Smokers at Work

[whottt]

Anyway, off to work security for KISS...where my boss has likely again mistaken my 41 year old smoking ass for a non-smoking 20 year old and put me on the ty spot...and while I may be a frail and sickly inefficient smoking worker...one thing I don't do is post in the internet while at work. Have a nice evening gang

[Blake]

Or that the Japanese inspite of being nuked, and over 50% of their population smoking, have the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the world.

By all means, paint with that broad brush...because it's so smart.

The prevalence of coronary disease is increasing in the Japanese population, although it remains lower than in the US and other Western populations. Nevertheless, the prevalence of lipid risk factors in younger Japanese people is now similar to that in the US population, and there has been a continuous increase in the frequency of diabetes in Japan. As in Western populations, hypercholesterolaemia is associated with increased CHD risk. There is thus concern regarding what coming years will bring in terms of continued increases in coronary disease.

http://eurheartjsupp.oxfordjournals....l/6/suppl_A/A8

by all means paint with that brush that doesn't have all the facts........because it's so smart

[Strike]

Or that the Japanese inspite of being nuked, and over 50% of their population smoking, have the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the world.

By all means, paint with that broad brush...because it's so smart.

The prevalence of coronary disease is increasing in the Japanese population, although it remains lower than in the US and other Western populations. Nevertheless, the prevalence of lipid risk factors in younger Japanese people is now similar to that in the US population, and there has been a continuous increase in the frequency of diabetes in Japan. As in Western populations, hypercholesterolaemia is associated with increased CHD risk. There is thus concern regarding what coming years will bring in terms of continued increases in coronary disease.

http://eurheartjsupp.oxfordjournals....l/6/suppl_A/A8

by all means paint with that brush that doesn't have all the facts........because it's so smart

Maybe he was too busy smoking to find that.

[CuckingFunt]

I think I get where you are coming from...it's ok to reduce a smoker to a stat but not a minority. Because there are clear and valid exceptions to minority stats and there are none with smokers...

Inspite of the fact that I posed unquestionable proof that the oldest person who ever lived was a smoker.



You are truly brilliuant funt.

Dollars and cents? Black people as a whole are way more costly across the board than white people.

None of this has anything to do with the point I was making.

There is a difference between "you are a bad person" and "you have a bad habit." No matter how many times smokers (including a good number of my friends and the guy I'm dating) try to make the connection between the discrimination they face as smokers and the discrimination others face due to their race, it simply isn't there. Is either justifiable? No. Do they both suck? Yes. Are they the same? Not by a long shot.

[ploto]

No, your employer does not pay more for your health insurance then for your co-workers.

If the company is self-insured, it costs the company more because of people who seek more care and rack up more bills.

[katyon6th]

If the company is self-insured, it costs the company more because of people who seek more care and rack up more bills.

You're correct. But your employer won't pay more for you individually if you seek more care and rack up more bills. Before open enrollment, the provider will look at the company as a whole and they then determine the next year's insurance rates.

[sabar]

Not even looking at the smoking part, showing up to an interview with any kind of nasty odor is generally bad.

Also, long living smokers and Japan are called exceptions to the rule. This is why we use meaningful statistics like averages and medians, not single cases. It doesn't help that 85% of lung cancer patients are smokers.

Anyways, few people are going to have sympathy for something that is 100% voluntary and done to yourself. Alcoholics, druggies, sex-addicts, or really any addict doesn't exactly have it easy in the job market either. People with tattoos and piercings still have trouble, even if those things cost the company no money in any way.

Anyways, is it right? No. Someone's personal life choice isn't going to seriously affect profit unless that person is in a position to put out nation-wide negative-publicity with their social stigma. But how many jobs are actually like that?

Should these practices be illegal? Not really. Culture and society will just need to get to a point of acceptance, or the people that do things to themselves need to rethink what they do before they do it.

I think showing up to the interview smelly is more reason to not hire someone. Personal hygiene is a basic human thing.

[Strike]

Not even looking at the smoking part, showing up to an interview with any kind of nasty odor is generally bad.

Also, long living smokers and Japan are called exceptions to the rule. This is why we use meaningful statistics like averages and medians, not single cases. It doesn't help that 85% of lung cancer patients are smokers.

Anyways, few people are going to have sympathy for something that is 100% voluntary and done to yourself. Alcoholics, druggies, sex-addicts, or really any addict doesn't exactly have it easy in the job market either. People with tattoos and piercings still have trouble, even if those things cost the company no money in any way.

Anyways, is it right? No. Someone's personal life choice isn't going to seriously affect profit unless that person is in a position to put out nation-wide negative-publicity with their social stigma. But how many jobs are actually like that?

Should these practices be illegal? Not really. Culture and society will just need to get to a point of acceptance, or the people that do things to themselves need to rethink what they do before they do it.

I think showing up to the interview smelly is more reason to not hire someone. Personal hygiene is a basic human thing.

Doesn't matter to whottt. One Japanese smoker trumps the rest of the world.

[whottt]

I know enough about genetics to know that no matter how you much you bleach your skin you can't quit being Black.

And I'd say you don't know about genetics then.

At the end of the day smoking is still a choice and if an employer sees that as a weakness and a potential financial hit against the company then so be it.

And at the end of the day, it will be stupid.

The employer has the same right to discriminate against people missing limbs, that are blind, or have any number of ailments or addiction that might cost the company time or money somewhere down the line.

I don't give a what the employer has a right to do...I am not arguing whether or not they have a right to do it.

I am arguing about whether or not it is bigotry, and it is. Whether they have a right to do it or not.

It has been proven pretty much without a shadow of a doubt that smoking is hazardous to a person's health. It has not been proven that all Blacks have a genetic disposition to crime.

Well I am sorry but it hasn't proven that all smokers are going to get sick and get lung cancer either, you stupid .


Do you need me to post the link yet again that refutes the fact that beyond all shadow of a doubt smoking is hazardous to ones health?

Your argument is beyond stupid.

No blake, you are beyond stupid. You have a bigoted mind, the same sort of mental processes that lead to people to make racial judgements on intelligence, and you are doing the exact same thing, and you are simply too stupid realize it.

I personally don't give a , your own stuopidity and tendency to generalize will make an ass of you enough to where I don't need to worry about it.

You will be wrong, in fact you already are, you've already been refuted, beyond all shadow of a doubt, and still you argue.



Let me make this clear, you will never convince me that your argument is right, intelligent or any way fair and open minded. I consider you to have the generalizing mind of a bigot, and that will never change unless you stop being a whole lost less stupid than you frequently are. So you can just stuff it...because you will not ever get me to see things as you see them.

[whottt]

None of this has anything to do with the point I was making.

There is a difference between "you are a bad person" and "you have a bad habit." No matter how many times smokers (including a good number of my friends and the guy I'm dating) try to make the connection between the discrimination they face as smokers and the discrimination others face due to their race, it simply isn't there. Is either justifiable? No. Do they both suck? Yes. Are they the same? Not by a long shot.

Oh yes they ing are......they are both generalized assumptions based on superficial factors not taking anything pertaining to the actual individual into account.

Saying well he's a smoker so he is going to get sick and cost me money is exactly like saying, well he's black so therefore he is going to steal.

It is exactly the same ing thing.

And you know what, if people or employers do it, it doesn't truly make a rats ass to me either...I just consider them to be stupid.

So you turn away a smoker, because they are smoker..and hire a non-smoker, well I hate to tell you this, but non-smokers have health problems too. And if your only measure is whether or not they are a smoker, it is a stupid measure. But since I consider stupidity to be punishment enough...I don't really give a one way or the other. But let's be clear on this, it is a generalized assumption that is exactly like someone makes when they say...well htey're black so they must be lazy, or they're mexican so they must be a thief.

It is the exact same thought process.

I don't expect anyone with that mind to realize they do it, if they realized it, they wouldn't do it.


Plus funt, you're a woman and everyone knows logic isn't ya'lls strong suit. Never missing work is....

[whottt]

Maybe he was too busy smoking to find that.

Maybe you are too stupid to realize smoking wasn't mentioned anywhere in that article.

Maybe you are too stupid to realize that in a dicussion about smoking and lung cancer that article is about coronary heart disease, scarely mentions lung cancer, and has absolutely no mention of smoking.

And maybe you don't realize it doesn't refute anything I said.

But by all means, keep thinking you have proven something.

[polandprzem]

I hate smokers who thinks they should be allowed to smoke in public places.
I have to deal with smoke at my work. that !

[J.T.]

I hate smokers who thinks they should be allowed to smoke in public places.
I have to deal with smoke at my work. that !

So walk ten feet away from whoever's smoking.

I went to a bowling alley the other day and it was no smoking. Are you ing kidding me? A bowling alley!

[polandprzem]

So walk ten feet away from whoever's smoking.

I went to a bowling alley the other day and it was no smoking. Are you ing kidding me? A bowling alley!

Umm I can't

[leemajors]

So walk ten feet away from whoever's smoking.

I went to a bowling alley the other day and it was no smoking. Are you ing kidding me? A bowling alley!

Been that way for a couple years now in Austin. Unless you hit up the Poodle Dog, I think they smoke in there.

[CuckingFunt]

Oh yes they ing are......they are both generalized assumptions based on superficial factors not taking anything pertaining to the actual individual into account.

Saying well he's a smoker so he is going to get sick and cost me money is exactly like saying, well he's black so therefore he is going to steal.

It is exactly the same ing thing.

And you know what, if people or employers do it, it doesn't truly make a rats ass to me either...I just consider them to be stupid.

So you turn away a smoker, because they are smoker..and hire a non-smoker, well I hate to tell you this, but non-smokers have health problems too. And if your only measure is whether or not they are a smoker, it is a stupid measure. But since I consider stupidity to be punishment enough...I don't really give a one way or the other. But let's be clear on this, it is a generalized assumption that is exactly like someone makes when they say...well htey're black so they must be lazy, or they're mexican so they must be a thief.

It is the exact same thought process.

There is a difference between "you are a bad person" and "you have a bad habit."

[Strike]

Maybe you are too stupid to realize smoking wasn't mentioned anywhere in that article.

Maybe you are too stupid to realize that in a dicussion about smoking and lung cancer that article is about coronary heart disease, scarely mentions lung cancer, and has absolutely no mention of smoking.

And maybe you don't realize it doesn't refute anything I said.

But by all means, keep thinking you have proven something.

I never said I proved anything. And, it was a joke. I'm sorry. I didn't know you were so fragile. From what I've seen, you are unable to have a discussion about anything with anyone on this board without resorting to insults and accusations of bigotry toward anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you play with others, fine. I find it amusing, as do many other people here.

[Jekka]

This as about as dumb as looking at someones credit before hiring them. I kinda understand cigs and overweight people but not looking at your credit.

They do that for a lot of government jobs, because they want some insurance that if you're bribed you're less likely to take it. If you've got $15,000 in credit card debt, places like the Government Accountability Office or FBI aren't going to hire you, and I'm okay with that. It's my understanding that many private companies do that for the same reason.

[Drachen]

You're correct. But your employer won't pay more for you individually if you seek more care and rack up more bills. Before open enrollment, the provider will look at the company as a whole and they then determine the next year's insurance rates.

Yes but these rates are partially based on usage, just like auto insurance rates. This is why small businesses which have group insurance for their employees get absolutely killed if one of their employees gets cancer. The increase in premium per person when spread amongst 20 people is immense as compared to the increase in premium per person when spread amongst 2000 people if one of those people gets cancer.

[whottt]

There is a difference between "you are a bad person" and "you have a bad habit.

No Funt, your semi- sexuality is a bad habit, tobacco use is something man has done for centuries that has many many provable positive benefits, especially in terms of job performance...whereas I don't believe there are any attributed to sexuality.

[whottt]

I never said I proved anything. And, it was a joke. I'm sorry. I didn't know you were so fragile. From what I've seen, you are unable to have a discussion about anything with anyone on this board without resorting to insults and accusations of bigotry toward anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you play with others, fine. I find it amusing, as do many other people here.

Ironically enough, I hardly ever start an argument with anyone. I simply came into thread and said as I usually do, "you guys" that feel this way or think this _____________. I named no names and I did that for a reason. I just threw the bait out there, I didn't force anyone to take it. I hardly ever do, initially(although after certain barriers have been broken I do reserve the right to start an argument with someone). There is a very good reason I do it that way...

And besides, what makes you think I am serious in a mad sort of way? I just have an offbeat sense of humor. I won't say I've never gotten mad on this board but it is rare...last time was when we played the Pistons in the finals. I actually was going to quit the board because Kori wouldn't let me ban all the Pistons fans if they beat us.

It may come off as a meltdown but if you were to actually see my reaction in most of my arguments on this board you would not come away the perception I was mad or melting down, but more like a kid in a candy store. You see I never get into an argument I don't already know I have won before I got into it. And I love challenging mass aquired opinions being subs uted for knowledge...breaking up the herd so to speak.


Like in this case...I got to point out that the oldest person whoever lived was a smoker, something I am certain no on in this thread thread knew. I love that...and whether you like it or not it totally s on blanket judgements, which is another thing I love to do. I knew it wouldn't change anyone's opinion(beyond the truly open minded) anymore than instantly revealing a cliff in front of a train is going to prevent that train from going off it.


I didn't even have to go to my ace in this argument based on the counters I was given, which was to list off some the flat out astounding health benefits of smoking...a shame too because I actually wanted to do it. Turn everyones painted on perception on it's ear.

[marini martini]

Ironically enough, I hardly ever start an argument with anyone. I simply came into thread and said as I usually do, "you guys" that feel this way or think this _____________. I named no names and I did that for a reason. I just threw the bait out there, I didn't force anyone to take it. I hardly ever do, initially(although after certain barriers have been broken I do reserve the right to start an argument with someone). There is a very good reason I do it that way...

And besides, what makes you think I am serious in a mad sort of way? I just have an offbeat sense of humor. I won't say I've never gotten mad on this board but it is rare...last time was when we played the Pistons in the finals. I actually was going to quit the board because Kori wouldn't let me ban all the Pistons fans if they beat us.

It may come off as a meltdown but if you were to actually see my reaction in most of my arguments on this board you would not come away the perception I was mad or melting down, but more like a kid in a candy store. You see I never get into an argument I don't already know I have won before I got into it. And I love challenging mass aquired opinions being subs uted for knowledge...breaking up the herd so to speak.


Like in this case...I got to point out that the oldest person whoever lived was a smoker, something I am certain no on in this thread thread knew. I love that...and whether you like it or not it totally s on blanket judgements, which is another thing I love to do. I knew it wouldn't change anyone's opinion(beyond the truly open minded) anymore than instantly revealing a cliff in front of a train is going to prevent that train from going off it.


I didn't even have to go to my ace in this argument based on the counters I was given, which was to list off some the flat out astounding health benefits of smoking...a shame too because I actually wanted to do it. Turn everyones painted on perception on it's ear.

**swoon**

My hero!!!

[BRHornet45]

sons I don't have a problem with people discriminating against smokers. I don't hire them either. 9 times out of 10 they will spend at least an hour of their day outside smoking. every hour or two they take their "5 minute smoke break" which in reality is more like 10-15 minutes completely wasted. not to mention most of them are too lazy and trashy to bother throwing the cigarette buts in a designated trash bin because its a further walk from where they like to smoke. so instead they just fill up your parking lot with the . don't hire em.

[jack sommerset]

sons I don't have a problem with people discriminating against smokers. I don't hire them either. 9 times out of 10 they will spend at least an hour of their day outside smoking. every hour or two they take their "5 minute smoke break" which in reality is more like 10-15 minutes completely wasted. not to mention most of them are too lazy and trashy to bother throwing the cigarette buts in a designated trash bin because its a further walk from where they like to smoke. so instead they just fill up your parking lot with the . don't hire em.

Son, best sig yet, I got instant wood! Tell your smokers, no smoking at work, period. You will be doing them a favor.

[katyon6th]

Yes but these rates are partially based on usage, just like auto insurance rates. This is why small businesses which have group insurance for their employees get absolutely killed if one of their employees gets cancer. The increase in premium per person when spread amongst 20 people is immense as compared to the increase in premium per person when spread amongst 2000 people if one of those people gets cancer.

You're correct as well. But your employer will not and does not pay more for you indvidually if you see a doctor more often due to being diagnosed with cancer (as you used as an example) than a co-worker. You can bet your ass your rates will go up the next year though - as a whole - because of that one employee.