Smoking Ban

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Go, Timber. You tell 'em. Willow, he is right about being pushed from society. True, companies can ask about smoking, not that it makes any difference in terms of group health rates, at least here in the states. But you think it is OK to deny him a job because he might cost the health plan more? You just try doing that to a woman, who will rack up more in a single, non-complicated birth than he will through his entire career. Try asking whether the person is in a committed heterosexual relationship, since they have lower risk factors than other demographics for scads of expensive conditions. Not what I meant Thorfinn. About the health plan at least. Ponder a company with 1,000 employes. 500 of them are smokers and smoke 3 cigarettes a day at work. Now they are not allowed to smoke in their office and a break takes about 5 minutes. That's 15 minutes a day of lost work. You'd be surprised at how many companies employ this tactic. Surely, smoking is treated differently. It is acceptable to shun and vilify smokers, but we must show compassion and understanding (and shell out large sums from our paychecks) in support of addicts to illegal drugs. And where did this come from? You think those against smoking in bars endorce the use of drugs in them instead? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

The talk about the nasty chemical additives in ciggarettes is almost a non-point as additive-free and organicly grown tobacco is available so you can deal only with the stuff nature intended to go into cigarettes if you want.

I, for one, consider Tobacco to be a sacred herb amongst many. What some people would ban outright from fear and mis-conception, others would find purpose and seek to expirience that to the fullest.


And off-topic: I was unaware using the term "nazi" to describe people who are overzealous in forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on other people would be deemed on the offensive side of things. So I will refrain from refering to these people as "health nazis". Sorry, no offense intended.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: And off-topic: I was unaware using the term "nazi" to describe people who are overzealous in forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on other people would be deemed on the offensive side of things. So I will refrain from refering to these people as "health nazis". Sorry, no offense intended.

You don't think comparing someone to a political party that was responsible for sending millions of people to die in concentrations camps, and killing millions more in a aggressive war of expansions might be offensive? You may want to read up on history a bit.

[WillowIX]

Blatantly off topic but at the same time on topic. Time for a new thread Timber? This one is getting a tad crowded. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

I doubt it'll make it much further, Willow, but if it crosses the 10 page threshold I will do the socially responsible thing and start a new one.

Animal, IIRC, all tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, including additive free (e.g. Winston) and organic tobacco second-hand smoke. Maybe just not as many as the chemical laden ones (Marlboro comes to mind). Besides, we are again entertaning legislation: either make people smoke only organic non-additive tobacco, or make tobacco producers only produce that kind. Either way, it's legislating the solution.

I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that cigarettes are cancer sticks and will kill me as certainly as sucking on my car's exhaust pipe. And, I accept cigarette smoke smells bad and fouls clothes. In short, I accept that many people reasonably do not like it and are made sick by it. All that said, I think there are still easily-workable solutions that do no require legislation.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: And off-topic: I was unaware using the term "nazi" to describe people who are overzealous in forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on other people would be deemed on the offensive side of things. So I will refrain from refering to these people as "health nazis". Sorry, no offense intended.

You don't think comparing someone to a political party that was responsible for sending millions of people to die in concentrations camps, and killing millions more in a aggressive war of expansions might be offensive? You may want to read up on history a bit. [/QUOTE]That's unfair Rokenn. He was apologizing and you insulted him. "Nazi" enjoys common usage in the USA in the way he mentioned, and can be heard on TV. How many times have we heard "feminazi" or "econazi?" There is a BIG difference in how this term is viewed in usage in the USA and in Europe. While your reasoning as to why it is insulting is fine, please don't act as if folks in the USA don't toss the term around a lot.

[Thorfinn]

Oh, I think virtually all companies (except for some really tiny ones) do that, Willow. Most limit you to two "coffee" breaks plus one lunch, and most don't make too many rules about what you do on those breaks, except drinking alcohol. I only replied to that because I think you misinterpreted his post.

I think his point was that society has continued to squirrel away smokers into smaller and smaller places. No airline wanted to be the first to eliminate smoking, though they were happy to consign them to the "back of the plane", (seems it is OK to force some minorities to ride in the back...) but if the government stepped in and forced the issue, the airlines didn't have to worry about losing smoking passengers to airlines specifically catering to smokers, since the long arm of government would be used to prevent the formation of companies or business plans that would allow smoking.

Society continues to use laws to specify smaller and smaller smoking areas in restaurants, rather than letting the number of customers determine the split. Gummint continues to declare more and more private businesses smoke-free, will of the owner of the company be damned.

And my point was merely that we are more tolerant of people who are committing acts that the gov't has declared illegal than those who commit acts which have somehow escaped being labelled as illegal yet.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: And off-topic: I was unaware using the term "nazi" to describe people who are overzealous in forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on other people would be deemed on the offensive side of things. So I will refrain from refering to these people as "health nazis". Sorry, no offense intended.

You don't think comparing someone to a political party that was responsible for sending millions of people to die in concentrations camps, and killing millions more in a aggressive war of expansions might be offensive? You may want to read up on history a bit. [/QUOTE]No more offensive than Seinfelds "soup nazi" character. Beleive me, Ive had my jaw broken by "real" nazi's. They arent all history, they just dont dominate. They lurk in the shadows and prey in packs on the weak.

My lack of consideration in using the use of the word "nazi" metaphoricaly had nothing to do with a lack of historical knowledge, but had everything to do with not knowing some people didnt like the use of the word outside of its "historical" context. I learned something new today. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: That's unfair Rokenn. He was apologizing and you insulted him. "Nazi" enjoys common usage in the USA in the way he mentioned, and can be heard on TV. How many times have we heard "feminazi" or "econazi?" There is a BIG difference in how this term is viewed in usage in the USA and in Europe. While your reasoning as to why it is insulting is fine, please don't act as if folks in the USA don't toss the term around a lot.

Well when people through around terms like xxxx-nazi, in my eyes, they totally discredit themselves and their arguements. Just becuase it has entered common usage does not mean it should be tolerated.

[Thorfinn]

Rokken, actually, most of our language is made up of words that no longer have anything to do with their original roots. "Capitalism" springs to mind -- Marx intended that to be a dirty word, and the feisty free market types took it as a badge of honor. "Democracy" is often used as a synonym for "freedom", but most people fail to understand they are diametrically opposed.

If you want a language that doesn't change a lot over time, you are going to have to speak Latin. Any living language evolves, and words will gain new meanings of which the purists disapprove...

[ 05-12-2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]