Send a Message
to Nick Naylor

Comments

115

Joined

Apr 23, 2008

Nick Naylor Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

If you would have read any content prior to that post, you would have never made the above post.  (Apr 12, 2010 | post #335)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

No person needs to enter a business, unless there is no competition. If that is the case, then there may be a business opportunity. There are many outdoor dangers, many of which occur naturally, such as Radon, which is quickly being connected to more cancer cases than ever imagined in the past. If a community chooses by vote to establish smoke-free areas that the community owns (parks, streets, government buildings) so be it. Others have the right to leave that community (they don't ask for papers yet). I don't believe any good or service is a right, however, we have the freedom to use what is legal. You may be right and some day burning tobacco in its current form for pleasure will go the way of snake oil, asbestos, and lead paint. On the other hand, the research that secondhand smoke is worse than anything else currently in the air may be debunked. Are you aware the FDA in their quest for control of tobacco gave up their ability to outright ban the products? Neighbors are tough and the wind is fickle--a community near me threatened to have a farm closed because of smell and sounds, even though he was there long before their houses were. I don't believe the sterile utopia you seek is obtainable. Here's a question. Are you against smokeless tobacco and snus?  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #323)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

Unfortunately, Billy, I believe you and I on are opposite sides of the fence. I believe a private business owner deserves to have the right to choose to allow legal activities, such as smoking, and you have the choice not to work or patronize there. If a business fails due to the inability to find quality employees or customers who don't mind smoke, then it was brought on by him or her. Relative to this thread, I also believe that a business, nor society, should be able to dictate what a person does on his or her own time while on his or her own property, providing the activity is considered a legal act.  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #320)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

Sorry, I don't follow...and, no, I wouldn't if it is legal.  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #318)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

I agree with you on this one. The point is the similarities and the fact there is a strong movement to do exactly what you point out despite the opposite argument with tobacco. Compound it with the fact this it is a hallucinogen that can cause a secondhand "high" and now who do you blame for an accident, sickness or death?  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #315)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

Somehow I don't believe it was the intent of the native American Indians to get the white man addicted to the peace pipe, but rather the enjoyment from it use. As for cell phones, say it with me... "Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer."  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #313)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

First, many consumables have addictive qualities. Caffeine and pure cane sugar are addictive and unhealthy too. If you pound away too many alcoholic beverages in a span of hours you will die of blood poisoning. Second, another group of US Senators are considering legalizing marijuana for similar reasons. Third, because the tobacco industry is so old and legal, it also has the most documented use. We don't even know how many people have or currently use the plethora of illegal substances that are untracked (unlike legal commercial items) to even begin to understand the death rate associated with them. Lastly, any industry should not be held responsible for a person's negligence. It's amazing how no one is responsible for their own actions anymore.  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #311)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

A good post Sue that will go mostly ignored, as mine do. You can't make fun of it, attack it with it's own words, and then change the subject. Millions are dollars are granted to groups to attack smoking, who take home salaries and are counted as community service jobs. One can make close to a thousand per week policing underage sales--all funded by the tobacco industry, the nicotine selling big pharmaceutical companies, and your tax dollars. Of course this no different than millions of dollars are earned by the tobacco industry. It is one of the oldest industries in the country and one of the few left in this country that is farmed, manufactured, shipped, distributed, and sold solely by U.S. citizens. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs is that? Our society has proven you can't control someone's personal habits by making laws. People do all sorts of things that can harm them. You can't save everyone. You can choose not to go to place that promotes an activity you do not approve of, however, you'll never stop a congregation of like-minded people from gathering somewhere. You can choose to be a good parent and guide your children well, however, "The kid who eats too many marbles doesn't get to have kids of his own" (G. Carlin).  (Apr 9, 2010 | post #299)

Smoking

Not hiring smokers is discriminatory, say groups

While the argument of smoke in someone's personal space is indeed a passionate argument, this type of policy is full of contradictions with the mindset of what is best for you (despite your human right to do what you like) followed by saving money for the collective (who feels they shouldn't have to pay for someone's purposeful actions when it leads to their own harm). What's interesting is many of these same groups have no mandatory drug testing for narcotics or alcohol. Quality doctors and surgeons who smoke will not be able practice medicene, yet the ones who deal with the stress of a hospital environment with whiskey, a joint (which is about to become legal in CA and medically in PA), or worse are okay? I'll take the surgeon with the pack a day habit over the one who used something that affects motor skills and/or thought processes if you don't mind. What about the costs? Solve that problem by abandoning employer paid health care, something that was created by government controls in the past. No one feels bad when a guy who owns a sports car jacks up his insurance as a result of speeding or an accident because he pays his own bill. Instead, we're on the cusp of transitioning to a bigger, more powerful collective. Where does it stop? Should overweight nurses be removed because their response time could be longer? Should coffee be removed from the commissary because caffeine raises blood pressure? As we stare down candy, soda, fast food, and other behavior changing taxes, and I remind my self of previous failed attempts to tax or ban products in the name of public good, I find it hard to see a clear path to the sterile utopia some seem to be striving for.  (Apr 5, 2010 | post #2090)

Smoking

Hospital Won't Hire Smokers

While the argument of smoke in someone's personal space is indeed a passionate argument, this type of policy is full of contradictions with the mindset of what is best for you (despite what you like) followed by saving money for the collective (who feels they shouldn't have to pay for someone's purposeful actions when it leads to their own harm). What's interesting is I'm told this hospital group has no mandatory drug testing for narcotics or alcohol. Quality doctors and surgeons who smoke will not be able practice here, yet the ones who deal with the stress of a hospital environment with whiskey, a joint (which is about to become legal in CA and medically in PA), or worse are okay? I'll take the surgeon with the pack a day habit over the one who used something that the affects motor skills and/or thought processes if you don't mind. What about the costs? Solve that problem by abandoning employer paid health care, something that was created by government controls in the past. No one feels bad when a guy who owns a sports car jacks up his insurance as a result of speeding or an accident because he pays his own bill. Instead, we're on the cusp of transitioning to a bigger, more powerful collective. Where does it stop? Should overweight nurses be removed because their response time could be longer? Should coffee be removed from the commissary because caffeine raises blood pressure? As we stare down candy, soda, fast food, and other behavior changing taxes, and I remind my self of previous failed attempts to tax or ban products in the name of public good, I find it hard to see a clear path to the sterile utopia some seem to be striving for.  (Apr 3, 2010 | post #257)

Smoking

More teens will get hooked on cigarettes if Pennsylvania ...

More like the "non-profits " whining and scaring the uninformed masses. Million dollar grants paying big salaries while producing nothing. In fact, the increased predatory taxation in the name of what is good for you has led to increased crime and black markets that lead to easier access and profiteering (just like narcotics). If you a worried of the dangers of smoking, be a parent. Children shouldn't receive their education from the words or pictures on a pack of cigarettes. As expected, soda (NY), candy and gum (PA) are next on the taxation train. Don't forget fast food. Forget being responsible or held accountable for your actions, it's much easier to blame the corporations or someone else. Believe it or not, as adults, there are many people who enjoy a cigarette, cigar, soda, beer, game of poker, or sexual fetish (let alone the already illegal drugs). Banning them has yet to get rid of them and often breeds ways to beat the system. Banning smoking (early 20's), alcohol (30's), gambling (practically legal everywhere now), drugs (still illegal except in CA--where they cry they need it for health and income) amounts to social engineering and has basically failed over and over again.  (Oct 5, 2009 | post #3)

WFMZ

Tempers Flare During Town Hall Meeting On Health Care

It's typical. Belittle and change the subject. My pal youou does it all the time on here. They learn it from the news anchors on Comedy Central, Bill Maher, and sportscaster Olbermann.  (Aug 13, 2009 | post #295)

WFMZ

Tempers Flare During Town Hall Meeting On Health Care

How many levels of oversight are there now and how many have been proposed? You can't save everyone from being taken advantage of. You said it yourself, it is difficult to get stuff approved because of red tape. Should we have more oversight and control the internet because someone still hands over personal information and money to a Nigerian prince? No one wants responsibility for themselves. New oversight on the credit card industry aren't going to stop people from spending too much and not reading their statement. The problem is there is no one with a vested interest in charge of a government plan that has a downside, unlike a private company. If it loses money, it doesn't matter. If it needs more money, they raise taxes. The public doesn't have the choice not to patronize the government (unlike a business) other than to move out of a city, state, or country. Interesting that you feel those who buy more should pay more taxes and yet you feel we should all be the same for health care regardless of how much one needs. Moreover, by taxing corporations, you by proxy tax the very people you speak for on the everyday goods and services they need, therefore forcing them to rely on the entitlements that are already so mismanaged.  (Aug 12, 2009 | post #108)

Smoking

Cigarette boxes to display pictures of smoking's ill effects

We shouldn't expect our children to get their education from a pack a cigarettes. It is the role of parents to inform and guide their children on the multitude of products that are available to adults. After all, currently there is no link between cell phone use and brain cancer...  (Aug 11, 2009 | post #4)

WFMZ

Tempers Flare During Town Hall Meeting On Health Care

How can you believe that the government will create more competition and drive prices down? Most everything the government is involved in has so much red tape it costs many times more. You speak of how corporations are responsible for increasing costs. Government forced corporations into the health care business by limiting pay years ago (altering the market). In an effort to find quality hires, benefits were added effectively working around the law (like so many things that arise from laws and taxes). Believe we should raise taxes on corporations? Corporations don't pay predatory taxes. They will never absorb a tax. They will raise prices (consumers then pay the tax) or reduce jobs if forced to by competition. Support a higher temporary tax on business--they'll simply lean the profits away. Why isn't there tort reform? You should be thankful someone took the time to learn medicine to help you. Instead, if they get it wrong, someone decides they're suddenly worth tens of millions instead of thanking them for trying. If you're serious about increased competition, then take health care beneifts away from corporations and the government and buy it yourself. Just think of all the potential buyers out there that companies would have to compete for. You don't lose your life insurance because you change jobs or your car insurance because you buy a new car. No one seems to mind if someone owns a sports car and racks up a bunch of speeding tickets which in turn hikes up their insurance. Why? Simple. They pay their own privately and are held accountable for their actions. We're already hearing about why someone shouldn't have to pay for someone else who abused himself or played too hard. This will worsen as we lose direct responsibility and consequences for our actions. Someone's personal problems become projected on the masses who quickly turn an question why they should have to pay for it. What about the hypocrisy of accepting medicare, ssi, etc. Why not get rid of them all? Today, you must take it. Medicare recently has had over 30% of it costs accounted for as fraud. Any business with that problem wouldn't be around. Only SSI, medicare, medicaid, the USPS, and Amtrak can boast such theivery, shortfalls, and mind-numbing losses. By eliminating the free money and shopping for our own insurance, we might just find everything more affordable, simply because we're aware of the costs--just like we are at the grocery store (at least those that aren't on assistance). Stop voting for a living and start working for one.  (Aug 11, 2009 | post #50)