Posted on 12/05/2003 5:20:09 AM PST by BenLurkin
If you think cigarette addicts defend their habits to the hilt, just visit the marijuana threads. The drug nuts are worse.
There are various arguments as to whether sexual orientation is chosen or pre-determined at birth. As for religious affliation, yes that would be struck down, erroneously, because of the 1st Amendment. But again, the Bill of Rights sets limitations on GOVERNMENT, not PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. You call me simple-minded (nice personal attack there) when you are the one who fails to see the difference between government and private concerns.
A private employer SHOULD have the right to discriminate. If I were running a business and didn't want to employ Antarcticans, I should be able to. However, any legitimate business would want to employ whomever helps that business to grow the most. So if that means that I ran a business with 100 employees and Martians did the job 100% better than anyone else, then I should have the right to only employ 100 Martians and no one else. I should also, as a private business owner, have the right (since it is my business, not the government's business) to tell them not to smoke or stink of cigarette smoke while on company time because that is unprofessional and they are trying to sell my $100,000/ea widgets to new prospects.
Re-read the article and maybe you will discover that it is a private employer dictating how their employees must conduct themselves while on company time, NOT on their private time. So as soon as their shift ends and they are OFF company property they can light up. But once they return to their shift, they must conduct themselves within the parameters set into place by the employer or they may go find new employment. The 'smoking huts' are segregated areas where non-employees may smoke because these people do not fall under the employment jurisdiction of the employer (hospital).
Woo-hoo!
Ok, I am sorry, allow me to rephrase it:
But again, you, a drug user, see a "no smoking" sign somewhere and your emotional, knee-jerk Jesse Jackson like response is to cry out that you are being oppressed and that your rights are being trampled on.
It was wrong and incorrect to label you as a drug addict as you obviously can quit anytime you choose. However, by your own admittance, you are a drug user (since cigarettes contain nicotine, a drug)I'm a light smoker, 4-5 per day. Hey, I'm one too! I enjoy a Bud Light beer once a week, which contains alcohol. Alcohol is a drug.
Other than that, there was no profanity, personal attack, racism or violence in that post, in line with FR posting guidelines.
Perhaps you would take some reciprocity and take back You're clueless (34 posted on 12/05/2003 9:15:06 AM PST by Judith Anne)
The answer seems to be that it's more about addiction than property rights...
Guess what? Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, has a website, and guess what? I called them, a nice young lady answered, and told me emphatically they are NOT a private hospital.
So I guess this argument isn't and never was about private property rights. Which I didn't think it was.
It's about a habit, smoking, which some people want to call an addiction, and some people want to label smokers as drug addicts. I really resent that--it's an ugly label used to describe a lifestyle choice. It's as offensive as comparing the smell of smoke to intestinal gas. If you want to keep up this baiting, feel free. You have nothing useful to say, either, and will get no more responses from me.
If I was a smoker I wouldn't want it called an addiction either. Still it is one. And if you smoke and can't quit, you are an addict. You can call it a habit all you want.
So if I chose to snort cocaine 4-5 times a day, you know, I'm a light cocaine user, what label, if any, would you slap on me?
It's as offensive as comparing the smell of smoke to intestinal gas.
It is in the best interests of any employer, government or otherwise, who has employees who interact with the public or their customers, to not reek of any stench! That would include body odor, crusty underwear, lack of showering, etc.
Therefore if you want to toke up and you are employed at this hospital, go home on lunch or break, toke up, shower to rid yourself of the stench and return to work.
It's as offensive as comparing the smell of smoke to intestinal gas.
It is also a matter of opinion. How nice to see that whenever you are offended, you go run to the authority figures, instead of trying to reasonably debate. Liberal tactic.
I favor:
Ending the war on drugs. I do not use drugs and never have, with the exception of consuming alcohol. I just do not believe that government has the right to tell people what they can put into their bodies. As long as people don't smoke pot then go and harm someone, like DRUNK DRIVERS do, there's nothing wrong with them smoking pot. Some people just want to legislate morality. Here I disagree with Republicans. What if government were to outlaw the consumption of steaks?
;-D I guess that the tobacco regs are fine with x, though. No matter who proposes them.
You apparently missed a post of mine. That's funny, it was directed to you.
There are a variety of ways to deliver a drug into the bloodstream. Smoking is just the cheapest, dirtiest, and most harmful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.