because I will drag the junk science into court everytime.
Yeah, right.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
how to treat hemorrhoids? 39 min takhoer 1
News Home school no longer just for the deeply relig... (Sep '13) 1 hr Ashley987654 12
News Parents Debate on Children's Vaccination Requir... 4 hr arcanaknight 24
News Autism Fast Facts 6 hr TRASH SCIENCE 1
News Exposure To Air Pollution Before, During, And A... 6 hr TRASH SCIENCE 1
News Dialysis patients frustrated with Washington Ri... 6 hr GayinPitt 8
News Gadgets : SteriPen Portable Water Purifier (Jul '07) 7 hr Jamestheduke21 2
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 9 hr shortee 6,333
More from around the web