refuse smokers employment
#51
And a tax for not watching it..and not performing, and not buying...LOL


tax tax tax...King John of England...The Wise...LOL
Reply
#52
Considering the lack of success of the Internet porn business model, a tax would only encourage viewers to turn to amateur pornography in which people film their own acts and host them on the Internet.
Reply
#53
(10-20-2010, 03:03 AM)dark lancer Wrote: Considering the lack of success of the Internet porn business model, a tax would only encourage viewers to turn to amateur pornography in which people film their own acts and host them on the Internet.

http://internet-filter-review.toptenrevi...s-pg2.html
$3 billion of Internet porn revenues.

Yeah, that's DEFINITELY not working.
::)
Reply
#54
(10-20-2010, 03:14 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(10-20-2010, 03:03 AM)dark lancer Wrote: Considering the lack of success of the Internet porn business model, a tax would only encourage viewers to turn to amateur pornography in which people film their own acts and host them on the Internet.

http://internet-filter-review.toptenrevi...s-pg2.html
$3 billion of Internet porn revenues.

Yeah, that's DEFINITELY not working.
::)

But this comes out to like $ .000001  per porn...thingy viewed most likely if I know the Internet correctly.
Reply
#55
You're right, timoose.  Back around 2000, I was bored one day and decided to look up second-hand smoke.  No reason -- I really was just bored.  I was really surprised to find no definitive links between second-hand smoke and disease, and in fact, what I did find made it all seem like the public has been thoroughly fooled.

I don't smoke, but I didn't like this.  When they find success with this, they will go on to other things.  That's what I thought at the time, and it's turned out to be true.  The legislators in Sacramento frequently bring up a tax on soda, and I think it either dies in committee, or people write in and protest it.  Look at the trans-fat hysteria -- heck, look at the Swine Flu hysteria last year.  It's all just ways of getting people scared so they'll fork over more cash to the government, who line their pockets with it.

(10-19-2010, 04:09 PM)timoose Wrote: Taxing smokers is political, it has nothing whatsoever to do with health. Second hand smoke as a cause of disease is anecdotal at best. I dare anyone to devise a double blind experiment to prove second hand smoke causes disease. Here in Chicago it's $9.00 per pack and it's the poor and the lower middle class that smoke, not the better off.

It has become common misconception that smokers cut two years off their life expectancy. I also know that we no longer submit studies for peer review, that are politically expedient.. So I say show me the study which indicated this is so and has been peer reviewed. There isn't one.

There are other "lifestyles" which reduce life expectancy much more yet they are never mentioned. Being a male active homosexual cuts 24 years off of his life. This was published in a Swedish study on Homosexual diseases and morbidity and published on the net, and had been peer reviewed. I can't find it anymore.

If I'm a bad guy for smoking and I am taxed 7.50 per pack for supposedly cutting two years off my arithmetic average life expectancy, how much should we tax active homosexuals that cut twenty four years of the arithmetic average of their life expectancy ? I don't suggest we do this at all. I'm pointing out this tax is political, not having anything to do with health. No one would tax gay men in this day and age, but an old guy like me well for sure.
tim   
Reply
#56
(10-10-2010, 10:51 PM)Satori Wrote: I'm waiting for new medical discoveries that show moderate smoking is good for your health.

No, I don't smoke -- hate the stuff. Just hate the self-righteous attitude of anti-smoking, condom-pelting, ozone-talking liberals, too.

(That's not aimed at you, Bary-what's-your-name. I understand where you're coming from.)

An article on the health benefits of smoking, with links to the peer reviewed scientific journals in which the studies were published:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...html?cat=5
Reply
#57
I found a lot of articles about cases where this happened, but not any concrete answers on whether its legal or not. The only time I think this would be okay is if it was for a job as a nanny in a private home, which often have restrictions like this. I don't see how places can get away with this. Smoking is a legal activity....the only justification that I can see for it is their grooming policy (i.e. not smelling like smoke, same as most corps policies for not smelling like B.O.)....but its still pretty ridiculous IMO.
Reply
#58
To debate is pointless, each camp has a list of it's own lies, oops I mean "statistics" to validate their point.

As an occasional pipe smoker who has only heard compliments from friends and co-workers, I would like see one thing; proof.
Prove to me that according to one pitiful television ad; 40,000 Americans will die this year from second hand smoke.

Prove it.  I would like to see names, case histories and doctor's reports that state that each and every one of those 40,000 people died because someone smoked in their presence.

Fifty years ago you would have been laughed at if you'd predicted the criminality of enjoying a cigarette. 

What's next?
Reply
#59
I don't think that places should refuse employment to smokers, though I think they should be able to limit smokers.  For instance, I see a lot of hospital workers smoking on their breaks.  Fine you say?  Well, I've also been near those workers IN the hospital when they are taking care of patients and they reek of smoke even though they are not smoking during work time.    In these cases, I think hospitals should require that people cannot smoke during their shift, even on break, because smoke clings to clothing and everything else.  It's not like the patients can always walk away from them, either.

They should probably fire those smoking workers at gas stations who like to light up near the pumps, too...
Reply
#60
I think employers should not be told who to hire.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)