English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In 2009 smokers can't get hired for work because of the cost of health care will tripple and employers don't want to pay for smoking employees health problems. It looks like mostly only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses will have jobs. My only concern about smokers not getting hired is the vast amount of homelessness that will result from this. Every other person in America will be living on the streets. Well, what's you're opinion about this?

2007-10-15 18:14:58 · 37 answers · asked by openupfresh 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

37 answers

Eventually the homeless will run out of money to buy cigarettes and so they will be able to be hired after that.. Right??

Was this a joke?>_<

2007-10-15 18:20:56 · answer #1 · answered by srsly 5 · 2 1

Obesity costs the health care system in the US more then smoking does every year, yet smokers at least have the excuse of addiction, for now on whenever a fat person buys unhealthy food they should have to pay double the normal price in taxes.

2007-10-15 18:49:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

All these people who would just LOVE to take away a persons right to smoke (i dont smoke) need a reality check. I'm not gonna say that smoking doesn't contribute to lung cancer and emphysema, but im afraid that for all the hype there really is no way to say for certain what causes cancer, and emphysema has been demonstrated to be a largely genetically inheirited disorder (as have some cancers, at least much circumstantial evidence supports this)....

one can argue that smoking CONTRIBUTES to cancer, but thats pretty much the extent scientfically that one can go to and still be telling the truth.....so by that reasoning then, all the thousands and thousands of car exhausts I am forced to breathe in every day when I walk outside through the city should be equally banned...they are after all carcinogens that have been demonstrated to contribute to cancer....

second hand smoke causing lung cancer is a joke at best....casually passing someone smoking is NOT going to give you cancer...deal with it and grow up....just because you dont like the smell of something doesnt give you the right to dictate what another person can and cant do....i dont particularly enjoy smelling everyones exotic and funky B.O. and aftershaves and lotions and perfumes (which are pretty harmful themselves if you bother to do any research on it)...yet should I be able to tell you that you cant wear it? No. Second-hand smoke causing lung cancer in all but the most extreme cases is laughable at best....just another way to make you feel like a bad person if you smoke.

Having smoking sections I agree with, having smoke free buildings, sure...though I feel that CONSTITUTIONALLY it should be up to the owner of the establishment whether or not they allow smoking, not the government....and for all you people whining about smokers having more breaks than them...boo f'ing hoo, take it up with your employer.

I dont smoke, but i would NEVER seek to enact legislation to prevent someone else from doing it....no more than i would make a law against abortion, though I dont agree with it at all...

By the way, when a person dies from cancer (and there are millions) who doesnt smoke, well thats "normal", but when a person HAPPENS to smoke and then dies from cancer or emphysema it is written down in the books as a "smoking related death"....ridiculous...and then they turn around and actually CITE these huge numbers of smoking related deaths based on this erroneous way of calculation.

I know plenty of people who never smoked and died from many different cancers....and i have known people who have died from cancer who DID smoke....who are you to say that this person HAD to have died because of smoking? The truth is, you cannot, you can only make an assumption, and an assumption is not the same as a fact.

2007-10-15 18:45:26 · answer #3 · answered by fortwynt 2 · 1 0

I think you need to check your statistics - the last place I worked with had 33 employees and 3 of them smoked. Those 3 got 2 smoke breaks throughout the day at 15 minutes. That would be an extra 30 minutes a day they were relaxing outside with their cigarettes while the rest of us were working. Let's see 30 min x 5 days a week is 2.5 hours. I would love to have an extra 2.5 hours a week or better yet x 52 weeks - that's an extra 16.25 free workdays. That alone is enough for me.

So if you chose to be homeless over chosing to stop smoking that's your own fault.

2007-10-15 18:21:27 · answer #4 · answered by totalstressor 4 · 0 2

Nobody is forcing smokers to smoke. I used to smoke but I quit and now I don't think I should not have to flip the bill and pay for high insurance rates and health care because of someone elses bad habit.

2007-10-15 18:27:27 · answer #5 · answered by My Little Zoo 2 · 0 0

honestly i think that they should make it for 2008 so that it will kick in faster. smoking is a horrible habit and even if you don't smoke being near smokers could cause you to get cancer. Its called second hand smoke. i believe that they really need to make this a law so that the smokers will stop smoking and we can completely kick the whole thing from this country. I know you probably dissagree but if you look at it from a nonsmoker stand point it looks pretty good.

ps where did you hear this?

2007-10-15 18:21:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Honestly, it makes sense. Smoking is very dangerous, for the smokers and any around them while they smoke.

I see allot of people either giving up smoking, or finding those jobs that do hire smokers.

Do you have any references for the whole no smokers thing?

2007-10-18 15:21:12 · answer #7 · answered by Ish Var Lan Salinger 7 · 0 0

Well i'd love to see ppl's reasons against it. Its not necessarily discrimination. Employers can choose not to hire you for that reason, its unhealthy and i can see the issue with health care. But it would maybe cause a bit of improvement against the fight against tobacco.

On another note, could employers bring up the same idea about obesity?

2007-10-15 18:26:00 · answer #8 · answered by Doc Brown 2 · 0 0

Sounds asinine. You can't discriminate over an action that is perfectly legal. Many health care benefits are taken out of the employee's checks at a cost based partially on that already anyway. At any rate, what do the employer's care? It's the insurance company that has to pay for their problems!

2007-10-15 18:19:29 · answer #9 · answered by Dashes 6 · 0 2

Your reasoning is kind of silly. Might as well not allow anyone who eats fast food to be hired. They drive up health care costs even more. You're obviously not from the south.

2007-10-15 18:29:57 · answer #10 · answered by 8of2kinds 6 · 0 0

I wasn't aware of this! is it happening in America? I don't think Scotland (where i live) has any plans like that.

I'm a JW so i guess it doesn't affect me personally. I don't approve of smoking and i often get worried about my family memebers who smoke but its a personal choice. I am happy that many will stop smoking to work, as it will help their health greatly!

But those who don't stop...? I hope there is help for them...

2007-10-17 12:47:59 · answer #11 · answered by jaspercat91 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers