Posted on 01/30/2007 11:38:44 AM PST by neverdem
B. Thirteen months ago, my father died of stage 4 large cell carcinoma of the lungs.
He was a two-pack-a-day smoker for 27 years. He quit 27 years before his death, but it turns out that 30% of lung cancers happen in former smokers.
I fear a government with arbitrary power to interfere in our private lives more than I fear second-hand smoke, the risks of which are real but small. But I do hate smoking!
I like your style.
Very good. :O)
I always wondered how they came up with that one. Since the smoker is always the closest to the smoker (himself) he gets both the firsthand smoke AND the secondhand smoke. If that's safer than the guy a few feet away getting just the secondhand smoke, then that would imply the firsthand smoke is actualy improving his situation!
LOL! Brilliant -- you've certainly covered all the bases!
"That said, I have no problem with people smoking as long as it doesn't directly affect the reasonable comfort of me or my loved ones."
That is very easily resolved, just don't allow smoking on the property you own and avoid the places that allow smoking and are owned by another entity. It sounds like that is what you did, which is the market at work...
"You make money for the both at a relatively low cost, and they want to tap you as long as possible."
The flaw in your logic is that the smoking employee will generally live to retirement, then will become very expensive for the employer with no productivity. This is the same as the non-smoking employee. The difference is that, per the touted costs by many nannystaters, the smoking retiree will die sooner in their non-productive years. Therefore, resulting in a savings to the business/industry.
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.