Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[OceanAnnie]

You know whats funny, they call addiction to drugs and alcohol, a disease. We feel for these people, we have interventions, we give them jobs and help them so that they can overcome. Smoking is addictive as well, hence all those lawsuits. But smokers are called names like gross, smelly , disgusting, rude, inconsiderate. What makes one addiction more "compassion inducing" than another?

I agree. I don't know why that is.

 

[FireDancer]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. That wasn't the question however. Yes, they are within their rights, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that they should have ever had that right to begin with.

I think we walk a slippery slope when government is allowed to dictate such intricacies of our daily lives. I prefer freedom, and unfortunately, our government is leaning more toward dictatorship on several levels. They use ignorance and fear to strip us of our rights. Little by little, we're losing more and more all the time.

And all we do is, turn our head and refuse to see it.

I agree whole heartedly with the bolded. This, however, is a private employer who is exercising their rights in hiring practices. I have very different criteria for what I see as invasion of privacy by the government vs a private citizen or company.

You know whats funny, they call addiction to drugs and alcohol, a disease. We feel for these people, we have interventions, we give them jobs and help them so that they can overcome. Smoking is addictive as well, hence all those lawsuits. But smokers are called names like gross, smelly , disgusting, rude, inconsiderate. What makes one addiction more "compassion inducing" than another?

I view all addiction the same, if someone wants to quit they will quit, whether it is heroine or porn. I don't want to be a junkie so I just don't do drugs. I find it much easier and more logical then later complaining about its addictiveness.

 

[Sparx]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. That wasn't the question however. Yes, they are within their rights, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that they should have ever had that right to begin with.

I think we walk a slippery slope when government is allowed to dictate such intricacies of our daily lives. I prefer freedom, and unfortunately, our government is leaning more toward dictatorship on several levels. They use ignorance and fear to strip us of our rights. Little by little, we're losing more and more all the time.

And all we do is, turn our head and refuse to see it.

I agree that it is a slippery slope, but I also see the other side. If there was a constitutional right to smoke, why not a right to heroin, a right to meth? The slippery slope goes both ways in my opinion.

 

[N.Bailey]

High cholesterol is not always the result of eating. Hereditary cholesterol has been linked to a genetic defect in the molecule apoprotein.

I am not going to hijack the OP's thread any longer, so if you want more info on hereditary cholesterol, I am sure you can google it.

And people get lung cancer who have never smoked a cigarette a day in their life too.

I'm sure there are people who have hereditary conditions. I am not arguing that point. I'm just stressing that MOST who suffer from these conditions were a direct result of choices they made.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I agree that it is a slippery slope, but I also see the other side. If there was a constitutional right to smoke, why not a right to heroin, a right to meth? The slippery slope goes both ways in my opinion.

But smoking is legal. Heroin and meth are not.

 

[N.Bailey]

I agree whole heartedly with the bolded. This, however, is a private employer who is exercising their rights in hiring practices. I have very different criteria for what I see as invasion of privacy by the government vs a private citizen or company.



I view all addiction the same, if someone wants to quit they will quit, whether it is heroine or porn. I don't want to be a junkie so I just don't do drugs. I find it much easier and more logical then later complaining about its addictiveness.

Criteria however that the state has put a stamp of approval on.

As a private entity, I don't care what they do. If however, they take a single $1.00 from the government (whether state of fed), then I do have a major problem with it. Otherwise, I think they have every right to do as they see fit.

 

[OceanAnnie]

And people get lung cancer who have never smoked a cigarette a day in their life too.

I'm sure there are people who have hereditary conditions. I am not arguing that point. I'm just stressing that MOST who suffer from these conditions were a direct result of choices they made.

You raise an excellent point. As an employer, you can't tell who will cost the big health care bucks. It's a crap shoot.

 

[N.Bailey]

I agree that it is a slippery slope, but I also see the other side. If there was a constitutional right to smoke, why not a right to heroin, a right to meth? The slippery slope goes both ways in my opinion.

Well, we also don't have a "right" to drive. It's a privilege, so I'm not sure what you feel the Supreme Court should say on the issue as it relates to a "right?"

 

[Sparx]

But smoking is legal. Heroin and meth are not.

Well, in turn that is the government imposing morals on its people. Where is the line drawn? Why is one harmful drug illegal where another is not? This is what makes the slippery slope argument so dangerous. It is illegal to smoke in restaurants, its illegal to do heroin. Will smoking eventually be illegal too?

 

[N.Bailey]

Well, in turn that is the government imposing morals on its people. Where is the line drawn? Why is one harmful drug illegal where another is not? This is what makes the slippery slope argument so dangerous. It is illegal to smoke in restaurants, its illegal to do heroin. Will smoking eventually be illegal too?

NOPE!!! Why? Because they are making too much money off it for our elected officials to EVER make it illegal.

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but to say it plays no part would be nothing short of silly.

 

[N.Bailey]

You raise an excellent point. As an employer, you can't tell who will cost the big health care bucks. It's a crap shoot.

That's the bottom line, it's nothing short of discriminatory. Whether the argument will ever stand up in a court of law or not, that's exactly what it is.

 

[FireDancer]

You raise an excellent point. As an employer, you can't tell who will cost the big health care bucks. It's a crap shoot.

No, it is an educated guess based on statistical probability.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Well, in turn that is the government imposing morals on its people. Where is the line drawn? Why is one harmful drug illegal where another is not? This is what makes the slippery slope argument so dangerous. It is illegal to smoke in restaurants, its illegal to do heroin. Will smoking eventually be illegal too?

I don't know. The line has been drawn, but it seems to be a moving target these days.

I imagine the criteria for heroin and meth were data including mental decline and ultimately death. Cigarettes "can" possibly lead to death, but smokers can be and are productive members of society. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

 

[OceanAnnie]

No, it is an educated guess based on statistical probability.

Yes and no. It's flawed. You can't predict illness with surety. Too many variables.

 

[OceanAnnie]

That's the bottom line, it's nothing short of discriminatory. Whether the argument will ever stand up in a court of law or not, that's exactly what it is.

Agreed. The logical question can only be, what is next?

 

[aprilgail2]

Whew. It is a complex issue.

I hate the smell of smoke, and yes that stink does linger on someone's clothing, skin, hair and breath. I have an assistant who smokes and I have to force myself not to recoil when she speaks to me as her breath is foul with old smoke.

The place I work doesn't hire smokers but not because of any health or insurance issue- its purely because they stink, the smell of stale smoke clings to them and food absorbs all sorts of smells and they don't want it taking on the smell of a smoker.

 

[Sparx]

NOPE!!! Why? Because they are making too much money off it for our elected officials to EVER make it illegal.

I'm sure that's not the only reason, but to say it plays no part would be nothing short of silly.

I think smoking will eventually be illegal in all places short of private residences. The steps are already in place. And even though many smokers have stopped smoking due to sin taxes/smoking bans, many more start every day and many continue to smoke.

However, the government would also make a great deal of money if the current illegal drugs were regulated and taxed the way cigarettes and alcohol are. There are many illegal practices that would provide a hefty taxable revenue.

I won't say that smoking will never be illegal. I doubt alcohol will ever be illegal, but I really cannot predict the future of smoking. Its rapidly being beaten back into smaller and smaller approved areas.

 

[Took]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. That wasn't the question however. Yes, they are within their rights, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that they should have ever had that right to begin with.

I think we walk a slippery slope when government is allowed to dictate such intricacies of our daily lives. I prefer freedom, and unfortunately, our government is leaning more toward dictatorship on several levels. They use ignorance and fear to strip us of our rights. Little by little, we're losing more and more all the time.

And all we do is, turn our head and refuse to see it.

But we already allow government to dictate such intricacies; for example, bans on the use or sale of heroin (not that I'm advocating it) are "infringements" on our "liberty." Some would say that even those laws are "too much."

Just saying.

BTW, the poster who said that all heroin use eventually leads to death is not entirely correct, either. Certainly, most long-term users will die (and at much higher rates than non-users), but not all (60-70% or so--depending on the study).

BTW, I don't know where I stand on this hospital's position.

 

[N.Bailey]

But we already allow government to dictate such intricacies; for example, bans on the use or sale of heroin (not that I'm advocating it) are "infringements" on our "liberty." Some would say that even those laws are "too much."

Just saying.

BTW, I don't know where I stand on this hospital's position.

Good point, but you are talking about a product that is illegal (though pointing that fact out is kinda like an oxymoron).

 

[Took]

Good point, but you are talking about a product that is illegal (though pointing that fact out is kinda like an oxymoron).

Right, but it's illegal because, at some point, "we" (the government) decided it should be illegal. At one point, it was legal; then, we saw what it did to people (maybe the 1920's or so?).