Government

[ccbreder]

I hope you reconsider comparing the tribulations of tobacco smokers, and similar, to racial discrimination.

 

[ice_maiden]

@ ccbreder.. Why? In my opinion there is NO discrimination that is right. And no one discrimination is more deserving than another.

Discrimination is wrong in any form.... I am not saying it doesn't happen. It does, but it shouldn't and should never be allowed to openly happen.

 

[user 423]

I'll bet that there are forms of 'discrimination' out there that you are greatly in favor of...

 

[ice_maiden]

Slow ...why would you think that ?... and what do you think they would be? Have I done or said anything that would make you think that...Is there anything I need to apologize for? If I have offended you in anyway I truly am sorry.

I thought we had a pretty reasonable discussion going with opposing view points.... I just want to make sure I have not offended you or anyone else.

 

[jeanontheroad]

Unchained: perfumes at work

Me: Yes, we had a walking chemical factory before I retired who had to be "spoken to" by management. She wore a heavy perfume and used a heavily scented hand cream - regularly refreshed, all bloody day. I was liucky. I sat near a source of fresh air and could use a fan. Another co-worker was not so lucky. She was trapped and left every day with a migraine. She asked the perfume wearer to ease up on the perfume, explained her problem with it, and sent her articles on allergic reactions. The wearer's reaction was that it was just too bad for the sufferer and the sufferer was probably making it up, anyway. Management finally was brought into it. Wearer was told to stop using the perfume. Management had to repeat themselves a couple times when wearer " forgot." Wearer finally quit after she was sent home and asked to remove it.

I have no idea why the wearer just HAD to wear that perfume. It was not only destructive to allergy sufferers, but I know for a fact that she was passed over for at least one promotion because the supervisor of the department did not want put up with it. I don't understand why the wearer could not save it for personal time.

 

[user 423]

IM: No,no! No offense at all. Just making a point.

 

[ice_maiden]

Ok then, I just wanted to make sure... I don't have a problem with admitting I am wrong or that I have made a mistake.

So to address your point... I am human, I make mistakes, I don't have a problem with someone pointing out something they think I am doing or saying that they think is discriminatory. They may have a point and I may need to re-evaluate my thinking. Let's put it this way... I try to never discriminate! I try to appreciate others view point. Because I don't agree, doesn't mean they are wrong, only that we differ.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Re smoking and work, there are studies out there, I can't remember the exact number, a fairly substantial percentage, I am sure you could google it, that show that smokers are less productive, a lot of employers would know this. I am not sure it is discrimatory it is like having a choice between a one legged scaffolder over one with two. I am sure that it is not true for all smokers but I guess as a general rule.
You are right IM there are far more damaging things out there like liquor, drugs, maybe even perfumes, who knows, and you are right we have jumped on the smokers bandwagon. I for one have a different opinion then you on this, I think, great!!! now that we have whipped that one into submission lets start on a new one. what about wine....milk... meat..perfume ...lipstick..I will happily be the first to dish out the first whipping..... :angel:

 

[ice_maiden]

FK ... I have seen studies that bend it both ways... it all depends on how they want it to look..... You choose to believe that non smokers are more productive. I don't believe one is more productive than the other.... I think some people are just more productive than others.... and the reasons will vary as to why.

And as to your outlook... you are entitled to it as long as you don't try to force it on me...because we might have to figure out who was taking the whipping....

But just for debate sake.... what if it was reversed and I (or the government) was trying to force you to smoke, telling you that you had to eat meat and dairy....if you didn't you would have to pay more. How would you feel about it the then? Would you still have the same stance on the matter?

 

[flying kurbmaster]

You make an interesting, perhaps scary argument about forcing me to smoke. Whipping may be the wrong word, by that I meant it like whipping cream or butter not whipping horses, changing the shape without altering the ingredients. I am sorry I never heard about the study that said smokers were more productive, I was only trying to shed light on why they would ask if you smoked, during a job interview, it could also be that they have to accommodate you with a special room or something like that.

 

[highdesertranger]

I guaranty the car you drive puts out more 2nd hand smoke in 1 hour than a smoker does in a lifetime and will kill you allot quicker if in a confined area. highdesertranger

 

[user 423]

I guaranty the car you drive puts out more 2nd hand smoke in 1 hour than a smoker does in a lifetime and will kill you allot quicker if in a confined area. highdesertranger

That's why the gov't 'discriminates' against anyone who wants to stick a tailpipe into a workplace...

 

[ice_maiden]

FK... Good!!.. at least my scary argument made you think about it from a different perspective.

 

[owl]

Depending on when you got your education in the U.S. will, to a very real degree, determine how you see government intrusion, interference. Relying on the government to right every percieved wrong will result in lost rights for everyone. We have year round state and federal governments passing law after law, regulating anything and everything. Adding unresonable costs to every product everyone buys. Business does not pays taxes or increased costs. Think about it, not one act the government perpetrates against business is paid for by that business. Those costs are passed to you the consumer, you pay every fine, every increased cost due to government regulation. When you think they got what's coming to them, guess what, your cost of living just increased. The idea that one segment of society has the right to dictate to another how they live is what wars have always been fought over.

This is an interesting thread. Some of you sitting on the sidelines, jump in, it's all good!

 

[highdesertranger]

spot on owl. I would like to add, if business's don't increase the price they just move the manufacturing offshore to get around the tax or regulation. jobs lost and how about those pollution standards in china now the sh*t is traveling across the pacific and ending up here. not saying we don't need gov or regs just saying in my opinion our gov is out of control. no more, of the people by the people for the people. highdesertranger

 

[ccbreder]

But just for debate sake.... what if it was reversed and I (or the government) was trying to force you to smoke, telling you that you had to eat meat and dairy....if you didn't you would have to pay more. How would you feel about it the then? Would you still have the same stance on the matter?

Sort of the same thing, sort of. When I was a child, advertizement, movie stars, and makers, television, adults, and the stores that sold cigarettes to children, were the norm, smoking was sold as wonderful. reason for so many children starting to smoke.
Damned government agent put the first screw into that paradise. Thanks, Dr. C. Everett Koop.

 

[user 423]

Sure, there can be too much regulation that costs us more. Much of that regulation is very necessary and if not in place it would cost us a lot more and not just monetarily. Unsafe food and drugs, unsafe working conditions,businesses allowed to pollute, left free to ripoff consumers thru price gouging,monopolies...the list is endless.

Recent history makes a strong case that there should have been MORE gov't regulation of the real estate and banking industries. They aren't exactly a bunch of angels who think of the rest of us first.

 

[ice_maiden]

Sort of the same thing, sort of. When I was a child, advertizement, movie stars, and makers, television, adults, and the stores that sold cigarettes to children, were the norm, smoking was sold as wonderful. reason for so many children starting to smoke.
Damned government agent put the first screw into that paradise. Thanks, Dr. C. Everett Koop.

You are absolutely correct to a point (your "sort of")...they glamorized it and sold a bill of goods to the public so that they could pocket big contributions from the tobacco industry. But the difference from then and now, is that they convinced people through advertising... People STILL had the choice to not to do so. Now, the tactic is coercion, you must do as I say or you can't work here, have to pay more...etc.

Some seem to think I am debating the smoking issue... that is not the case at all. You will NEVER see me say "smoking is good for you, everyone should do it". I also don't say that they should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want, do anything they want. What I am saying is that they should NOT be singled out by our government or society in general for ostracism. Just like a "fat" person should not be allowed to be singled out. Which is exactly what is being allowed to happen. And if the trend continues... the behavior will only get worse.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

when advertisers are allowed to start convincing you before you can reason or are allowed to constantly blast you, not dissimilar to the Nasi propaganda in the second world war which is not so dissimilar to coercion, I think at some point we loose the choice whether we are aware of it or not, perhaps we should be focused on regulating the propaganda.

re picking on smokers,... you have to start somewhere, we also pick on speeders, thieves, sexual offenders, murderers and other socially unacceptable behavior. Society has just recently decided that smoking was unacceptable, so those that still smoke rightfully feel personally attacked and ostracized. I am sure murderers felt the same way once upon a time.

 

[ice_maiden]

You are right about about propaganda... it does blast you till you wonder if the choice is your own or not..The smoking debate is proof that propaganda works.. it has allowed our society to believe it is okay to treat someone differently because of their personal choices... but in the end it is still your choice....the old adage "you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink"

But advertising and propaganda are in no way the same a coercion. Advertising is the activity of attracting public attention, propaganda is advertising of a biased or misleading nature, but coercion is forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of some form of pressure. ie, you must pay more.

re picking on smokers,... you have to start somewhere, we also pick on speeders, thieves, sexual offenders, murderers and other socially unacceptable behavior. Society has just recently decided that smoking was unacceptable, so those that still smoke rightfully feel personally attacked and ostracized. I am sure murderers felt the same way once upon a time.

You just proved my point FK... besides smokers, I have debated using scent allergies, obese people, meat and dairy... the one that is addressed every time is smoking because it is socially acceptable to bash a smoker.

I don't think the use of speeders, thieves, sex offenders and murders really equate.... driving above posted speed is against the law, same as stealing, rape, and murder. Smoking is not against the law unless you chose to do it in a store, restaurant, etc.