OT: No smoking in the land iof the free

You damn well better believe it!

Likewise, I with your stance on helmet laws. And every other nanny law on the books.

Anyone for a constitutional amendment? Proposed text: "The right of self-determination being paramount, no branch of government, whether federal, state, or local, shall make or attempt to enforce any law, statute, regulation, code, or ordinance whose purpose is to protect an individual from the results of his/her own voluntary actions."

Of course, that's likely to go over like the proverbial lead (metal content) balloon...

And a VERY significant portion of the "problem" drug users will be safely occupying a nice comfy hole in the ground, bothering nobody.

And mabee I can go out in public without getting short of brath from an extreme sensitivity to smoke.

BC IS a different planet. Can't keep a government through a complete term without a major scandal.

Good example for Ottawa.

I'm going go out on a limb here and say if the truth be known its not the employer who is digging into your life on his own but doing it on the demand of his insurer! They are the backers of most of the nanny bills as it removes their risk. lg no neat sig line

Well said!

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

So..is it any sort of smoke, or just Evil Toobaccie Smoke ©? If its any sort fo smoke..I suggest perhaps a nice mountain top cabin with electric heat may be appropriate.

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

Then there is the company in Mich ? - that banned smoking at work, outside work, at home and anywhere. e.g. stop smoking or quit.

I think that is extreme myself. They claim they pay more than their share on medical as the excuse of personal liberties.

Martin

Governments and millitaries (Navy and Army to name two) have dumped all sorts of chemicals on me. DDT is just one of them. They didn't mind.

I have experimental serum pumping around my body (years ago) to see if it would work - 'we were selected....'... some kids came down with polio because of it.

So when we stray sideways or such - we are jumped on, but when they want to experiment, then hold still!

Martin

But you still might possibly say that this company should be free to set a policy like that - and the workers likewise should be free to quit.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

A person is working for that company, which declares 'quit smoking or you're fired.' That person does not smoke, never did.

Should he quit in protest of the no-smoking policy?

Jim

Its also illegal to play russian roulette, but you don't hear about many folks complaining about that law. I'm a smoker BTW and I don't mind the law.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:43:58 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

This is not Government on your backs. This is private enterprise boss, who has seen around Govt laws, so he can control smoking _even in your home_.

I am a non-smoker BTW.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:11:22 +0800, OldNick vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sorry. I will explain.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:56:14 -0500, Jeff Wisnia vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But are they being refused the license on those grounds?

I posted a rider to my post. An employer (Wayco, Michigan is reportedoy firing people for smoking at home. Mandatory nicotine tests at work.

This is NOT GOvt. In fact it's a lack of laaws that allows this amazing intrusion into your legal,private behaviour.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:27:08 GMT, Don Bruder vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

NO. In this case it's prima urinae

Not necessarily. People can be affected for many jobs but seem normal. Then again, I know people that do that without drugs!

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:05:41 -0500, Gene Kearns vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Thank you Gene. This is exactly what I am trying to say.

Except that apparently under the lasw, Wayco is not violating your civil rights! IT's scary

On 17 Feb 2005 15:00:05 -0800, jim rozen vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But Gene's question is "Is that acceptable?". That is different from "That's how it is"

People keep telling me that I have a choice of banks, too, but if you are looking for a job, then walking awy gets tiresome if all employers start doing it to you.

Yep. Look at it another way. There is no law that constrains the *employer* from not requiring non-smoking employees.

So really this is a perfect example of the government NOT intruding on folks lives.

All the folks who are hollering about this really want

Jim

Our office is in a non-smoking building.

When advertising for employees we state "non-smoking office" in the ad.

While interviewing prospects I tell them that I don't like the smell of tobacco and they are certainly free to smoke as they wish outside of the building we're in. Then I tell them that I will not accept their coming in with their clothing smelling of smoke or giving me a facefull of diluted smoke when they talk to me because they've just run outside to hastily devour a smoke.

I also tell them that while I'm not adverse to their wearing a touch of perfume, I will be the one to judge what is "too much" and that they will have to abide by my standards about that.

FWIW, when I at first tried to put the words "non-smokers please" in an employment ad the newspaper wouldn't allow it stating it was discriminatory and the ad taker suggested we use "non-smoking office" instead.

As far as I'm concerned, as an employer I should have a right to set standards on personal emissions which bother my olefactory sensibilities. Our lawyer agrees and says we have a right to define our own standards in such matters, as long as we apply them equally to all our employees.

So far, no problems, and to the best of my knowledge we don't have any hard core smokers in our employ. I like it that way and think it's a good thing.

Just my .02,

Jeff

That's the great thing about living in the land of the free - employers are just as free as the employees are.

Robert