[rickcr42]

Quote:

An example from nowhere....you know that pro athletes are under contractual obligation to limit their activities in their free time/off season?

Only because they signed on the bottom line.when looking at all those dollars they will sign away theier life.Which in essence they do,but name another profession where you get caught doing illegal drugs or get caught driving drunk but instead of losing your job doing or doing time you get a slap on the wrist and are still allowed to make millions.you need to screw up so many times and so badly before you get really penalised it is a farce.

Quote:

Any Cy Young guy probably cant go skiing, car racing, etc., as the rest of us. Then, on wich legal grounds an employer can impose those restrictions to his star worker?

again.

no one held a gun to their head when they decided to sign their rights away which makes it legal and binding.The pure greed at the time made any thoughts moot.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Do you like paying 10% extra for your health care because other people choose to smoke? That was one of the issues mentioned in the article.

And maybe your eating habits are very unhealthy and your life will be shortened due to cardiac failure.or maybe you drink too much alcohol and will die young from liver damge after an extensive hospital stay.

or you might be a "danger junkie" always pushing the limits of life and living on the edge and along with that many stays in the hospital due to fractuered bones.

Or maybe you are just an idiot and run around in a tank top and shorts in subzero weather and spend every winter sick as a dog.

all these things COST in medical benefits.Should i have the power to tell you to CEASE NOW !

I think not.

Again.Tobacco is considered non PC so an easy target.Overweight folks are at the beginniong,they can now be made fun of and considered outcasts,the point where tobacco was twenty years ago but this will end the same-regulations on eating habits and exercise or you are fired !

It is all about the "health' and WE know what is best dammit

who is next on the list ?

Be very careful what you allow or you may wake up one morning on some screwballs hit list for doing something you did your entire life with impunity and without any feelings of guilt.

todays screwball is tomorrows political action group and they are always PISSED !

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Sadly, there is no easy "right answer" to all this...

yeah there is

My life to do with as I will as long as it is not illegal or directly harms another human !

Read the bill of rights constitution folks.All right there

 

[BigD]

Again GREED GREED GREED is the prime motive of this excercise. Since we're talking bout that high medical cost of smokers and overweights, I think it's mere scapegoat to easily targets.

AMERICA has the highest medical cost for the stupidest simple thing. WHY??? Its definately not because of some people smoking or eating. Look across the border, Canada. Look across the ocean, France, Germany, Japan. All these countries do NOT suffer from high medical cost. Maybe people lost track of where the real problem begins. Please Think Clear...I've gone to hospitals in Italy, US and Korea. For unknown reasons, US bill comes out 3X, 4X, 5X more than those two equally valid countries in service and care.

To blame everything on smokers and overweight is pure BS. It's the system itself eroding and rottening. Instead of fixing the problem, these greedy corporations are going after easy target which is their employee and companies. Fix the root of the problem...

WHERE IS AMERICA GOING???

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 who is next on the list ?

Yup. It seems to be fine to enforce everything until your own family or lifestyle is affected. If a person needs help quitting smoking, get them help. But employers will use the information as an excuse to terminate one employee over another.

I am just worried that the deadly diseases that exist will become company-justified targets of discrimination. Until that assurance exists, we need to practice more tolerance.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 yeah there is My life to do with as I will as long as it is not illegal or directly harms another human ! Read the bill of rights constitution folks.All right there

LOL....when is the last time you met an insurance agent....

«-Mr X : Hey you know what? basejump is my new hobby?

-The agent: Is in it highly dangerous?

-Mr X: Not at all....but next week I will try naked basejump. Now we are talking...... So what will be the yearly cost of my life insurance?»

Amicalement

 

[Bunnyears]

Well, smoking or not smoking is a choice. If an employer doesn't want to hire smokers, that is his right. If he is legally allowed to change the "contract" with his employees to specify that nicotine addiction is no longer allowed, then that is his right. No one is asking smokers to stop smoking. They are just saying that you have to choose between working for this company and smoking. If you choose smoking, then you have 18 months to look for new employment. If you wish to quit smoking, we will help you and pay for the program to get you nicotine free. I only wish other employers could do something like that as it would really make a dent in the numbers of people who continue to smoke. We don't permit people to commit suicide and yet we allow them to indulge in a behavior which in reality is nothing more than a pleasant way to end your life 20 years too soon. And dying as a consequence of cigarette smoking can be very painful.

Look at how many people have emphysema now, most of which is the result of lifelong smoking. Look at how many people develop lung cancer. If you really want to get excited, look at how cigarette smoking affects the fetus! Take a look at the health problems of children who live in a home environment with a smoker: increased asthma, colds, bronchitis, etc. that last throughout their whole lives. Smoking is a very serious problem for all of society and it is something that will eventually be banned completely. We try to keep people from driving too fast and driving impaired. We justify that because it is a danger to others. Well, smoking endangers others as well and yet we all cavil about restrictions on smokers because the danger is not directly apparent. There is a type of blinder that we put on when we consider these issues because it is all to easy to jump to the conclusion that limiting smokers' rights will result in the loss of personal liberties, and that is fallacious thinking. It won't be the first time something has been made illegal. Most opiates and cocaine were legal until 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act. By 1902 there were an estimated 200,000 cocaine addicts in the United States, and in 1907, U.S. coca leaf imports were three times their 1900 levels as the result of various patent medicines and tonics such as Coca Cola! After 1914 codeine, morphine, heroine and cocaine all became illegal for general use, and addiction levels dropped sharply.

Another example of a banned drug is amphetamines. Amphetamines were also an over-the-counter drug when first introduced in the 1930s in "benzedrine inhalers." Dextroamphetamine pills were widely distributed to soldiers to fight fatigue in combat as well as to the general public as a diet drug, a treatment for narcolepsy and as the first antidepressant! Amphetamines and sedatives such as seconal and nembutal, phenobarbitol and the major tranquilizers such as miltown and thorazine remained class I drugs until the 1970s when the FDA "scheduled" those drugs like narcotics such as morphine, which meant that in order to prescribe them, doctors need special prescription forms enabling the tracking of the drugs' usage.

America has a long history of making drugs illegal after years of common use. If it weren't for the strength of the tobacco lobby, tobacco use would have been subject to greater regulation long ago.

Edit: Coca Cola removed cocaine from its formulation in 1903.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

LOL....when is the last time you met an insurance agent....

Also a personal choice unless corporate and as with most things they WANT your dollars so will in the end capitulate once you say you are going elsewhere.

I have a real hard time beleiving the fact that so many are comfortable with corporations telling private citizens how they can live their life outside of work hours.You folks will get what you want when they tell you to put down the pasty and run laps or find new employment.

how many here are REALLY in shape ?

how many can run,not walk or jog but run a mile ?

how many can lift their own weight or better ?

Who here has a cardio vascular system to die for that even a slight usage of your arms jets the veins and shows the world you are in shape and you have the oxygen delivery system for the long haul ?

up until two weeks ago I can say yes to all the above and I smoked for thirty something years but I was not FORCED into good shape it was more a personal pride thing and trying to stave off old age (didn't work out

).Plus my current style of employment demands a certain level of strength,awareness and stamina.

but folks,I beat the living crap out of my body in my youth !
Drinking,drugging,smoking anything that would burn (

),eating what tasted good and whenever i felt like it,going to work on zero sleep and then going out again after work to do it all over again.Catching a nap here and there to get me through when chemical assistance was off the list

But it was a CHOICE !

MY CHOICE and one where I either got my behind to work and did my job or it was bye bye rick .
I payed the price around three in the afternoon for being out the night before and had to suck it up and drive on or punk out and take a nap under a tree.

Choices.All about personal choices both good and bad plus responsibility for those choices freely made.

would i have put up with some jamoak telling ME what time to be in bed and what i could do after work ?


hehe,not freakin' likely even though I was beating the crap out of myself for years and was the poster child for an insurance companies wall of "don't touch this guy he is poison,"

I will take mine burning bright and full speed ahead over "i wish i would have...." and boring.Toeing the company line until they fire your behind anyway and bring in someone younger.

All kissing a*s and conforming to present PC norms does is give you a bad taste in your mouth that is REALLy hard to get rid of.

not that i would know..................

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears America has a long history of making drugs illegal after years of common use. If it weren't for the strength of the tobacco lobby, tobacco use would have been subject to greater regulation long ago.

I doubt it. We tried this once already with alcohol and it didn't work. Something as mainstream and common as alcohol and cigarettes would not stay illegal for long. It'd get repealed.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn I doubt it. We tried this once already with alcohol and it didn't work. Something as mainstream and common as alcohol and cigarettes would not stay illegal for long. It'd get repealed.

I did not say that tobacco use would have been prohibited. Here is what I posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears If it weren't for the strength of the tobacco lobby, tobacco use would have been subject to greater regulation long ago.

Greater regulation does not equal complete ban! Right now the government is trying to regulate tobacco use on the local level with increased taxation and bans on smoking in public spaces. If tobacco were classed a drug, and in order to buy cigarettes you had to register as an addict and get prescriptions filled in order to obtain cigarettes, it would probably result in an illegal market for cigarettes just as there is an illegal market for marijuana, crack and heroin. The government has decided, for whatever reasons, that they wish to keep tobacco legal and this probably has more to do with the fact that tobacco is an economic mainstay of this country. However, when tobacco is no longer produced in this country, and that day will come, then you will see more stringent legislation limiting tobacco use.

So, everyone had better get used to the trend towards increased limitation and regulation of tobacco use.

As to the idea that limiting tobacco use will curtail your civil liberties, disabuse yourself of that notion. Eventually tobacco will be universally recognized as a drug or drug delivery system, and once it is classed as a drug, no one will be able to dispute the government's right to limit its use.

Edit: Alcohol use is regulated. We require licenses to serve alcoholic beverages and sale of these beverages is prohibited to those under the age of 21. We also have warnings about the dangers of alcohol use to pregnant women posted in bars, and driving while impaired with alcohol is considered a very serious offense.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears As to the idea that limiting tobacco use will curtail your civil liberties, disabuse yourself of that notion. Eventually tobacco will be universally recognized as a drug or drug delivery system, and once it is classed as a drug, no one will be able to dispute the government's right to limit its use.

Ah, therein lies your error. The government can only do what its people wish it to do. If the people wish it to be classed as a drug, it shall be. If they do not, it shall not be.

The reason most controlled substances were classed as such is because the majority of people in the coutry felt they were a danger and something had to be done to restrict and/or ban them.

If the government takes this choice out of the people's hands, it is the people's responsibility to show the government the error of its ways, and this is definitely part of the constitution.

 

[Bunnyears]

If tobacco use were more benign then that might be true. Unfortunately tobacco use is not benign and its use costs the government billions yearly in increased medical costs and reduced productivity due to worker absenteeism. When something affects the bottom line as much as tobacco use does, and it is a substance that causes deadly disease, then the smoking public's demand for the drug that they are addicted to becomes the least important consideration in the equation. Right now cigarettes can be bought at newstands and grocery stores. One day, cigarettes will be sold in stores just like liquor stores where the vendor needs a special license to sell them. The whole object of this is to limit the availability of cigarettes to young persons and to prevent the proliferation of the habit. To this end, eventually all cigarette advertising (and that means print ads) will be prohibited. If you smoke, you ought to quit for the sake of your own well being. Society cannot force you to do so, and as an addict you don't have the motivation to quit, but for you to expect society to pay all of the costs of the extraordinary health care that you will eventually need without complaint is totally unrealistic.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears If tobacco use were more benign then that might be true. Unfortunately tobacco use is not benign and its use costs the government billions yearly in increased medical costs and reduced productivity due to worker absenteeism. When something affects the bottom line as much as tobacco use does, and it is a substance that causes deadly disease, then the smoking public's demand for the drug that they are addicted to becomes the least important consideration in the equation. Right now cigarettes can be bought at newstands and grocery stores. One day, cigarettes will be sold in stores just like liquor stores where the vendor needs a special license to sell them. The whole object of this is to limit the availability of cigarettes to young persons and to prevent the proliferation of the habit. To this end, eventually all cigarette advertising (and that means print ads) will be prohibited. If you smoke, you ought to quit for the sake of your own well being. Society cannot force you to do so, and as an addict you don't have the motivation to quit, but for you to expect society to pay all of the costs of the extraordinary health care that you will eventually need without complaint is totally unrealistic.

Alcohol is not healthy, either. Yet Prohibition is not still in effect.

I would quit, but nicotine addiction is very hard to beat. If I wasn't unemployed, I'd be buying patches to help myself quit. Unfortunately, it's MUCH cheaper in the immediate short-term to keep smoking than to try to quit as patches and/or gum generally costs twice what cigarettes do.

If the government really wanted to stop smoking, they would make these stop-smoking aids available at little or no cost. -.-'

 

[Bunnyears]

If government wanted to do something about drug costs (and the patches and gum are from the major drug companies) the patch and gum would be the least of it! But, as they say, that is another thread.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 I have a real hard time beleiving the fact that so many are comfortable with corporations telling private citizens how they can live their life outside of work hours.

I dont have that problem. You still can choose not to work for them that's all. Their «intrusion» in your life is related to personal conducts, there are exceptions to this in some of your states, not worthing inclusion in anti discriminatory legislations.

You cant ask the corporation to simply pay for your health insurance coverage and let you abuse the collective protection. The problem is entirely different in the perspective of a worker that is ill from a scenario in wich he has no «active contribution» in his health problems.

Some doctors, despite their clear and basic deontological/professional obligations, are sometimes in the news for refusing to continue their therapeutic relation with a patient that is refusing to quit smoking.

Enterprises dont have these kind of obligations.

Amicalement