Re: Passive smoking killing thousands
From: elgoog (bjdefend-newsgroups_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: Digitalpad: "Mesothelioma lawyers, lawsuits and injuries information resource"
- Previous message: Robert Cohen: "Daughter of Breast C Victim Endorses BRCA"
- Maybe in reply to: Roman Bystrianyk: "Passive smoking killing thousands"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Mar 2005 07:16:22 -0800
It seems to me that there were other alternatives for Weyco (and other
companies - they are not alone). The insurance company is able to rate
the risks of smokers and non-smokers, let the smokers pay the higher
rates then. There is no need to make it a condition of continued
employment. Remember, these were people who had jobs, smoked before
they were hired and wasn't a condition of their hiring.
OTOH, Alaska Airlines has always made non-smoking a condition of
employment. If you smoke you cannot be hired there.
Anyway, I think that what you do with your body and your health on your
time is pretty much your business. The only thing that should impact
your job is your ability to perform the work.
I think health is only a public issue when you endanger the health of
others. It's okay to restrict smoking in public places. It is wrong to
disrespect or attack smokers because they exercise their right to
smoke.
There is a law in Boston that prohibits smoking in any building. I
think it's a dumb law. People get around in Boston by walking, and the
streets are now full of smokers and the public ashtrays of Boston. It
was better when smokers could take refuge indoors in designated
businesses or areas; then, avoiding the smokers wasn't the problem it
is today.
I see a growing animosity against smokers that is both unfair and ugly.
I still don't smoke, but I don't like some people's animosity and lack
of understanding.
Should businesses provide health benefits, or should it be the
responsibility of the individual to go out and get their own insurance?
I leave that up to the market. If someone is offering you a job without
benefits, but higher pay and someone else is offering a job with health
benefits and lower pay; then, you may decide for yourself.
It is wrong for a company to hire someone that smokes, and then fire
them because they smoke when that was not a condition of hiring.
It is wrong for a company to fire someone because they are overweight
when that was not a condition of hiring.
I don't smoke because its a health risk. I don't want my friends to
smoke, I don't want anyone to put their health at risk; but, I don't
have the right to impose my views. I shouldn't have the right to
deprive them of their livelihood because they smoke or overeat... and I
shouldn't be mean to them because that's not nice.
When we begin as a society to marginalize one group (somewhere between
40M and 60M tobacco users), then we begin to accept injustice and steal
freedoms. By protecting the rights of the minority, we ensure our own
freedom.
- Next message: Digitalpad: "Mesothelioma lawyers, lawsuits and injuries information resource"
- Previous message: Robert Cohen: "Daughter of Breast C Victim Endorses BRCA"
- Maybe in reply to: Roman Bystrianyk: "Passive smoking killing thousands"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
