Just caught my girlfriends 14 yr old son smoking...
Comments
-
pandora wrote:You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
I love, love, love this idea. I will now be purchasing very cheap, sub par, completely uncomfortable chairs for the folks I employ that must sit at terminals all day. On top of which, I will NOT buy them pads to prevent carpal tunnel. Come to think of it, I saw some old CRT's lying around that I will force them to stare at without any breaks for 15 hour work days. No air conditioning in the summer. No heat in the winter. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it - no chairs!
And f'em. They can go find one of those jobby things this new administration has created if they don't like it!
Thank you!Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
EdsonNascimento wrote:pandora wrote:You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
I love, love, love this idea. I will now be purchasing very cheap, sub par, completely uncomfortable chairs for the folks I employ that must sit at terminals all day. On top of which, I will NOT buy them pads to prevent carpal tunnel. Come to think of it, I saw some old CRT's lying around that I will force them to stare at without any breaks for 15 hour work days. No air conditioning in the summer. No heat in the winter. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it - no chairs!
And f'em. They can go find one of those jobby things this new administration has created if they don't like it!
Thank you!
Got cha! sarcasm again
that might become a problem for you especially if you have kids one day
It's not torture or disrespect our employees...quite the opposite
Its have the right to fill our job openings with qualified employees that insure success within our personally privately owned business. Something that happens everyday.
A smoking establishment will hire only smokers or those who have no problem with second hand smoke
and cater to the customers who frequent and make his business a success. In this case smokers.
You as a non smoker can gladly take your business elsewhere.0 -
pandora wrote:You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
Cigar shops do allow smoking at least in my town.
I can't believe there's anther smoking thread going on... I'm exhausted after the last one. And isn't this one a stretch from what the OP intended anyway?0 -
always finds a way from the Op to smokers vs nonsmokers and not sure howJeanwah wrote:pandora wrote:You know where I stand...
Employers should be allowed to offer smoking sections in their establishments and a full on all smoking club if they so choose.
Said job seeker can go work elsewhere if they are worried about second hand smoke which may never be a health risk to them at all.
No different then anyone else who is unqualified for a job position.
That person would not be qualified to work in a smoke environment.
It would hinder their ability to do a good job ... their issue with cigarette smoke.
This mean as a business owner I should be allowed
to find qualified future employees
and provide for my clientele which may be smokers.
Cigar shops do allow smoking at least in my town.
I can't believe there's anther smoking thread going on... I'm exhausted after the last one. And isn't this one a stretch from what the OP intended anyway?
I'm sure you didn't want to spend time reading through to see just where that happened
its a ditto situation0 -
pandora wrote:
Got cha! sarcasm again
that might become a problem for you especially if you have kids one day
It's not torture or disrespect our employees...quite the opposite
Its have the right to fill our job openings with qualified employees that insure success within our personally privately owned business. Something that happens everyday.
A smoking establishment will hire only smokers or those who have no problem with second hand smoke
and cater to the customers who frequent and make his business a success. In this case smokers.
You as a non smoker can gladly take your business elsewhere.
So, as a purple owner, I can hire just purples... As a non-handicapped person, I don't have to consider handicapped people.... If I open an establishment for JUST handicapped people, I only have to consider handicapped people to work there.... Since only those that are alike are qualified. Just trying to understand you here.
You still seem to miss that there is no common good in smoking. This is not like driving a vehicle that pollutes. Our society is based on cars. You can debate all you want about levels of emissions, but there is a greater good being served.
Smoking is detrimental with no common good. That is why outlawing it in pubic is actually common sense. Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Drunk driving? Well, if the driver never hits anyone, it doesn't harm anyone..... Let's have driving lanes for drunk drivers only. That driver has rights. And as long as he has his own lane, he's not harming you. Let's show him a little respect. He needs to get home, doesn't he?
To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
* Alcohol consumption
* Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests
* Extended handgun magazine sales
* Denny's Fried Cheese Melt salesBe Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
Jason P wrote:
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
* Alcohol consumption
* Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests
* Extended handgun magazine sales
* Denny's Fried Cheese Melt sales
That looks good, sorry lite lunch.Post edited by BinauralJam on0 -
Jason P wrote:
There must be a good list of items, but it all depends on what your personal views are. A few quick ones off hand:EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
* Alcohol consumption
* Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests
* Extended handgun magazine sales
* Denny's Fried Cheese Melt sales
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.EdsonNascimento wrote:
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Not too shabby, eh? Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
EdsonNascimento wrote:Let's have driving lanes for drunk drivers only. That driver has rights. And as long as he has his own lane, he's not harming you. Let's show him a little respect. He needs to get home, doesn't he? 0
-
Jason P wrote:
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.EdsonNascimento wrote:
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Not too shabby, eh?EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.0 -
The families of tobacco farmers, profits made from retailers, taxes generated from sales, and the overall economic output is not considered the public common good?_ wrote:Jason P wrote:[
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Not too shabby, eh?EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Just playing devils advocate.Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
_ wrote:Jason P wrote:
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.EdsonNascimento wrote:
Very cute, actually. But, how does alcohol consumption by someone else in and of itself harm you? As detestable as the funeral protests are, and as much as I also believe they should be stopped, they don't actually do any harm unless we allow them to (I realize how tough that is if you are the griever). So, on and so forth.
However, smoking does harm every single person around it whether they mind or not. Again, the point here is personal views are irrelevant. It is harmful to everyone and anyone in the surrounding area. What you have listed is harmful to an individual, but not the whole. This is not SUBJECTIVE. It is OBJECTIVE. That's the point.
So, keep trying. I'm sure there's one out there.
Not too shabby, eh?EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Your energy point is completely in this wheel house - there is common public good - my air conditioning when it's 100 degrees out! Now, you can say that we need to adjust how we get to that common good. But, the energy we use, like the cars we drive serve a purpose that has public good attached to it. Along with the detrimental effects. That's the point - smoking harms everything and provides no benefit to those it harms. Use of energy provides a common good. Consumption of alcohol in and of itself does not do anyone else harm. It may not serve a public good, but it's not harming anyone if a singular person does it in the company of others. When it reaches that point, it is against the law (public intoxication, etc.).Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.EdsonNascimento wrote:To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.0 -
Jason P wrote:
The families of tobacco farmers, profits made from retailers, taxes generated from sales, and the overall economic output is not considered the public common good?_ wrote:Jason P wrote:[
Well, by that logic, I will go with every single device known to man that requires power. Energy creates waste, climate change, emissions, acid rain, etc.
Not too shabby, eh?EdsonNascimento wrote:Please identify 1 other thing in this country that is detrimental only with no public common good attached to it that we allow people to continue to do.
Just playing devils advocate.
That is good. But the basic tenets of our country is that we should not profit from harming others intentionally. So, no ultimately, that is not public common good. The medical cost associated with smokers far outweigh the financial gain to the economy. You could make money being a hit man, but I don't think anyone would think that's a good thing to legalize to create more jobs (and that doesn't even have the medical expense associated with it!)
I do agree, as I think DP said earlier in this thread - I like the tax dollars it raises. And, in a way, we are killing the golden goose (though smoking itself is not illegal. Just where you can smoke.). But, we should just legalize and tax gambling, prostitution and weed, and we'd have the whole deficit problem taken care of! Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
pandora wrote:
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.EdsonNascimento wrote:To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.
But, I believe you are talking about common bars and restaurants (among other places). This place I reference is a cigar shop that allows smoking. So, yes, under that perview, I'm perfectly ok, as I think every other person on this thread is. If you were talking only to that degree, then I stand corrected. But, it seemed to me you and others (I know I shouldn't "lump") were talking about a much broader allowance. It is not simply up to an establishment to allow smoking in NY. There are EXTREMELY strict guidelines. If you meet those guidelines, then fine. Remember though (in case you don't live in NY), NY is now one of the leaders in smoke free environs. Don't remember the exact number, but pretty soon you can't smoke within like 30 feet of a public building. So, you can imagine what these licensing requirements are.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
Oh I see not so fair huh?EdsonNascimento wrote:pandora wrote:
We agree then, that there can and should be private establishments that allow smoking. Good cause I thought from your posts that you were entirely against that such thing.EdsonNascimento wrote:To serve liquor, an establisment needs a license. To allow smoking, an establisment needs a license. There are guidelines for both. You can have a smoke shop with liquor. There's one right down the street from where I work. Just go get the license required.
We agree that this is fair...to have social places for smokers to smoke...to gather, have fun, enjoy food, good drink, listen to music and enjoy each others company.
And said private business owners can choose to have an establishment like this.
The nonsmokers can have their own establishments.
Seems respectful and fair to all.
But, I believe you are talking about common bars and restaurants (among other places). This place I reference is a cigar shop that allows smoking. So, yes, under that perview, I'm perfectly ok, as I think every other person on this thread is. If you were talking only to that degree, then I stand corrected. But, it seemed to me you and others (I know I shouldn't "lump") were talking about a much broader allowance. It is not simply up to an establishment to allow smoking in NY. There are EXTREMELY strict guidelines. If you meet those guidelines, then fine. Remember though (in case you don't live in NY), NY is now one of the leaders in smoke free environs. Don't remember the exact number, but pretty soon you can't smoke within like 30 feet of a public building. So, you can imagine what these licensing requirements are.
funny how that works 0 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help