Is it Wrong To Fire People for Smoking? You deside.

[Mr. McD]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/flash/smoking/

[aquart]

1. Gosh.

After decades of discrimination and loss of income because I didn't smoke, how do I feel about the shoe being on the other foot.........how does it feel, you selfish, drug-addicted sons of bitches?

And aside from the economic losses, after losing the joy of dancing because smoking morons couldn't keep their cigarettes off the dance floor, how do I feel about knowing THEY are suffering?

It's so wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. But you know, I ain't a nice person and I'm just fine with it.

[MadHound]

8. So, you will be just as gleeful when

They come for people who are overweight, engage in risky sex, participate in extreme sports, drink, etc etc ad nauseum? This isn't about smoking friend, as much as you would like it to be. This is about an employees' right to do as they wish off the clock. But I guess you're having to much fun with your schadenfreude to really care.

[aquart]

16. They already got rid of me for not smoking.

I know there are some smokers who give a damn about others, there really are. But most of them had to be legislated out of killing other people and I LOVE hearing them squeal about discrimination now. I LOVE it.

Ever get fired for refusing to ride in an elevator with a smoking bank veep? I was.

So far as I'm concerned, this is just like the white males suing against affirmative action hiring of women and blacks. Poor discriminated-against things.

HOW DOES IT FEEL???? Like karma, maybe?

[MadHound]

22. So, if you really had such a case, why not sue?

And again, this isn't about smoking friend, this is about an employees' right to do what they want to off the job. Do you want your employer looking into your private life? Dictating what you eat, what you do, who you love? Because this is the slippery slope we're on with this kind of action. Don't let your hatred of smoking blind you to what is really going on here. Today, it is smokers, and you rejoice. Tomorrow it is you, for whatever reason. Get the picture?

[aquart]

32. So young, so spoiled.

We didn't have those rights back then. We didn't even know those rights existed.

I would have liked to see you tell a civil rights activist not to blow smoke in your face, I really would. First there would be the contemptuous lecture about how we were dealing with more important issues.

And don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

[MadHound]

47. Don't pull that "older and wiser" crap with me friend

I've probably been around the block just as many times as you have, old enough to be a grandfather, OK. Sorry, that shit doesn't fly.

And we're not talking about a civil rights activist(though most whom I've known were pretty sensitive to such issues), we're talking about you getting fired due to not taking an elevator with you boss due to his smoking. Even back in the bad old days, if your case is as you claim, you could have had a successful lawsuit, and retained your job.

And you are still refusing to see how this is a slippery slope case, leading to discrimination for all, and how it gives an employer the right to dictate what you do on your own free time. Why do you not address that? Is it simply that your schadenfreude is blinding you to the implications of this matter? Sure seems like it.

And besides, age isn't everything, wisdom comes from the mouthes of babes also.

[Deep13]

61. Based on what?

"So, if you really had such a case, why not sue?"

No civil rights laws were violated. Nonsmokers have never had any rights as nonsmokers in the workplace before A.D.A., and even then it is questionable.

I worked retail in the 1980s and people were allowed to smoke in the store. I suppose I could have quit, but every other place of business was the same. At home it was my step-father's four-pack-a-day habit. Once college started, I was subjected to smokers in the hallway, student union and even the goddamn classroom. Same with law school in the early 1990s until the governor banned smoking in state buildings. My first law job was in a nonsmoking office, but the office next door had a lot of smokers and it came through the common heat ducts. My first apartment had people smoking in the halls, laundry room and I could smell it through the fan duct in the bathroom.

Smoking killed my Grandma and my Dad.

You know, I support just about anything that will wipe that shit out of existence. Smokers are inconsiderate by definition and it is hard to feel sorry for any of them.

[MadHound]

64. Well, from what I understand

Aquart refused to ride in an elevator with a smoking bank veep due to a respiratory disease, and was fired for doing so. Sounds like a case to me, at least based on what Aquart said.

And what you are supporting to "wipe that shit out of existence" will allow your employer complete control over your life. Today, fired for smoking, tomorrow, fired for overeating, risky sex, exteme sports participation, drinking etc etc ad nauseum. And thus, down that slippery slope we go to complete corporate control. Do you really hate smoking that bad that you are willing to sacrifice not just your rights and privacy, but everybody elses' as well? Sorry friend, I don't go along with that.

[Enquiringkitty]

71. I agree with you. Smoking isn't a GOOD thing but it is legal.

We know what will happen if they made it illegal ... the same thing that happened when they made alcohol illegal .... smuggling! Brittan has a problem with that and their smokes are just really high priced. People in my industry have been fired because they drink to much ... a safety issue. Hangovers lead to dangerous actions and inattention to details can get someone else killed and endanger the public. So it all depends on how the "habit" effects the work place.
There have been people fired for being over weight ... Hooters!, and several upscale restaurants.
The spokes model who was mugged and had a small scar next to her ear ...her looks were marred and no longer reflected the image they were looking for, was fired. She sued and won $$$.
Most places here have a room for smokers ON THEIR BREAKS which has a fan on an outside wall to pull the air in the room out.

No addiction is good for anyone. But, if someone smokes anyway, knowing the hart it has and what it might do to their own health, then they shouldn't sue the companies for what they freely did. That is like an adult child of a single mother shooting his mom and suing the gun company for making him an orphan.

[Toots]

94. If that employer is paying your health care premiums then I would say

they have that right. If they are not paying for health care insurance for you and you don't take up company time smoking your cigarettes then they should not have any say. Just my $.02 worth

[MadHound]

96. Well then, since most folks get their insurance through work

Do you also think that it would be just for your employer to regulate your eating habits, your sexual habits, your hobbies and athletic participation, your consumption of alcohol, and taking it to the next generation, who you can have children with(gotta look out for those hereditary diseases)? This is the slippery slope that we're looking at friend. Sure, let's start out by smacking on the smokers, always an unpopular group of people, whose habit is scorned and ridiculed. But once corporations get by with this far smokers, they have set precidence for everything else. Do you really want your life controlled in that fashion?

Sorry friend, but this kind of intrusion doesn't fly with me. Ford and others tried this kind of uber control in the teens, and it took the force of unions for them to give it up. I'm not wanting to go back.

[Toots]

99. You think they haven't already set precident?

Most places of employment now demand drug testing. It doesn't matter if you use no drugs at work if you show positive you can kiss your job good-bye. Tobacco is a drug. "Get Over It" As long as we allow one harmful drug to be the reason for home invasion why bitch about another? I personally don't think employers should be the ones in charge of your health insurance. It gives them way too much power over you and your family. However if that is the form of health care we want as a nation then by all means employers should go after their employees for any thing that can hurt the company. It is after all the republican way and we have become a Republican Nation. You are quite correct in assuming this is only the starting point. Weight control and eating habits will be next. Companies/Corporations control America. Look to them as God. Pray to them so they won't fire your ass so you lose your health care. Health care is provided by virtually every single westernized Nation on earth but not America. Nooo we are a Republican Nation where the Employer is GOD

[MadHound]

101. Well now, let us all just give up them, and roll over eh?

Sorry pal, don't buy that arguement, and neither do most other people. If you want to bow down to big business, go ahead. I will continue to oppose the outrageous excesses of power that corporate America is wielding.

So you have a choice, either get out of the way, and let the rest of us save our collective ass, or dig in and fight this outrageous corporate abuse. It is up to you. But throwing your hands up in the air and saying there is nothing that can be done is counter productive at best, and makes you part of the problem at worst. In other words, it is time for you to lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[Toots]

104. I can see how well you've done so far.......

Whatever :shrug:

[mantis49]

127. Tobacco is a drug, but it is a legal one.

The drug testing employers do is for illegal drugs. That doesn't bother me.

[seabeyond]

98. diabetes, asthama, cancer, aids, ms, high blood pressure,

chronic female reproductive problems, hepetitas, heart disease and any other long term disease or disease that sits dormant, applicant need not apply.

and when all these people cant get a job cause they use insurance more than the average person, ya right......how many go to doctor for the cold or flu........then are we paying their welfare for the roof over head and food they eat

i have not been sick in a lifetime. gave birth to two babies, had a sinus infection 5, 7 years ago i received antibiotics, and that is it. i will put work related sick days up against anybody. twice i took off early being sick. never did take a full sick day, in decades of work. and i am being told by all these clever people, i am a problem. a little sniffle and employees take a sick day, have insurance pay for a doctor.

and i am deprived a job. paying my way in life. feeding my family. putting a roof over my head

it doesnt even make sense for the smoke hating people to want this. will be disasterious to fellow man. like cutting off nose to spite face.

you have bought into the conditioning of hate and segregation. of villifying a person to meet an agenda. manipulation and lies in studies to intellectually feed the bias. baaaaaaahhhhhh. no better than the fundies, no better than the attack on gays or liberals. shame on you all.

[Pepperbelly]

122. Paying for something entitles them to precisely nothing ...

That's how I look at dates. How about you?

They don't get to fuck me just because they pay for something and they don't get to tell me how to live.

[seabeyond]

34. lordy you are angry, resentful, mean

ever look into the physical effects on body due to attitude. higher health risks. and you embrace it so. i am thinking companies should equally go after the angry that are going to blow out their heart at fourty cause of all their anger.

fire their ass if they cant find some yoga to bring them to peace

nah, i say this in jest. be angry. isnt in my world. yours to live. not being judgement. i totally embrace your right to be angry, kicking that ole dog whenever you chose. i will stand up for you if they come after you

oh and the fat person, will stand up for you
and the skier, will stand up for you too

just cause i am that kinda gal

[aquart]

38. Ever look at the physical effects from smoking?

I have blocked the doors of trains to make smokers put out their cigarettes and obey the law.

I've done my time fighting for the right to breathe.

And yes, there's residual anger about so much time wasted on the selfishness of others and a fight I never wanted.

It's all yours now, young'un.

[seabeyond]

40. young'un.

making assumption. but do what you have to do. go kick ass

whatever. i dont respect this. i am not impressed. not how i walk life anyway. further, the smoker you would be harrassing i would probably end up on their side, regardless of agreeing with you

[ProfessorGAC]

102. Employment At Will Is A Bitch, aquart!

You weren't fired over being a non-smoker. That guy obviously had it in for you and would have found some other reason. EAW can be quite a problem in the professional world, and you know it.
The Professor

[aquart]

33. Hold on.

Do you actually believe they DON'T discriminate against the overweight? Yet I don't see you beating that drum. Funny.

[MadHound]

48. That is because we're not discussing weight discrimination here

You are seeing waaay too many trees here friend, and not enough of the forest.

What we are discussing on this thread is how this sort of employer control will give all employers the right to dictate what their employees do on their own time. Do you wish to discuss that, or do you simply wish to continue to wallow in your own shortsightedness?

[skids]

11. Just interested...

How did you manage to lose income because you didn't smoke?

[aquart]

23. You must be really young.

Once upon a time, smoking was the norm especially in offices, everywhere.

Which meant that someone with asthma triggered by tobacco couldn't work in those places where smoking was the norm.

Which meant finding places where it wasn't the norm, like retailing, where the money is much less. Getting it?

[skids]

27. Well, as usual...

...us young people get to pay the costs of the generation that parented us.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone among those getting fired who is old enough to remember the days when it wasn't considered common courtesy to smoke outside when someone with a medical condition was present.

[aquart]

36. Common Courtesy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That common courtesy came from years of court action.

The common courtesy of most smokers was to blow smoke in your face as soon as you said you had a problem with it. I LOVE being lectured how to beg for air.

[Lisabtrucking]

84. Yeah and bush is fixing it so you can't sue the tobacco company's

anymore. it's a dog eat dog world, get use to it.

[aquart]

88. Relevance?

[uhhuh]

87. By your support of dismissing those who smoke

As a risk, you should be in full support of them terminating you.

You are a risky hire. You have a breathing malady that is triggered by smoke. What else might trigger a reaction?

Could chemicals of perfume in the office cause a reaction and trigger a lawsuit?

It may be better to let employers deny you work because you MAY be a liability to them.

Maybe your food choices or outside activities contributed to you developing this condition. I propose that employers be able to scrutinize your life and decide what caused this asthmatic condition and tell you what you are permitted to do outside of work to allieviate this condition.

I'm sure you'll find this fair. :eyes:

[sui generis]

12. you were discriminated against?

why didn't you just join a non-smoking dance club? Or go to a non-smoking titty bar? You're like a damn atheist pissing and moaning about being in church. If there were enough prudish pricks out there who gave a flipping shit about dancing in a smoke free environment don't you think economic pressures would have started non-smoking discos or barn dances or wherever it is you dint get to shake your ass? Wah wah wah. I personally think they should fire people for frikkin whining.

Heh heh heh. Hi Aquart - :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alfredo]

29. the thing is, if I pay good money to eat a meal I want to be able to

smell and taste the food, not some noxious weed. When a person smokes around me, I have to breath in his poison. So do the workers in that restaurant or bar.

Smokers take more time off the job for illness, costing businesses. they take more breaks, cutting productivity. Also offices that allow smoking have to deal with the tars collecting on machinery, then collecting dust. In computers this is a bad thing.

I owned a janitorial service. I found that it took longer to clean an office that allowed smoking. I soon adjusted my rates to reflect that. I also had to clean the windows more. The tars are a real pain to clean off windows, especially since the heat of the sun bakes the tars on.

On airlines they found the tars clogged up the cabin filtration system. The added weight of the tars on all surfaces adds to the weight of the aircraft, cutting fuel efficiency.

At work, I cannot get away from the smoke.

Why should I suffer from the drug addictions of others?

If you smoke habitually, you are a drug addict.

[Vladimir]

31. All true but the point is that they were fired for smoking

in their spare time, at home (well, for refusing to be tested, which comes to the same thing).

I agree 100% that smoking should be banned in all offices/places of work, but the health argument is a slippery slope, as noted by many others...

[alfredo]

125. that's it. the boss can only do so much to lower

insurance rates and absenteeism. He's got to accept that he cannot control every aspect of his employees lives.

[sui generis]

44. if you overeat habitually you are a drug addict

what a load of horseshit. We're talking about monitoring what you do with your body when you are NOT at work. I could talk mean about "fat" people missing work too. Don't get me started on lard ass fuel efficiency in air transportation, and I used to do rocket science so I really can give you those calcs.

It's misguided, and an invasion of privacy, to fire someone for smoking at home. It's just plain myopic to think that if you're using "missed work days" as an excuse, that pretty soon they'll be checking to see if your genes have a potential for coronary artery disease, stroke, or terminal bedwetting. They may also discover that people who go to church live longer, and therefore if you can't prove that you go to church three times a week you get fired.

The only thing a corporation "owns" about me is the time I trade for money, and not a god damn thing more. They have a right to know that I'm not a criminal or danger to their property or other employees, and THAT'S ALL. A corporation does not have more rights than I do.

Why should corporations have special rights anyway? Hell, I don't even want to TALK to someone on the street unless I can be sure they're not an "addict". Maybe the government should regulate this as a license to work issue. If you can prove you're not a smoker or overeater or heroin sucking crackhead, you get a social security card, otherwise die pig. /sarcasm

It's craziness. We can't let it start.

[alfredo]

70. I wasn't saying that the boss was right in what he did, I was just

railing at apologist for smoking.

I can see the bosses side, but that doesn't make his actions appropriate. If he made non smoking a condition of hiring, fine, but it shouldn't be grandfathered. He should give incentive$ to quit, subsidize treatment and give recognition to those who stay off the drug.


Over eating is bad, but it doesn't hurt other people in the room.

[sui generis]

111. it makes fuel costs go up on airplanes

:evilgrin:

no, I just think that until I can drug test and psych profile my boss that the "contract" between corporate entity and individual entity is not even.

The mere fact of being a business entity does not give anyone the "right" to do anything more than trade money for time. Everything else is an invasion of privacy.

[alfredo]

115. If my private life doesn't impact my employer in a negative way

then it is none of his business. If I came in hung over or tripping on some good mesc and it affected my work, then it is his business.

Hint: do not try to splice a 3,000 pair phone cable while tripping on acid.

[sui generis]

119. well, just the same

I'm not going to be forced to piss in a cup just because some guy doesn't know to take his drugs on Friday instead of Sunday nite.

If you don't want to have a hangover at work, then plan to be sober in time for work.

I work in finance. I drink coffee all day long, which also affects my judgement. I could splice a 3,000 pair phone cable with one eyeball tied behind my back while gargling peanut butter and whistling dixie backwards in a minor key. Can't imagine what I would be like on speed - probably a bad idea.

If your boss suspects that you are doing drugs, then it's fair to ask you to piss in a cup. But the reverse of that is if your employer makes everyone piss in a cup, then he thinks everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

That's bullshit - I have never pissed in a cup for a job, and I never will. I even gave a conscientious objection on this job, and they reviewed my objection and hired me anyway.

[alfredo]

120. I wouldn't work anywhere that made me

piss in a cup to get a job.


The only times I went to work drunk was when I was in the Army. Our post had the highest rate of alcohol consumption in the Army. I went to work high one time because I dropped the tab way too late, and it was much more powerful than I though it would be. Anyway, Black Sabbath on Halloween calls for a bit of altering.

[Pepperbelly]

124. they can blow me for their damned tests ...

They are the idiots sold the bill of goods by the testing firms and if my boss asks me, I would tell 'em in a heartbeat. Fuck 'em. I am good at what I do and I can do it most anywhere for anyone.

No one has any right to interfere in my personal life.

Period.

[Pepperbelly]

123. and if I pay good money for a meal, I would prefer a cigarette ...

afterward. So, if I am unwelcome at a restaurant or they will make no accomdation, I guess they can just make do with your money and skip mine.

BTW, do you need a new nail or two up there on that cross? If you scold people, you are a SCOLD. I would rather be an addict. Me and Dr. Thompson.

[Misunderestimator]

35. "an atheist pissing and moaning about being in church"

Bwaaaahaaaaahaaaaaa :thumbsup:

[jdots]

21. I was going to flame you but you flamed yourself.

forget it.

[LisaM]

2. I really agree with the other activity part...

I live in Seattle and I know more people who have missed work from skiing accidents than from health issues related to smoking.

For the record, I think that people should be able to do either in their off hours.

[Nikepallas]

3. Yes. If a company can do that what is next? You have a high risk for

dying early...You don't fit the physical ideas that this company wants to project....you might have a baby...All of these are not allowed to happen now BUT give one exception(granted I personally think it is a terrible habit I don't do it myself) and you open the door for a workplace to dictate EVERYTHING a worker does on and OFF the job.

I can see a company requesting a employee not smoking on the job BUT off the job is completely wrong. AND RUDE

[murray hill farm]

9. Well..on the other hand....

would a company be able to fire you if you were into ingesting teaspoons of arsnic in your off hours? What is the difference..a smoker poisons themselves with a little dose of poison with each cigarette...so...i say great...maybe this company can save a few persons from killing themselves on their off hours. i didnt read the article..to impatient to wait for it to load...but did they give the employees a chance to quit before firing them?

[SmokingJacket]

15. They shouldn't be allowed to test you to see

if you're ingesting arsenic in your off hours, and they shouldn't be allowed to test people for smoking at home (or overeating, or engaging in risky sex, or riding a bike without a helmet, or forgetting to take vitamins/antipsychotic drugs, etc.).

It's about the overreach of corporations into the private lives of individuals. So they lose money because people are fallible humans? Fallible humans are all they have to work with. They should deal with it.

[murray hill farm]

17. You are right!

i was just being a wise ass...what i think should happen instead, is that the tobacco companies should all be closed down for selling poison the the public.

[Nikepallas]

19. I can see about the arsenic BUT where does it stop. My brother loves

to climb mountains does that mean his company has the right to fire him because he is doing something that some consider reckless?

Where does big brother stop? When does company time stop and private time begin? It will end up harming our liberties more if we remain silent and allow this to happen than we speak up now.

[PassingFair]

93. For real, following this logic,

companies should be able to fire females, because they breed, causing all SORTS of healthcare claims. Kids are expensive! They cost women time off work! Women COST business. Families COST business. Hire only celibate men!
I cannot BELIEVE that anyone could get behind this logic.
For the record, I am an ex-smoker. Anyone with asthma bad enough to prevent them from breathing near smokers probably has the same problem breathing in ANY city in the US. Levels of pollutants in California cities far outstrip what you pick up in "sidestream" smoke.
Why not use your energy to scream about emissions from our friends, the cars?

[LiberalinNC]

4. I am against smoking, don't want it near me, yet I think it's completely

wrong to fire someone because they smoke. Wouldn't that fall under discrimination?

[Warpy]

5. I'm horribly allergic to tobacco smoke

and welcomed smoke free workplaces with deep gratitude, although smokers still deprive me of a social life. I've gotten quite used to being a hermit.

Still, this seems violently unfair. I don't think you can eliminate people because of bad habits or bad genes because they might make your insurance premiums go up.

I have a funny feeling this one will be overturned, as it should be.

[sui generis]

6. absolutely

perhaps in a medieval world of serfs and peasants it would be okay to demand of one's employees that they paint their ass blue and stand on their head for two hours a day or be fired, but here in the "Land of the Free" what you do on your own time is no more concern of the company than your concern about what your plumber or electrician does on his free time.

With the exception of people who operate machinery / transportation / weapons, drug testing policy has absolutely no benefit for anyone but the publicly traded laboratories who convince HR departments that everyone should be tested.

The core argument that there are many horrible things people do that cause them to have higher health costs is dead on. I shall be skiing next week, possibly overeating, overdrinking, and if I feel the urge, I may just have a cigarette.

What's next? There is some anecdotal evidence that failure to ejaculate regularly can lead to prostate problems in men. Also that eating fish can load you up with mercury. I think we should start testing for blueballs and mercury too.

:eyes:

[jmowreader]

42. People who handle money should be tested too

Because as long as drugs remain illegal, drug users plus large sums of money are a bad combination. A lot of embezzlers embezzled to support illicit drug habits.

Drugs are now sold by small businessmen who aren't required to set uniform prices for their products. I think that if I was a drug dealer and I found out one of my customers was a cashier, I'd have some "special drugs" that commanded especially high prices just for this customer. "Aw come on, man, you know you can get more money!"

If pot was legal, they could sell it in stores that put the price on the product.

[Rush1184]

73. That is rediculous...

If someone is working as a chasier, and they come up short at the end of a shift, the store would instantly realize this and take appropiate action. Testing in this situation would only discriminate against users who are otherwise law abiding citizens.

[jmowreader]

91. It only takes one day

Especially if you work in a place that uses pneumatic tubes, rotates cashiers from till to till, and is in a city where the cops really don't worry much about economic crime--like Fayetteville.

We had a cashier who started skimming when this person worked at the returns desk. The cashier's drops were coming up short and the video system was recording this person doing it. We called the cops and told them we were going to fire this person for employee theft and we wanted them to come down and pick this person up. The fucking cops told us that they didn't want to get involved until the person had stolen $2000. "Oh, you have insurance that covers employee theft, don't you?" Yeah, but that's not the point--we want to get rid of the person and we want the person in jail.

These fuckers actually told us that we shouldn't fire the cashier until $2000 was stolen! Said we might be liable for "improper termination" lawsuits.

Fortunately for us the person eventually reached the magic $2000 threshold and the cops threw the person in jail.

Now! Assume you were a clever thief and you knew that the police wouldn't do anything to you unless you stole $2000. So you take, oh, $1900 over a period of a few weeks, then disappear.

I'd rather not have people facing the temptation. Put the pot smokers in decor or kitchens, because pot smokers tend to be creative souls and the kitchens people don't drive heavy machinery.

[Rush1184]

128. I smoke pot.

And I have worked many jobs in which I have had to handle money, and I have NEVER come up short. Just because a person smokes pot does not mean they are going to steal. Not all substance users steal to support their habits... most do not. Theft to buy drugs shows one has a drug problem, but that is only a small percentage of users who have a problem that needs to be addressed, but for the vast majority of people who are responsible users are honest as well. I have met many pot smokers who are lawyers, doctors, ex-politicans, and other professional people who smoke pot in private, but who are otherwise highly respect members of their comunities, yet you are not calling for a doctor to get tested, yet he handles drugs, and could pocket them at any time (it would only take once as you say). We can't punish people in advance because we think they might do somthing. We tried that in Iraq, did not work. It is not pot smokers fault that the police did not follow up on that employee, That is the police's fault, she should face repercussions for her actions, but not be prohibited in advance by a personal test from entering into her job field of choice.

[ArkDem]

7. I can't deside

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

10. The sheeple in this country are way too willing to give up rights....

There is soon to be NO right to privacy.

And for anyone who wants to use the 'privacy is not listed in the Bill Of Rights' argument, do they realize that the word 'privacy' only referred to using the toilet (privy) during the late 18th century. Unlawful search and seizure was what they used for our modern term of privacy.

[fishwax]

41. i agree

if this is allowed to stand, then what's next. All kinds of people engage in all kinds of "risky" behaviors, and it's nobody's damn business.

[jdots]

13. I smoke ciggeretts because I am out of work

Ha ha not funny nor is canning someone for smoking .
Last I heard it was still sort of legal to smoke at home in my garage.

[whathappened]

14. smoking

i don't like smoking , but use to be one and i think they have no buiness following there enployee's home and telling them what they should be doing in there lifes at home

[Eagle_Eye]

18. The answer is NO

It would be a bad thing for this type of judgment to be allowed for any reason. It does not take much stretch of the imagination to next hear about people being fired because their sexual behavior could cause added medical costs.

[Deep13]

20. No

Unless someone is a statutory or contract employee who can only be fired for just cause, the law in most states indicates that any employee can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason. The flip side of that is that any employee can quit at any time. There are exceptions, of course. Race and gender discrimination violate Federal civil rights laws and there are other examples.

I am just answering the question and did not read the attached article. Frankly, there are many reason not to tolerate smokers at work. What smokers need to realize is that lighting dried leaves on fire and inhaling the smoke is not normal, has never been normal and is increasingly socially unacceptable. Further, there is no right to smoke and there never has been one anymore than there is a right to play golf or make paper airplanes.

If they smoke at work, it will create a health hazzard for everyone else. The smell might discourage customers etc. It is a fire hazzard. It is really unsanitary and will make the rugs, furniture, drapes etc. etc. smell bad and look dingy. You should see the revolting condition of the ceilings of the old courthouse! This is if they smoke at work. If not:

Smokers have more absences from illness than nonsmokers.

Smokers are more of a drag on group health insurance because they will be sick more often and may end up with serious respiratory disorders.

Smokers are more likely to interrupt work to take a drag.

Sorry, but smokers smell bad. Even when not smoking, that stale oder gets in a person's hair and cloths. I can smell it ten feet away. When I go somewhere where people are smoking, my clothes always stink when I get home.

Smoking is a form of long term suicide. An employer is not being unreasonable for refusing to enable it and be an accomplice to a person's self destruction.

You're gonna love this one. Twenty years ago in high school, we all knew smoking was deadly. Some of my underage classmates did it anyway. My friends and I did not. In other words, some students caved into the peer pressure and put being in the "in" crowd over their own well-being. Others resisted and did the right thing. It might not be unreasonable for an employer to infer a weak character from the fact that someone smokes. Understand, I do not agree with that analysis, but I cannot prove that it is wrong either.

As a general proposition, health should be prefered over non-health and aspects of society that choose health over non-health should be encouraged and supported.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. You are completely incorrect on a couple of your facts.I do labor law.

Outside of work injuries, the major reason for absences and lost time from work is alcoholism. Alcoholism according to OSHA results in 3 times the number of work absences over any other reason.

The number one DRAIN on health insurance costs is heart disease. The PRIMARY risk factor for heart disease is heredity. Smoking CAN be contributory but so far there are no studies that demonstrate heart disease to be present in ALL smokers.

[Deep13]

39. Are you seriously suggesting...

...that smoking does not cause heart disease? I don't for a minute believe that hereditary is more important that diet, physical fitness and smoking on the causes of heart disease.

Anyway, I did not say that a smoker will necessarily be out more often, only that it is reasonable to suppose the possibility. Further, just because heart disease is the "number one drain" does not mean there are no others or that other causes are insignificant. Smoking damages the cilia and mucus membranes in the windpipe. These are defense mechanisms against contaminants, inlcuding germs. Damaging these things will make a person more susceptible to infectious agents than a nonsmoker.

I was not discussing whether or not it is right to fire a person for alcoholism, only smoking.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. The CAUSE of heart disease (CAD) remains unknown.

Smoking IS a risk factor but again NOT ALL smokers have coronary artery disease. That's not an opinion, that is a medical fact.

You made an empirical statement about smoking and absence and did not present it as a possibility. You presented it as a fact. An unsupportable one.


Believe what you want, but it flies in the face of medicine and that is HEREDITY is the number one risk factor for whether a person will incur coronary artery disease...not smoking, not diet, not exercise even though all are indeed risk factors.

Finally, I rebutted your statement that it was the greater cause for absence when, in fact, alcoholism trumps pulmonary disease TIME THREE when it comes to lost time from work.


As to your final paragraph, you made a number of false assertions and I raised the issue of alcoholism since you claimed the ill effects of cigarette smoking were a greater cause of missed time.

Next time, cite accurate facts and nobody will rebut you.

[fishwax]

43. Is it wrong to fire someone for smoking on their own time away from work?

that's what this case involves. Not enabling workers to smoke or even allowing workers to smoke, so taking time out of work to have a drag isn't an issue.

It's about testing people to find out if they have smoked on their own time, at home or elsewhere, and firing them if they prove to be a smoker or refuse to take the test.

[Deep13]

49. I don't know.

I just know that an argument can be made for doing so that is not necessarily unreasonable. I do not think employers ought to have the right to go on a fishing expedition for personal vices. I think only the police can do that and only on probable cause to suspect crime.

You must understand, however, that if an employer suspects that you are doing something he or she does not like, there is no requirement to insist on a test. In most states, the boss can fire the worker just on the suspicion (except for a contract or civil service employee).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Should we fire people for drinking too many soft drinks and developing

diabetes?

Again, while most employment is "at will," if one fires "for cause" then they need to demonstrate cause.

To be sure, my fears for America and its working class are certainly not relieved when people such as yourself can justify the unreasonable intrusion into another's life.

What's next? Being fired for drinking coffee?

[Deep13]

62. One problem at a time.

In many and propbably most states, employers do not need to demonstrate cause for firing an at will employee.

Diabetes is covered by ADA.

Soft drinks and coffee are not cigarettes. Soft drinks and coffee do not kill half a million Americans per year.

Anyway, I am not saying employees ought to be fired for smoking off the job, only that there are reasons to do so. I did not suggest prying, but was only speculating on cases where the employee was a known smoker.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. I won't go over the areas where you again lack expertise since you

don't seem to care and I am not a champion against-the-wind-pisser..but the greater point I was making is that once you allow an employer that level of intrusion, you are creating a very slippery slope.

[Deep13]

97. Wise choice.

The Atlanta Center for Disease Control reports 350,000 to 400,000 tobacco related deaths per year in the USA. That is the same as three 747s crashing with no survivors every day. I fugure it is an undercount because deaths where tobacco was a contributing cause but not the main cause are not listed as tobacco related deaths.

My first research assignment in law school was on at-will employment. The standard defense response to a complaint for wrongful discharge is "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." In other words, there is no such thing as wrongful discharge unless one of the narrow exceptions can be demonstrated. Maybe some other states have modified this rule in the past decade, but Ohio sure as hell hasn't.

As I said, I am not talking about prying into a person's personal life, but only acting on facts that are common knowledge. Slippery slope is illogical. Just because society permits one act does not mean it is required to permit similar acts. This is the same argument that religious zealots use to justify repression of gays. If we allow gay rights, what's next? Beastiality? Bigomy? Pedephilia? It's just not logical to infer those things from the original premise.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. No..I took employer abuses to their logical extension

and nice googling you did there. Your original point that smokers cause more absences is STILL INCORRECT

[Pepperbelly]

121. those kind of studies are worthless ...

The reason? Life is 100% fatal. Unless they are saying that without tobacco use, all of those people would be alive, then the stat has no meaning. It is bogus.

To take this to it's logical conclusion, if we got rid of obesity, tobacco, fatty foods, coffee, tea, alcohol, drugs, pollution, sedimentary lifestyles, and anything else the nannies are moaning about, then the only way left for people to die would be from accident, crime, old age and disease?

:D What would make those forms of death preferable to any other?

Unless you suggest that these folk will not end up dead at some point anyway. Doing all of those things will not, of course, eliminate ANY causes of death. People will continue to shuffle off this mortal coil in their own time and nothing anyone does will change that.

This is about control, pure and simple, and the view that employees are possessions rather than free human beings. Fuck those employers. Better off not working for them and actively working against them.

[Pepperbelly]

81. employers will mistreat employees so long as

we let them.

They've been having their way so long that they think they ar entitled to it. I would've thought the folk going postal on their stupid asses would've awakened them but no, it didn't.

[Boosterman]

114. Why

They just shoot the other peons.

[Pepperbelly]

129. I think they've nailed some of the guilty bastards as well. nt

[fishwax]

82. I think it is clearly unreasonable

I think it is perfectly unreasonable to fire someone based on things they do off work time that don't have any effect on the work done. It would also be unreasonable to fire someone for drinking on their own time. Or for refusing to drink on their own time. Or for refusing to smoke on their own time.

The basic thrust of the labor market is that we sell our time and expertise. Unless the company is paying me for my time at 2 a.m. on a Saturday morning, it's quite simply none of their business what I'm doing. That's my time. Corporations control already have too much information and control over our lives, and attempts to increase that control should be fought tooth and nail.

[Ms. Clio]

77. "What smokers need to realize is that lighting dried leaves on fire

and inhaling the smoke is not normal, has never been normal...."

Yeah, okay. Tell that to the Native Americans who were using tobacco long before the Europeans ever arrived.

:eyes:

[UdoKier]

25. I don't think companies should be allowed to test employees for ANYTHING!

I disagree that they have the right to police our personal lives. It's an intrusion not even the government is allowed to make without probable cause.

SO NO, they should not be able to test for smoking, drugs or anything else.

If someone appears to be on drugs, they should be able to ask for a drug test or fire the individual. If he tests positive, they should refer him for drug treatment, and test him randomly for the next year.

As for cigarettes - they are legal and don't intoxicate, so they should not be able to dictate whether a person smokes - some people smoke only a few cigs now and then. Some smokers live to be 90.

But, as it is in everyone's interest that people not smoke, perhaps the company should offer smoking cessation programs to its employees to encourage them to quit - and of course they have every right to ban smoking on all company premises and while on company time.

[Deep13]

45. Bosses aren't cops.

>>>>"I disagree that they have the right to police our personal lives. It's an intrusion not even the government is allowed to make without probable cause."

First, of all, Udo, your fans want to know when you will making more bizzare-assed movies.

Sure, testing employees or prospective employees for whatever ought not be allowed for that reason. As a matter of policy, employers should not have that kind of discovery power. They ough not to have access to credit reports, misdemeanor or medical records either. Having said all that, in most states they can and do pry into these matters.

My response to this question was based on the assumption that an employee was known to be smoking. Remember that except in the case of a contract or statutory employee, there are no due process rights at work in most states.

[Pepperbelly]

56. but they would have to pay unemployment befefits ...

unless someone quits.

[Deep13]

60. True, but...

...in some states, like this one, employers pay into a state insurance fund that pays benefits to former employees. Of course, the employer's rates are set by how often benefits have to be paid out.

[rman]

26. For smoking, -not- on the job? No

-

[Vladimir]

28. What's wrong is not having universal health care coverage n/t

[Goldmund]

37. It's great if you're a fascist!

[Emboldened Chimp]

46. Smoking sucks, but people should be able to do what they want...

...as long as they go outside to do it!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. I say bring it on! Fire people for smoking, diabetes, driving too fast

on their free time, having a family history of illness. Fire women for having children and fire men when their families are ill and they need time off from work.

I am in labor law and have been watching workers sacrifice their rights for too long by their voting patterns.

I have been waiting for the backlash since the mid-1980's and the backlas has yet to come.

Maybe once the deck is COMPLETELY stacked against workers, they will recognize a roof over their head is more important than a gun, someone else's abortion and whether or not the gay couple next door wishes to be foolish enough to want to fucking marry.

VIVA LA BACKLASH!

[charlie]

53. Not until

they start firing people for expecting a paycheck. Really, on my worst days I almost believe that.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. AND SALT!

You forgot salt! There is another thread on DU about how bad salt is for you (duh!). So the tests for excess sodium can't be far behind!

[Pepperbelly]

57. Fucking A, Teena ... look for the union label!

These evil bastards will exert exactly how much control we allow them. The only reasonable response in the day, when they started the current crop of infringement, was to tell them to kiss your ass and punch them in the snot locker.

I fear that corporate and business arrogance has reached the stage that it will take violence to wipe that "fuck you" attitude off their collective faces.

The swine should be horsewhipped and I am just the varmint to do it to them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. A bunch of shipyard workers in Gdansk toppled communism no matter

how much credit Ronald Reagan gets for it... it can happen here...stop commerce and the world stops spinning on its axis.

[fishwax]

83. damn straight

hell of an idea :D

[heidler1]

66. Yup they'd rather have robots, but robots are not consumers.

In the quest for total control the Corporate whizbangs will stop at nothing to make it happen. They got a law in AZ called AIMS that keeps kids from getting a H.S. diploma unless they can pass a three part test which is about like the SAT test. Less than 50% passed all three parts so they appear destined for flipping hamburgers. Of course those that did pass write letters to the Editors saying the test is great. This idea came out of Bush's NCLB. You don't have to be real bright to see that this idea might be nice for Corporations so they can cherry pick with ease. However parents will never go along with condemning their kids to menial work just because of some test. The headlines in todays paper sounded like they are about to rewrite this law, but don't think for a minute that they have given up.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Arizona repubs pride themselves on being mavericks

Maverick appears to be code for *knuckle dragging shit for brains* in arizona

[China_cat]

76. Sam Gompers and Mother Jones must be turning in their graves.

[Ms. Clio]

78. There was a piece posted here last week about female casino workers

facing termination if they gained too much weight.

[oldcoot]

103. It is frustrating to see so many sacrifice their rights

just for the opportunity to punish those individuals who are different from them. It is especially frustrating watching workers sacrifice the rights that many fought long and hard for during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I wonder what it will take to wake them up.

[gtp1976]

55. Interesting

this question came up a few weeks ago in the lounge and the responses were quite the opposite of what they are here.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that work stops when you clock out. My time is my time and if I want to have sex with kangaroos, it's none of my employer's business.

However, I would not be opposed to an employer not hiring someone because they smoked. But to fire an existing employee is not right.

[MrSlayer]

58. Yes, it's wrong. It's nobody's business what I do in my private life.

Fuck these nazi bastards. Another reason I'm glad I work construction, nobody breaks your balls over your private life. Next thing you know they'll fire you for an unhealthy diet.

[porphyrian]

63. In general, yes, but it depends on the job.

Part of me wants to say that an employer should be able to hire and fire whoever the fuck they want. After all, no one is entitled by law to a job with a private company (with some possible exceptions). On the other hand, as long as work performance is unaffected and the company isn't being represented (like wearing a uniform or driving a company car with a logo), I don't think it's anyone's fucking business what someone does off the clock.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Fitness for duty evaluations which are legal more than cover your concerns

If someone is in an extremely physical job, for instance and has a bad pulmonary function test, they CAN be considered unfit for duty. In that regard, the employer is already within their rights.

[porphyrian]

79. That works for me. - n/t

[Massacure]

67. I despise smokers, but this opens a not so great door.

[seabeyond]

86. you dispise me

you DISPISE me. dispise me. wow

you dont know me and you dispise me

another wow. hm.

i truly sit in amazement on this board all the people condemning fellow man without knowing squat about them. threads on parents, moms, childrens, dads, all repugs, people that do this or that. gays, black, atheist, catholics, muslims, people with cats, without cats, big dogs. fat people, skinny people. rich people. management, business owners. oh and todays thread, suburban vs city dwellers. just an easy i dispise you

will you go on dispising. just dispise all day long, and into the nite. i on the other hand will live a life loving my fellow man, and in peace without having dispise sit in my heart

[Bridget Burke]

95. I don't "despise" you but---

You do all your smoking away from your children, don't you?

I was raised by a smoker & it definitely contributed to my allergies.

[seabeyond]

100. oh b.s. you make an assumption and swear it to be true

there is no way you can say smoking contributed to your allergies. it is the false studies that have been put out for a couple decades to create this outrageous battle between man. and you go right into it cause it allows you to be victim and have someone to point finger at.

keep your chldren away. i dont want to be around you nor your children. i dont want to interact with someone that would teach their children i am evil cause all that i am in their eyes is a smoker. and seeing the smoker as evil, then we can then justify and validate the most ugly and mean and condescending disrepectful behavior we want. and we can do it feeling validated and justified, as if we are doing something good.

a total flip flop of good. you dont see it, because you sit in your bias. the one that hates gays doesnt see it, though clear to all of us, because he/she sits in bias

you said you dispise me.

go for it.

and teach your children

arent you the special one

[Bridget Burke]

105. I said I DIDN'T "despise" you.

I don't have children but my sibs & I were made miserable by our mother's smoking. (Different times--doctors were quoted in cigarette ads!) She quit in later years, which probably extended her life considerably.

You post constantly here about how much you care for your children. Seriously--do you smoke around them? Most smoking parents I know head out to the back porch to light up.....

[seabeyond]

107. ahhh, so now you want to judge whether i truely love my kids

it is none of your business. you decide if i love my kids. all in your court. i have heard mothers say to a child, if your mother loved you she wouldnt smoke. i have seen commercials on tv, so applauded by the non smoking, of little girls, blonde curls saying my mother died from smoking and now dad has to wash the dishes and do the laundry, and we dont have a mom. one commercial took a mother and turned it to black and white, aged her to wicked ness and then turned her to ash, on a kids channel.

i understand and to a point respect the absurb bigotry and hate that has been created torwards the smoker. as i do the christian that has been brainwashed by their minister, in the name of the lord

"You post constantly here about how much you care for your children. Seriously--"................seriously, if you have read my posts, are you questioning my love for my kids

i mean seriously

[Bridget Burke]

108. You may love your children.

But you are not treating them well if you smoke around them & they must live in a smoke-drenched environment.

[seabeyond]

110. You MAY love ; not treating them well

judging others is tricky business.

[Bridget Burke]

112. You judge everybody else--all the time.

And the smoke is not doing your PC any good, either.

[seabeyond]

116. not doing your PC any good

bah hahahahah. such little thing in life. hey, i am not nearly so good or perfect. and a day or two, or not on computer, not a to do.

i can find the higher in all things. i can find the higher in my smoking. i can find the higher in my childrens experience with a smoking mother. i dont hide the truth from them, nor could i. kids are just clever, so close to the purity they are.

what smoking has allowed for me is an empathy to our imperfections. i was pretty damn close to being perfect, lol. and i say this in jest and humor. i picked up cig specifically cause i was such a good girl. over the years it has given me an understanding to imperfection.

we can recognize the imperfection. as i can with my smoking. why i say i can appreciate and respect the anti smoking agenda. but it isnt in truth. it is a lie. it is fabricated for hate.

that i dont think you will see me do. buy into hate

being able to see a higher in all, even in our imperfection, i can see the weak, and i can love the whole, and that includes the weak.

i dont know if this makes sense to you. but it does to me. and it is how i raise my kids, it is what is in my house. so understanding this, and the understanding comes thru my imperfection, what me smoking has given to kids is knowledge, even those we love are not perfect. they have their weakness. perfection is not expected of them. and even in imperfection, they are lite, and they are love and they are not ever in eyes of the lord, even in smoking, less.......only man can make less. and only if i buy into it, and i wont. jesus never will

(now here i dont know if you are christian. if you arent i can take it to universal energy, or law)

i dont believe in beating myself up, not for anyone. i dont believe in beating another up, not even for them. regardless how much they may ask me to beat them up i will say no, i see their lite, their spirit............their beauty

and that is without denying their addiction, weakness whatever

this is why i challenge on the i judge.

because i can recognize your struggle, does not mean i dont embrace all you are, including that struggle...... in love, not hate. never hate


another opportunity, lesson, life

i could go on to tell a firend who mother dies at 82 of bladder infection. she died cause she smoked.....50 years ago. my friend just knows. she had her mother all this time, the lite in this womans eyes had her in constant beauty, yet........we focus on the death, and smoking did it, not the valueing of life and love of 82 yrs

my mom died at 59. she smoked. i wasnt bothered like you that mom smoked. that was when they didnt open windows. i would any day have my smoking mother rather than any perfect non smoking mother. hands down. my mother was perfect for me, even in her non perfection.

she committed suicide. smoking did nothing to shorten her life. sittin in a car in a garage took her life

you make smoking into a story that isnt. it is your story. i dont have to buy into it

it simply is not all that i am. you make way bigger deal of it for me than i do and i am the one experiencing. it almost feels as if those anti smokers are praying hoping wishing creating death for me so they can say see how bad

just something to think about. or not

[seabeyond]

117. btw

thank you for not dispising me. i didnt buy into it anyway, lol, though i have been surprised at times.

but i can totally respect despising the action, behavior of smoking

my 12 year old niece at the table last nite said i think catholics are weird. (she is now going to a fundie school that teaches catholics are heathens)

you do i say.

that isnt ok in this house. you can think the religion is odd, but dont go after the person

besides your uncle is catholic.

never go after the person

[KTM]

130. Ding Ding Ding

We have a winner. THAT is the truth, right there - sit inside your comfy bias and cast aspersions, denigrate, despise, all you holier-than-thou non-smokers.

Yes, I smoke. I got outside when I do it at work, and usually end up chatting with a bunch of my coworkers - it's not 100% unproductive time as everyone keeps saying. I often tell a fellow smoking coworker "Let's go continue this outside," and we take our discussion with us on our smoke break. I've met people I did not know (we have over 400 employees) and who would never have approached me, and been able to help them solve a problem or given (and gotten) advice.

I dont smoke in my OWN home - concern for my cats, and the dirtying of my stuff. My girlfriend looks like the Michelin Man, bundled in coats, smoking outside in the middle of february.

I dont smoke around kids - I'll walk away and come back.

I ask people eating if they mind if I smoke, even in the smoking section. If they do, I wait or go elsewhere.

When I go out with friends, family, coworkers, I never ask to sit in the smoking section.

I frequently get up and walk away, and take my habit with me, even when it is below zero.

But you - you sit and judge, and despise. You pass along your hate and your vitriol to anyone who wil ltake it, and you engrain it in your children.

Nice.

[ObaMania]

90. I despise people who despise smokers

.. let me guess, ex-smoker?

Anyway, you go on despising people you don't even know, close that "not so great" door, and don't let it hit you on the ass, ass!

:nuke:
.:mad:.

Oh, and just for you... :smoke:

[flaminbats]

72. yes...

but ultimately this technique shall bite corporate America and our free market in the ass.

[union_maid]

74. Let's just give up every right to privacy, why don't we?

I don't do drugs, but I would not apply for a job where drug testing was required unless there was a particularly compelling reason connected with the job. Employers would like to own their employees and that's something we gave up in this country almost a century and a half ago.

As to the stats...I don't see it at work. I still smoke. I'm not proud of it, but I do. Where I live the laws pretty much ensure that no one is going to be subjected to secondhand smoke in any place of business at all, including restaurants and bars, so that's no longer an issue and I think that's great. I'm completely for it. But I'm one of the most reliable employees where I work and have been for many years. As people get older they are out more for serious physical problems, but smoking does not seem to contribute to that any more than many other things. We have people who are frequently out because of diabetes, lupus, a blood disorder, one with serious kidney disease, one who suffered a stroke and has to be very careful, a woman who had brain surgery and now suffers frequent migraines and any number of other problems, because our average employee is middle aged, we're union and we do make reasonable accomodation for disability. Most of those people don't smoke. Some may have had lifestyle issues that contributed to their conditions. Most did not, or at least not obvious ones.

[flaminbats]

85. the path of depression in the next decades..

as more workers in their fifties and sixties have expensive medical problems, babyboomers are slowly pulling retirement money out of stocks and bonds, and never forget these massive Republican deficits!

What happens to the cost of health care, stock values, and interest rates? What about new investment or employment? Ultimately the neocons and corporations must give something up! How will they make profits as the supply of labor shrinks and consumers go broke??

[union_maid]

89. Probably another thread, but very true

We're considering pulling some money out of ours. Between one thing and another, including high prescription costs - even with insurance, for my husband's diabetes and related health problems, and reduced income after his job was outsourced to India, we're not keeping up and are accumulating debt. He's got a nice job but at a much lower rate of pay than he was getting before. We got through all of it - his illnesses, hospitalizations and unemployment without touching the 401K, but now it might have to get broken into - just four years before we could do it without a penalty, too.

[Lisabtrucking]

80. When they start paying me for 24 hours then they can tell me

what to do on my time off. otherwise get your nose out my ass.

[barb162]

109. because next it will be weight and after that how healthy a lunch

you're eating and after that, if you do "dangerous" sports, etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Yes! All sinners should be fired. The morality police never sleep.

Adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, gluttons, blasphemers, sloths, athiests, drinkers, toupee-wearers, coffee drinkers, idol worshippers, and all the rest.

[sui generis]

113. that's me!

# 2 through 8 and 10 through 12. A lot more fun, I might add, than sitting around with blueballs wondering when the church service will be over so I can get started on rearranging my sock drawer!

Plus, I do NOT want to have to stand in line at the gates of hell behind the poor bastards who merely voted Democrat or forgot to pick up extra butter at the supermarket, or whatever it is that people go to hell for these days.

I want a priority ticket - VIP entrance for me!

[seabeyond]

118. you are funny

you had me laughing over on lounge the other day. i remember you, lol

cute

[donheld]

126. It's wrong.

Employers have enough control of you as it is. They have perfect right to ban smoking at work, but not smoking in general.