PDA

View Full Version : Looks like the Stinky Cigg smokers are being further penalized




Manthus
04-22-2011, 03:47 PM
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110422/BUSINESS/104220345/Sparrow-won-t-hire-those-who-test-positive-tobacco?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

LANSING - Sparrow Health System will not hire anyone who tests positive for tobacco or nicotine products.
The new policy goes into effect May 1, Sparrow said today. It does not apply to current employees.
Sparrow is one of the region's largest employers with about 7,500 full-time, part-time and per-diem employees.
"Sparrow is implementing this new policy in order to further our goal of being a role model for health improvement in Michigan," President and CEO Dennis Swan said in a statement. "We believe it is vital to promote a safe, clean, healthy and healing environment for our Patients and Associates."
Applicants who test positive for nicotine will be allowed to reapply for a job 90 days later.
The hiring policy covers all Sparrow affiliates, including Sparrow Hospital, Sparrow Clinton Hospital, Sparrow Ionia Hospital, Sparrow Specialty Hospital, Sparrow Medical Supply, Sparrow Medical Group, the Michigan Athletic Club and Physicians Health Plan of Mid-Michigan. It also applies to physicians and medical residents.




7iron
04-22-2011, 03:57 PM
So, you can't have nicotine in your system but dope is ok? Why, I thought nicotine was legal.

Manthus
04-22-2011, 04:09 PM
I think they're just cutting back on future health care costs. They will probably go after the drinkers next.

7iron
04-22-2011, 04:15 PM
So, it is ok to discriminate? Are they drug testing also?

GIDEON
04-22-2011, 04:26 PM
So, you can't have nicotine in your system but dope is ok? Why, I thought nicotine was legal.

Who said dope in your system was ok?

Supa Roosta
04-22-2011, 04:26 PM
Interesting that it doesn't apply to "current" employees...
What's next?
BMI, Sugar Intake Index, Genetics?????

GIDEON
04-22-2011, 04:28 PM
So, it is ok to discriminate? Are they drug testing also?

It actually doesnt meet the requirements for discrimination, as for there drug testing, yes they have, do and will, do they have to NO

earl
04-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Wow, I guess I find that an odd choice for a hospital (less so for an HMO). I remember when that old closet fascist Howard Weirs did the same thing with his TPA firm Weyco over in Okemos I thought it was fine and his choice (as owner). As fat has become the new smoking, should be interesting in terms of next steps.

As a hospital though, I think it sends a very different message. I think people select a hospital to receive care and want to be treated with compassion and respect in a non-judgmental fashion. I think the message here is We Judge and We Judge Very Harshly.

Kind of funny that that Sparrow would take this position, as I think they have been largely successful with their battle with McLaren as of late. If they and their staff see smokers and obese people as children of a lesser god, itís certainly their right to take this position.

cscott711
04-22-2011, 06:12 PM
Wow, I guess I find that an odd choice for a hospital (less so for an HMO). I remember when that old closet fascist Howard Weirs did the same thing with his TPA firm Weyco over in Okemos I thought it was fine and his choice (as owner). As fat has become the new smoking, should be interesting in terms of next steps.

As a hospital though, I think it sends a very different message. I think people select a hospital to receive care and want to be treated with compassion and respect in a non-judgmental fashion. I think the message here is We Judge and We Judge Very Harshly.

Kind of funny that that Sparrow would take this position, as I think they have been largely successful with their battle with McLaren as of late. If they and their staff see smokers and obese people as children of a lesser god, itís certainly their right to take this position.

That's a ridiculous post. Every medical association on earth views cigarettes as harmful to your body. As an entity that promotes physical well-being, this is a positive step that shows the hospital and it's staff don't just talk the talk, but actually walk the walk.

Where does the article state that they will judge or treat patients any different? Hospitals treat patients repeatedly for smoking-related illnesses right now. Where do they say that will change? Perhaps they are trying to be a role model to the community (as they state) and do their part promoting healthy habits among their own workforce?

They also state that anyone who tests positive for nicotine can reapply after 90 days.

Show me where they state anything about obese people in this article.

I'm all for it. Numerous studies have shown the impact of 2nd-hand smoke and some regarding the affects of 3rd-hand smoke. Who better to set an example than the people who have to treat those affected by smoking every day? I'd say it shows that they care more than anything.

HUBBHUNTER
04-22-2011, 06:22 PM
Numerous studies have shown the impact of 2nd-hand smoke and some regarding the affects of 3rd-hand smoke.


Can someone tell me what 3rd hand smoke is? Is that were someone smells like smoke, but isn't smoking at that present time. So the person smelling the smoke indirectly off the smoker could some how be harmed?

:lol::lol:

Um, grow the $#%# up. That's not meant at you cscott.

cscott711
04-22-2011, 06:43 PM
Can someone tell me what 3rd hand smoke is? Is that were someone smells like smoke, but isn't smoking at that present time. So the person smelling the smoke indirectly off the smoker could some how be harmed?

:lol::lol:

Um, grow the $#%# up. That's not meant at you cscott.

It's the residues left on surfaces, fabrics, etc. Typically children are most impacted from crawling around in close proximity to the contaminated surfaces. I think smoking is absolutely disgusting so I'm all for any and every reduction possible.

Congrats on recently kicking the smoking/chewing habit yourself.

BIGCHRIS
04-22-2011, 06:50 PM
I'm gonna leave this one alone.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

HUBBHUNTER
04-22-2011, 06:55 PM
It's the residues left on surfaces, fabrics, etc. Typically children are most impacted from crawling around in close proximity to the contaminated surfaces. I think smoking is absolutely disgusting so I'm all for any and every reduction possible.

Congrats on recently kicking the smoking/chewing habit yourself.

Thank you.

I've never been one to care what others do, especially when it comes to smoking. Kids on the other hand don't really have a choice. Although when I was growing up every adult I knew smoked, and looked how I turned out!!!!:16suspect Ok, don't answer that.:lol:

oxdog66
04-22-2011, 07:00 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device

DE82
04-22-2011, 07:03 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device***? :dizzy: WOW...just WOW.

Jackster1
04-22-2011, 07:06 PM
This entire issue brings to mind the old 'don't let 'em get their foot in the door' saying.
Doesn't anyone here remember, 'Can we please have just a small section in resaurants for non-smokers'? It sure didn't take long for them to escalate that little request, did it?
Be assured that fat intake and fat content are next. REAL issues face this country and the nanny-staters take over.

UNREEL
04-22-2011, 07:13 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device
Priceless.
Posted via Mobile Device

cscott711
04-22-2011, 07:14 PM
This entire issue brings to mind the old 'don't let 'em get their foot in the door' saying.
Doesn't anyone here remember, 'Can we please have just a small section in resaurants for non-smokers'? It sure didn't take long for them to escalate that little request, did it?
Be assured that fat intake and fat content are next. REAL issues face this country and the nanny-staters take over.

Yeah, you're right. Way to compare apples to apples. A guy blowing smoke throughout a restaurant directly impacts others health. A fat guy sitting in a restaurant has zero effect on me.

HUBBHUNTER
04-22-2011, 07:26 PM
Yeah, you're right. Way to compare apples to apples. A guy blowing smoke throughout a restaurant directly impacts others health. A fat guy sitting in a restaurant has zero effect on me.


I think jackster is going back to it being personal health hazard and the government knowing what is best.

HUBBHUNTER
04-22-2011, 07:30 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device


:lol::lol:
Beautiful

fishenrg
04-22-2011, 10:35 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device

I understand these words individually, but I don't get what you're saying.

Spanky
04-22-2011, 10:36 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device


hehehehe, spew alert next time.:lol:

Downriver Tackle
04-22-2011, 10:44 PM
Yeah, you're right. Way to compare apples to apples. A guy blowing smoke throughout a restaurant directly impacts others health. A fat guy sitting in a restaurant has zero effect on me.


The fat people at our company cost our inurance carrier MUCH more than the smokers!!!
That's the point.
Posted via Mobile Device

cscott711
04-23-2011, 04:07 AM
The fat people at our company cost our inurance carrier MUCH more than the smokers!!!
That's the point.
Posted via Mobile Device

So taking the post completely off-topic is the point? I can see that. Both have a significant impact on insurance and no where in the article do I see that being discussed. The point of the thread was a hospital choosing to hire workers with no nicotine in their system to promote a healthy lifestyle in the community. The thing is, smokers directly impact non-smokers by blowing smoke around that we didn't ask for. Fat people don't to blow fat around to everyone else around them. Fat people do it to themselves. Smokers do it to anyone around them just because they happen to be near them. They both have numerous health impacts which are unquestioned.

It's amazing. People think their choices are being taken away and they're losing their freedom over it. I suppose drinking and driving should be legal? Oh why not? Is it because the drunk driver's actions could directly impact other people around him? Dang it, it's America, this is a free country. We can do what we want to do! So, let's give the drunks some roads to drive on that are just for them where they can drive around and smash into each other because they deserve their choice to do what they want. Sounds pretty stupid to me. Just because cigarettes don't kill you in an instant, doesn't mean they still aren't killing you (and potentially people around you) in the end.

Not every change that get's made is to simply strip us of our freedom of choice. Some changes result because of the fact that America is too stupid as a whole to make the needed changes on their own.

2PawsRiver
04-23-2011, 07:55 AM
Not every change that get's made is to simply strip us of our freedom of choice. Some changes result because of the fact that America is too stupid as a whole to make the needed changes on their own.


Spoken like a true democrat.:lol: Not that I completely disagree, however I think the solution runs along the line of Darwins Theory, Natural Selection, or as some have stated in a simpler manner, let the stupid ones die.

oxdog66
04-23-2011, 08:21 AM
My point was that: we all have rights and we all have flaws. And many of our flaws can be picked apart as a burden to insurance companies. So where does one draw the line? Most smokers rights to smoke in public have already been taken away. Yet they are still heavily taxed. And are the non smokers who already complain of being over taxed ready for that burden when cig tax revenue is gone? And who is next on the agenda for discrimination was my idea , gays ( that's higher risk for hiv or at least was belived to be at on time). Obesity? Drinking? Heck one could even say people who hunt and eat wild game and fish are a burden for higher risk of deer tick (lime disease) or mosquito bites or mercury poisoning or possible drowning falling or being shot. And as a smoker I say ban it, don't tax it, its a hard habb it to break. And when I can legally purcase them at any store and in plain view as I pay for gas its even harder. Then the obese can be next and then the next group and so on. I am for democracy , just don't cry when the. Nation as a whole is attacking your own personal flaw!!
Posted via Mobile Device

Jackster1
04-23-2011, 08:51 AM
It's amazing. People think their choices are being taken away and they're losing their freedom over it. I suppose drinking and driving should be legal?

In a truly free country, yes. In fact, some states in this country are still relatively sensible when it comes to things like this.
I got off of a float trip in Montana and when we got in the guides truck he pulled out two glasses, a bottle of bourbon yanked out the cup holder and poured two drinks. When asked he looked at me as if I had two heads. He said it was okay to drink and drive but NOT okay to drive drunk. Made sense to me. Many drink, even socially BEFORE they get in a car so what in the world is the difference? My guess is the nanny-staters that I mentioned before. If they ain't happy why should anyone be?

HUBBHUNTER
04-23-2011, 09:24 AM
In a truly free country, yes. In fact, some states in this country are still relatively sensible when it comes to things like this.
I got off of a float trip in Montana and when we got in the guides truck he pulled out two glasses, a bottle of bourbon yanked out the cup holder and poured two drinks. When asked he looked at me as if I had two heads. He said it was okay to drink and drive but NOT okay to drive drunk. Made sense to me. Many drink, even socially BEFORE they get in a car so what in the world is the difference? My guess is the nanny-staters that I mentioned before. If they ain't happy why should anyone be?


Have you turned over a new leaf?;)

foxriver6
04-23-2011, 09:27 AM
I am a non-smoker. I should not have to pay more for my health insurance to cover smoker related illnesses. Smokers should pay more for insurance than non-smokers.

Discrimination only applies for a few selected catagories such a race, gender, age etc...Smoking is not a protected class.

I do not like being around co-workers that smell like cigarettes and I would imagine some customers think the same way as I do. And if I was an employer, I don't think I would like to pay employees to have smoke breaks.

Smoking is a nasty habit and hurts, irritates those that do not smoke. Smoking is a choice and choices have consequences.

oxdog66
04-23-2011, 09:38 AM
As for the article in the original post, then yes it should be ok for them to not hire smokers. And they should not have obese nursing or doctors on duty either. If the reason is to promote a healthy lifestyle. Than they should only hire fit, staff to promote good health. Cancers and diabetes is a big drain on insurance and both do to being overweight. They make perfumes and sanitizers to cover up the smells, but they don't make glasses to hide a persons weight, the same person who may be telling you to loose some pounds or your at risk for these diseases. Just an idea to ponder, i am really just bored and thought i would post my idea on this issue. It should be in the interest of the employer who they feel fit for the job.

Downriver Tackle
04-23-2011, 10:08 AM
So taking the post completely off-topic is the point? I can see that. Both have a significant impact on insurance and no where in the article do I see that being discussed. The point of the thread was a hospital choosing to hire workers with no nicotine in their system to promote a healthy lifestyle in the community. The thing is, smokers directly impact non-smokers by blowing smoke around that we didn't ask for. Fat people don't to blow fat around to everyone else around them. Fat people do it to themselves. Smokers do it to anyone around them just because they happen to be near them. They both have numerous health impacts which are unquestioned.

It's amazing. People think their choices are being taken away and they're losing their freedom over it. I suppose drinking and driving should be legal? Oh why not? Is it because the drunk driver's actions could directly impact other people around him? Dang it, it's America, this is a free country. We can do what we want to do! So, let's give the drunks some roads to drive on that are just for them where they can drive around and smash into each other because they deserve their choice to do what they want. Sounds pretty stupid to me. Just because cigarettes don't kill you in an instant, doesn't mean they still aren't killing you (and potentially people around you) in the end.

Not every change that get's made is to simply strip us of our freedom of choice. Some changes result because of the fact that America is too stupid as a whole to make the needed changes on their own.


How is being fat prmoting a healthy lifestyle? And yes fat people affect others. Most fat people raise fat children. Fat people make my life more expensive thru insurance preiums. Id say they affect others because of their condition even though you dont exhale fat. The obesity rate is growing faster than smokers. I don't think government or employers should have any say in your personal life. Just pointing at what's over the edge of that slippery slope.
Posted via Mobile Device

Overdew
04-23-2011, 10:41 AM
Where is the ACLU the Sparrow Health System sucks. Thats right SUCKS. I am so sick of the so called better than thou nut jobs they can stick it where the sun don't shine biotches.

Go eat your f-in salad. While I go kill some dinner.

There I feel better :lol:

k9wernet
04-23-2011, 11:09 AM
The point of the thread was a hospital choosing to hire workers with no nicotine in their system to promote a healthy lifestyle in the community.

Which is EXACTLY why the alcohol, fat, unsafe sex examples are so appropriate. We could compile a long list of activities which degrade the our health and undermine our standing as health role models. The fact that they single out tobacco users is pretty arbitrary.

The thing is, smokers directly impact non-smokers by blowing smoke around that we didn't ask for.

I'm a non-smoker. Always have been and always will be. But what happens when I'm at deer camp and the guys are puffing on cigars? What if my spouse is a smoker? Or my parents, or roommate or whatever? You're talking about the hazards of 3rd and 7th and 12th hand smoke. So I should be refused a job because the people I live with smoke? The guy who gives me a ride to work smokes in his car, creating a "toxic 3rd hand smoke environment" and now I'm undermined as a "health role model." Pretty weak!

Not every change that get's made is to simply strip us of our freedom of choice. Some changes result because of the fact that America is too stupid as a whole to make the needed changes on their own.

I'm going to leave that one to the MS political junkies to deal with! All I'm going to say is :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

Does anyone remember the details of the Weyco case in Okemos? I seem to remember the employees suing and winning, and the court telling the company to reverse its policies. It's very possible that I'm wrong though!

This is different because it applies only to new hires, but I still think the Sparrow is over-reaching.

KW

BIGCHRIS
04-23-2011, 11:12 AM
How long have smokers, cigarettes, and tobacco been around? EXACTLY....this **** didn't happen over night. Do you think people complained fifty years? One hundred years ago? I'm assuming they didn't. And yeah before someone says something about the word assume I'm gonna stop you right there. I'm a smoker and proud of it. I like smoking. You take away my right to smoke in enclosed public places that are well ventilated now you want to deny me a job. Where is this freedom I hear about?....i am a smoker and if it kills me in the long run so be it, its my choice. It's a choice to be a fat slob too if a medical condition didn't cause the problems. When he/she was putting the the fork to their mouth did any stop them?

Sent from my Droid Incredible

k9wernet
04-23-2011, 11:27 AM
Does anyone remember the details of the Weyco case in Okemos? I seem to remember the employees suing and winning, and the court telling the company to reverse its policies. It's very possible that I'm wrong though!


Guess I'm wrong! Another LSJ story:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110423/BUSINESS/104230319/Sparrow-will-test-tobacco-use-new-hires-only?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


Legal in Michigan

Sparrow is not the first to take a hard-line stance against tobacco use. In 2004, Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. said it would fire existing employees who tested positive for tobacco use.
As a result, four employees were terminated early in 2005. The company was bought in 2006 by Meritain Health Inc., a division of Westport, Conn.-based Prodigy Health Group.
The Weyco policy is different from Sparrow's in that it applied to current and future employees.
Hiring or firing employees on the basis of tobacco use is legal in Michigan. Only certain kinds of discrimination are prohibited, such as not hiring or firing someone on the basis of race, religion or sex.

another interesting detail about the Sparrow policy:

job candidates will be given a test that will detect tobacco use in approximately the previous 30 days. It can distinguish smokers from people who inhale second-hand smoke, said Dr. Larry Rawsthorne, senior vice president of medical affairs for Sparrow and a pulmonary medicine specialist.In some cases, Raws- thorne said, a nonsmoker may be around so much smoke he or she would test positive but there would be no exemption to Sparrow's new policy.

KW

oxdog66
04-23-2011, 11:38 AM
We all enjoy our freedoms, and we should all respect others freedoms. This nation was founded to free, and we are slowly loosing our freedoms if its for the greater good of our nation then great, so be it. For every victory, there is a population that losses. Is it a right for the employer to choose who they want to hire? I feel it is. Is it ok for them to subject you to a nicotine test? that is a gray area, that i haven't given much thought over yet, and my first instinct is to say no. I know many smokers, who at least without subjecting them to tests, are healthier than non smokers. Example: i am a smoker and shot two deer. I was dragging one and my non smoker was dragging the other. As we were dragging and i looked back he was a football field away and couldn't keep up. He is overweight and out of shape so who would you rather hire if we both had the same education to bring to the table? We both could be a drag on the system! I tell ya what i think. Today smokers, next fatties, then drinkers, then same sex, then meat eaters, then sportsman, then people who cant run a mile under six minutes etc.........

BIGCHRIS
04-23-2011, 12:14 PM
It's kind of ironic if you think about it. Our country was founded on the agricultural and commercial sale of tobacco and now the one thing that made our economy and brought jobs to our founders is now gonna take away jobs for the people of today and tomorrow.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

k9wernet
04-23-2011, 12:41 PM
Inconsistent Faulty Logic

During the debate over the smoking ban, my position (as a non-smoker) was to let businesses decide. But remember all the bleeding-heart justification? "Somebody has to look out for the poor, non-smoking waitresses who have no other choice than to work in a smoke filled bar, night after night." When met with the response, "Tell them to find a new job," they retaliated, "Jobs are at a premium. She may not have the skills or the opportunity to find a different job."

Now, in an effort to justify this discriminatory non-smoking policy, the anti-smoker's philosophy is "Let employers decide. If the employees don't like it, tell them to find a new job."

Just say or do anything to justify today's position, regardless of how out of whack it might be with your past positions or overall philosophies... :dizzy:

KW

k9wernet
04-23-2011, 01:32 PM
"We need UNIVERSAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED health care that doesn't discriminate or charge higher rates based on people's health history or personal health choices!!!!"

Great philosophy to apply to insurance companies... just not to the employers who PROVIDE the insurance to begin with, eh?

KW

cscott711
04-23-2011, 01:51 PM
Which is EXACTLY why the alcohol, fat, unsafe sex examples are so appropriate. We could compile a long list of activities which degrade the our health and undermine our standing as health role models. The fact that they single out tobacco users is pretty arbitrary.


Indeed. My response in the middle of the night may have had a hint of delusion in it. A new baby in the house has caused a serious interruption to my sleep patterns. We can probably add "anyone who has a baby" to the list of people employers will someday refuse to hire. :lol: If I can cut through my delusion, I was trying to get at the fact that many laws, rules, regulations, that have been in place for some time now are thought of as common sense, as no-brainers, and why wouldn't there be a law about that? Example: drinking and driving. Is there anyone here who thinks that we should abolish this law and make it legal again?


I'm a non-smoker. Always have been and always will be. But what happens when I'm at deer camp and the guys are puffing on cigars? What if my spouse is a smoker? Or my parents, or roommate or whatever? You're talking about the hazards of 3rd and 7th and 12th hand smoke. So I should be refused a job because the people I live with smoke? The guy who gives me a ride to work smokes in his car, creating a "toxic 3rd hand smoke environment" and now I'm undermined as a "health role model." Pretty weak!


It looks like you answered your own question in another post as they can distinguish between primary and 2nd hand smoke.



I'm going to leave that one to the MS political junkies to deal with! All I'm going to say is :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

Does anyone remember the details of the Weyco case in Okemos? I seem to remember the employees suing and winning, and the court telling the company to reverse its policies. It's very possible that I'm wrong though!

This is different because it applies only to new hires, but I still think the Sparrow is over-reaching.

KW
:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy: all you want about America as a whole being too stupid, heading the wrong direction, etc...but they are. We are moving in the wrong direction in all areas that matter. I am far from a Democrat, skeptical of the Republicans, and just want common sense to prevail. That appears doubtful.

As your additional posts clarified, I'm glad to see that companies are able make such hiring policies without consequence.

cscott711
04-23-2011, 01:59 PM
Spoken like a true democrat.:lol: Not that I completely disagree, however I think the solution runs along the line of Darwins Theory, Natural Selection, or as some have stated in a simpler manner, let the stupid ones die.

Ha, I don't think this is a party issue. Let me clarify though, I'm not a Dem. I too am for "letting the stupid ones die" so to speak, but not at the expense of their ignorance and lack of self-respect impacting my life.

2PawsRiver
04-23-2011, 06:22 PM
I thingk the future holds many twists and turns when it comes to health coverge and people, employers and government getting involved.........fasten your seat belt.:)


Happy 1001 posts.:)

Lost mine at 71, too young. If I did the math right, yours at 59, far too young. Hope they were great years that provide you any your many great memories.

oxdog66
04-23-2011, 07:08 PM
I see some really good arguments both for and against, the universal health care, i hope that was meant to be funny AAA as they say in Canada. But if they wont be smoking at work, not allowed. And cant smoke in public bars restaurants or schools etc. How does their smoking stink, they have already given up their rights to smoke in public for the most part, so if their smoking offends you, then your standing in their space? you have your school zones and bars and restaurants etc. Is that not enough? They have to stand so many feet away from buildings and places the non smokers attend, is that not enough. Cant ya share?

oxdog66
04-23-2011, 07:15 PM
What about the old timers that fought the war and just want to have a smoke over a pint is that to much to ask :)
Posted via Mobile Device

k9wernet
04-23-2011, 09:20 PM
Went to an Easter party tonight, where I bumped into a family member who happens to be an experienced attorney specializing in employment law. I brought up this issue and she laughed.

Her opinion is that Sparrow's policy is unquestionably against the law. I brought up the Weyco thing and she wasn't familiar with the details but said the case probably fizzled due to a settlement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace due any number of things, INCLUDING chemical addiction. You can be a meth addict, but if it is not affecting your performance on the job, you're protected by the ADA.

Her take was that these types of corporate policies are relatively new and have not yet been tested through the courts. Therefore, they're legal (as the LSJ article indicated) until a court order proves otherwise. Again, this was the opinion of one attorney, but she seemed to think all it would take is one plaintiff willing to push the issue up through the court system to get all of this nonsense to stop.

She's another non-smoker, BTW ;)

KW

cscott711
04-23-2011, 10:15 PM
I thingk the future holds many twists and turns when it comes to health coverge and people, employers and government getting involved.........fasten your seat belt.:)


Happy 1001 posts.:)

Lost mine at 71, too young. If I did the math right, yours at 59, far too young. Hope they were great years that provide you any your many great memories.

Thanks. Didn't even realize how many posts I was up to.

I do have many great memories of my dad. He was a Portage police officer for 29 years. My grandpa, his dad, was a Detroit motorcycle officer for roughly 20 years. I believe you're an officer somewhere in SW MI, aren't you?

BIGCHRIS
04-24-2011, 09:43 AM
So what are they going to do about all the MDs, RNs, CNAs, LPNs, MAs, surgeons, and speciality doctors that went through school to do what they love and get a job, now they can't? The only people in our lives that can save our lives are subject to a nicotine test. Real smart sparrow!

Sent from my Droid Incredible

beer and nuts
04-24-2011, 08:50 PM
Anybody has every right to NOT work for Sparrow.

Smoking-has documented facts that, .1 cost companies more in the health care costs than non-smokers. 2. Workers that smoke are less productive.

Facts are facts, you smoke, you will be limiting your employment opportunities.

codybear
04-25-2011, 06:45 AM
Thats pretty bad when you have regulations that would even exclude the president of the United States from getting a job there :lol:

CB

oxdog66
04-25-2011, 07:28 AM
Pres of us well there ya have proof cost more for companies and less productive:)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
04-25-2011, 07:40 AM
Thats pretty bad when you have regulations that would even exclude the president of the United States from getting a job there :lol:

CB

I didn't see anything about smoking crack, so I think he's still covered.

2PawsRiver
04-25-2011, 09:05 AM
Smoking is maybe number 7 on the list of things that will keep him getting another job anywhere.

It's a race, will the cigarettes destroy Obama's lungs faster then he can destroy America.

BIGCHRIS
04-25-2011, 03:10 PM
Anybody has every right to NOT work for Sparrow.

Smoking-has documented facts that, .1 cost companies more in the health care costs than non-smokers. 2. Workers that smoke are less productive.

Facts are facts, you smoke, you will be limiting your employment opportunities.

Employment shouldn't be based on whether a person smokes or not. I smoke and I bust my ass and am very productive. Tell that to all the smokers at the big three. Tell them they aren't productive.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

beer and nuts
04-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Sparrow is setting the standard, there are documented reasons why they are doing it. You can deny it and bring up every lameass reason you want..or accept the fact that if you smoke it will hurt your opportunity for jobs inthe near future.

Tell that to all the smokers at the big three. Tell them they aren't productive Do not need to tell them, I've seen it with my own eyes many years ago at GM Bay City. Half dozen I had to work with(outside contrator) were the laziest people making $35 an hour, I have ever seen. Most were smokers, some were not. Don't care whether they were or not, studies and facts say smokers are less productive and cost compaines more in health-care.

oxdog66
04-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Its like 50 percent accidents caused by drinking so other 50 percent can't drive sober some people that are lazy smoke the other lazy people just happen to just be lazy
Posted via Mobile Device

BIGCHRIS
04-25-2011, 04:57 PM
I'm not worried that its going to hurt my opportunities for employment because any company/corporation outside of healthcare with half a brain would not spend the time and money to test on nicotine. I dont know the numbers but Im sure that most of the population not including senior citizens and children are smokers. So now these people or potential employees will not have a job? Bye bye economy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

beer and nuts
04-25-2011, 07:51 PM
In 2006, an estimated 20.8% (45.3 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 80.1% (36.3 million) smoked every day, and 19.9% (9.0 million) smoked some days.

Prevalence also varied by level of education. Smoking prevalence was highest among adults who had earned a General Educational Development (GED) diploma (46.0%) and those with 9--11 years of education (35.4%); overall, smoking prevalence decreased as education level increased. By age group, adults aged 18--24 years and 25--44 years had the highest prevalence of smoking (23.9% and 23.5%, respectively). The prevalence of current smoking was higher among adults living below the federal poverty level (30.6%) than among those at or above this level (20.4%).



Health issues are staggering for smokers and also days missed at your place of employement(sick days and vacation days), was statistically much higher when compareing smoker to nonsmokers.

remcorebond
04-25-2011, 08:08 PM
Hmm maybe next will be alcohol? Iam sure a argument can be made that those who drink are less productive. Over weight people as well. Iam sure many wonderful companies would like access to your d.n.a. as well, as to not hire anyone with genetic traits for disease. It's their right to have the purest of work forces. Zieg Heil
Posted via Mobile Device

BIGCHRIS
04-25-2011, 09:28 PM
Hmm maybe next will be alcohol? Iam sure a argument can be made that those who drink are less productive. Over weight people as well. Iam sure many wonderful companies would like access to your d.n.a. as well, as to not hire anyone with genetic traits for disease. It's their right to have the purest of work forces. Zieg Heil
Posted via Mobile Device

I see where ur goin with this rem. Maybe a work force of blonde hair blue eyed perhaps?? Hmmm....

Sent from my Droid Incredible

k9wernet
04-26-2011, 03:51 PM
Health issues are staggering for smokers and also days missed at your place of employement(sick days and vacation days), was statistically much higher when compareing smoker to nonsmokers.

Know what else costs more? Diabetes. Heart disease. HIV. Hepatitis. Herpes.

All drive up the cost of health care, all are avoidable, and all are the product of (off-the-job) personal choices.

BTW, all are protected by the ADA.

KW

Schroeder's Song
04-26-2011, 05:41 PM
It's not just heath care industry employers doing this! Right here & now in SE MI there is a major automotive supplier that will Not hire a smoker...you can work there as a contract employee, but they will NOT hire tobacco users!!! Fulltimers that do smoke are charged more for insurance, & random testing for those that declare "non" is used!

I'm reluctant to put the name on here, but any race fan or airplane buff should be able to guess the name on the building;)...

Guess how I know this? They "wanted to make me an offer", but 2nd item on application after name/personal info is "Do you use tobacco products?".......End of discussion....keep up the good work tho:rolleyes:

Girtski
04-26-2011, 05:52 PM
Hmm maybe next will be alcohol? Iam sure a argument can be made that those who drink are less productive. Over weight people as well. Iam sure many wonderful companies would like access to your d.n.a. as well, as to not hire anyone with genetic traits for disease. It's their right to have the purest of work forces. Zieg Heil
Posted via Mobile Device


I am an overweight smoker who drinks. I've NEVER missed a day of work that was not pre-planned other than for a funeral. I'm 53 years old and I have been working since I was 15. I know, I'm in the minority.

beer and nuts
04-26-2011, 06:33 PM
K9 for you and the first two on your list...http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/smoking/hic_diabetes_and_smoking_-_another_reason_to_quit.aspx

and

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/quit-smoking-heart

Keep it up, I got all kinds of studies when it comes to smoking and a gizzillion other problems assoc. with it.:o:corkysm55

icefishingislife
04-26-2011, 11:27 PM
It's the new craze to avoid smokers. It cracks me up when I hear of an employer (mostly seems to be t&d, production, assembly type jobs) lists in the posting must submit to a nicotine test. The real kicker is they pay between $8-8.50/hr and offer no medical, dental, vision, life or any other type of insurance. I had a hard time believing this until I saw the ad.

k9wernet
04-27-2011, 07:55 AM
K9 for you and the first two on your list...http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/smoking/hic_diabetes_and_smoking_-_another_reason_to_quit.aspx

and

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/quit-smoking-heart

Keep it up, I got all kinds of studies when it comes to smoking and a gizzillion other problems assoc. with it.:o:corkysm55

B&N -- I'll say it again: I'm a lifelong nonsmoker. I'm not advocating for it as a no-consequence healthy behavior. Having lost 4/4 Grandparents and one parent to smoking-related disease, you don't have to convince me that it's an unwise, unhealthy choice.

That said, people make unwise, unhealthy choices every day. I just don't see it as the govt's (or employers') place to start interfering with and regulating those choices. Regulate the product, sure, but when people can self-medicate in any number of unhealthy, unwise ways, I see this type of policy as overreaching.

Some of you believe that cigarettes should be eradicated anyway, anyhow, anywhy. I respect your conviction, but I respectfully disagree.

And again, I believe the courts will disagree too.

Schroeder -- if you need the name of an experienced employment lawyer, shoot me a PM.

KW

Manthus
05-03-2011, 09:20 AM
I was discussing stinky cigg smoking with a friend last night - we both wondered who came up with actually rolling the windows DOWN when smoking in a vehicle??:lol::dizzy: Smoker's etiquette...an oxymoron if I ever heard one....

Smoker's always stand up for their rights - they are a blight of society - a dirty aspect of life that wishes they had a claim to their reasoning. People that think they actually have rights despite violating others...

Some of you smokers are so inconsiderate, selfish and blatant that if it was up to me, I would strongarm windpipe elbow every idiot that thinks they still need to smoke indoors or at an entryway to a building.

Not to mention that anyone who has ever littered a "dead solider" should be forced to bury that soldier in a hand dug 6 foot grave.

So many kids have respiratory issues because of their idiot smoker parents...just another example of child abuse, self-rightousness and utter filth rolled up in a long rocket cancer stick.

and then there are those 'funny' people that like to blow smoke in people's faces...that stands alone as the type of person you are = worthless to society.

When it comes to smoking, well, don't get me going...:fish2:

Sib
05-03-2011, 09:30 AM
I was discussing stinky cigg smoking with a friend last night - we both wondered who came up with actually rolling the windows DOWN when smoking in a vehicle??:lol::dizzy: Smoker's etiquette...an oxymoron if I ever heard one....

Smoker's always stand up for their rights - they are a blight of society - a dirty aspect of life that wishes they had a claim to their reasoning. People that think they actually have rights despite violating others...

Some of you smokers are so inconsiderate, selfish and blatant that if it was up to me, I would strongarm windpipe elbow every idiot that thinks they still need to smoke indoors or at an entryway to a building.

Not to mention that anyone who has ever littered a "dead solider" should be forced to bury that soldier in a hand dug 6 foot grave.

So many kids have respiratory issues because of their idiot smoker parents...just another example of child abuse, self-rightousness and utter filth rolled up in a long rocket cancer stick.

and then there are those 'funny' people that like to blow smoke in people's faces...that stands alone as the type of person you are = worthless to society.

When it comes to smoking, well, don't get me going...:fish2:

I'm sure there's probably 1% of smokers that don't see the world as their ashtray, but yeah, the littering aspect is one of my pet peeves, too.

Manthus
05-03-2011, 09:37 AM
lol...rant over. but i was serious about the people's elbow comment:D

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 09:52 AM
I being a smoker can agree its a dirty habbit. And a smelly one at that. When I fish the river my top pocket on my fish vest even gets to me after a couple butts are placed in it. And when I fish the lakes in my boat , my fish bucket has several butts floating in it. My garage has a butt tray both my porches outside has one each and I don't smoke in my truck or house, but I am addicted and so I try not to expose others to my habbit. But as far as bars go or restraunts it should be the owners choice. Just as a non smoker has the choice to enter a place that allows it. So who is more arrogant the man who blows smoke in others faces or the man who wants to elbow them in the throat? It's easy to pick out others faults especially an addictive substance like nicotine. But smokers have lost their rights in michigan, so why do SOME non smokers feel the need to be so arrogant. Can't wait for the day when smoking is banned and the loss of revenue is picked up by the non smokers, that will be a glory day for smokers we will be rich from the money were no longer wasting and the non smokers will have to give up that summer vacation :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 10:26 AM
I being a smoker can agree its a dirty habbit. And a smelly one at that. When I fish the river my top pocket on my fish vest even gets to me after a couple butts are placed in it. And when I fish the lakes in my boat , my fish bucket has several butts floating in it. My garage has a butt tray both my porches outside has one each and I don't smoke in my truck or house, but I am addicted and so I try not to expose others to my habbit. But as far as bars go or restraunts it should be the owners choice. Just as a non smoker has the choice to enter a place that allows it. So who is more arrogant the man who blows smoke in others faces or the man who wants to elbow them in the throat? It's easy to pick out others faults especially an addictive substance like nicotine. But smokers have lost their rights in michigan, so why do SOME non smokers feel the need to be so arrogant. Can't wait for the day when smoking is banned and the loss of revenue is picked up by the non smokers, that will be a glory day for smokers we will be rich from the money were no longer wasting and the non smokers will have to give up that summer vacation :)
Posted via Mobile Device


A smoker took the bait.

It should not be up to the owner of the establishment, the SMOKER is ruining the air quality, creating the nuissance. There are places for smokers to congregate, one of which is YOUR GARAGE.

ARROGANCE is created from ANIMOSITY that stems from being around parents that found the need to pollute my lungs with their smoke, they didn't ask me if I would mind. It was arrogant, selfish and morally wrong. So when I want to knock another ARROGANT idiot in the throat and bring them down to the reality that virtually everyone hates their habit except them, I guess I should have a sore elbow and (that individual) should have a sore throat.

Do you think one might argue that we already subsidize your cost of living? Yeah, you know, higher rates for insurance, volunteers that clean up your messes, etc. You think that your oral fetish subsidizes my way of life? I bet a friend of mine $300 to quit smoking and surprisingly, he did. Couldn't believe it, paid him.

Keep paying $7 a pack and tell me I should appreciate you for doing it. Is there any room up your 'butt' for my head too? I can't really see your point of view just yet.

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 11:12 AM
Hmm so u think you can label me as a litter bug because I smoke? So all smokers are the same? Well try and elbow smokers in the throat and I am sure you will soon realize not all smokers are the same:) Has my smoking caused you any pain? If your riding in my car you will not be sharing smoke, or playing cards at my home, I wouldn't punish you with my habit. So why group all smokers in the same pot? If were up to the owner of restaraunt and pub to choose no smoking then non smokers would have a place and smokers have a place and everyone be happy. But for some reason you seem to feel your better than a smoker. And why is that? Are u going to clame you have no flaws? So if your free of them than sure cast the first stone, or elbow and I am sure you will soon find out that your elbow won't hurt as bad as you think. As I stated I try to respect non smokers, so take this thread for what it is a debate!! And don't sit behind your computer in a land far away and get carried away just keep it a debate as far as human rights go. Do I wish some days I didn't smoke and nasty habbit ? Of course!! Do you have the right to be smoke free ? Of course as an owner of a pub should I have the right to allow smoking?? Well at least I should be payed by the non smokers for lost revenue. We no longer go to pubs or if we do its for a drink and we now have more social gatherings at our house which is smoke free and the non smokers choose to hang out with us smokers in garage instead of staying in the house. How rude of us to make them breath our smoke! They followed us and we should have given in and not smoked good thing you were not out there bustin throats :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 11:26 AM
Man, I height to take debaits too these level butt why is it that most people that think they're habit should be recognitzed butt than they cant' spell they;re argument out it makes for a touff read when a guy can"t undrestrant what anothre guy sais because the othr guy is boarderline illiterant??:confused:

With all due respect, I will assume that you can read a no smoking sign, but also could write it out if prompted.

Anyway, with regard to your delusional views on these "where you can and where you can't" restaurants and pubs, will the waitstaff have an option as to whether or not they want your smoke? In most cases, they never got the option because Michigan said it was "OK" for you, "the smoker" to pollute their lungs. Now that your rights are gone, I look at it as a blessing.

Years ago, when I was working at a restaurant, I remember the guys that came in and drank the 35 cent bottomless coffees, left the quarter tip and drank cup after cup while the waitstaff sucked in 2nd hand after 2nd hand after 2nd hand. Lost revenue? Let me go ahead and pay you for that Sir, here's your .02 cents, get lost STINKY.

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 11:47 AM
Damn this black berry I get so much crap on here about spelling! :) little buttons and worth the headache of correcting. And I suppose that you were forced into working that job? One could always choose a school of higher learning so they wouldn't be forced into such labor? You had the choice to work there, did u not? And Its really of no concern of mine if restaraunts allow smoking, they don't, so I choose not to go. Same choice as a non smoker had or has. We used to choose places that allowed smoking. That choice was taken away so we chose to not to frequent these places and entertain at home. Its really not a big deal. My liquor collection is well stocked and my kegerator has a temp of 34 degrees far colder than most taverns and by buddies bring over home brews and the horse shoe pits are well groomed and ladies make some dandy yutkas. My friend who owns the tavern slips down after work many nights as do many of our friends from there so were not missing anything as far as I am concerned. My guests can hang with us smokers in garage or in the house smoke free its their CHOICE :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 12:04 PM
Damn this black berry I get so much crap on here about spelling! :) little buttons and worth the headache of correcting. And I suppose that you were forced into working that job? One could always choose a school of higher learning so they wouldn't be forced into such labor? You had the choice to work there, did u not? And Its really of no concern of mine if restaraunts allow smoking, they don't, so I choose not to go. Same choice as a non smoker had or has. We used to choose places that allowed smoking. That choice was taken away so we chose to not to frequent these places and entertain at home. Its really not a big deal. My liquor collection is well stocked and my kegerator has a temp of 34 degrees far colder than most taverns and by buddies bring over home brews and the horse shoe pits are well groomed and ladies make some dandy yutkas. My friend who owns the tavern slips down after work many nights as do many of our friends from there so were not missing anything as far as I am concerned. My guests can hang with us smokers in garage or in the house smoke free its their CHOICE :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Lol on the Blackberry, although excuses are a dime a dozen, I used to be able to text without looking at the keyboard. That of course, was before texting was banned while driving and when I had a blackberry.

Sure I had a choice to work there - I was the one that picked up and filled out the app...but seriously, how can you take it there? Just be happy that your rights lasted as long as they did, because they shouldn't have.

I always put smokers in the same category because they always come up with the same BS arguments. Essentially, they say: well if you don;t like it, don't breath the air I'm polluting, don't come to the places I go to, don't label me with the rest of the people that throw butts in lawns, streets, light up in a vehicle without asking, smoke next to doors because they are too lazy to walk 100 feet away, etc.

To me, you meet all the prerequisites for being labeled delusional and arrogant.

So, for all of that, I apologize, sorry to throw you into that label as a typical smoker, but maybe you should quit spending so much time smoking and instead - put your oral fetish/fixation on something useful like a politician that can bring your disgusting habit back to the mainstream.

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 12:20 PM
I am not a big fan of the government telling me what I can do for my own good. Whether it be smoking, seat belt, helmet or any other regulation they so deem fit. And I always wished I would have about a week before bow season. As I sit in my stand dieing for a smoke or cough on a cold dry morning. This is a free nation under god, so its his decission to punish me and not the government or anyone who dislikes my habit. I try to respect others and just wish they could respect others also. Smoking is loosing its fame and some of us are hooked and its a rough go but I wouldn't blow smoke in someones face or toss my butt on their lawn or river or lake anymore than I would leave a worm can or beer bottle was a nice chat :) just becareful when you cast a label on an entire group that's like saying everyone that chews gun tosses it on sidewalk :) I swallow mine another bad habit:)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 12:29 PM
I agree - not a bad conversation but come on, you can't un-label yourself, smokers have polluted people smokers and non-smokers alike, no one can deny that.

Smokers could probably say that 10% of the bad apples ruined it for the other 90%, but realistically, all 100% are guilty of ruining air quality in general.

Quit putting those chemicals in your body man. I want the best for all people and the stuff about punching people in the adams apple is frustration from years of being fed up of people jamming the effects of their habit down my throat.

Best of luck on quiting.

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 12:45 PM
Maybe but hear you say punch in throat and others label us as lazy, to great pals of mine both smoke just for example one works for asphalt company and is also an iron man fighter and the other is a tree climber and also a iron fighter. Neither are lazy nor would I try throat chopping. The one fishes along with me and does not litter. And you choose where you go so avoid the smokers and give in a little. You seem very arrogant as to say others smoke bothers you so much. Do your feet have roots :)
Posted via Mobile Device

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 12:54 PM
What if sparrow wouldn't hire you if u were single b ecause of the chance that multiple. Partners was proven more costly to insurance companies and you were banned from eating at restaurants till you were married :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 12:55 PM
Maybe but hear you say punch in throat and others label us as lazy, to great pals of mine both smoke just for example one works for asphalt company and is also an iron man fighter and the other is a tree climber and also a iron fighter. Neither are lazy nor would I try throat chopping. The one fishes along with me and does not litter. And you choose where you go so avoid the smokers and give in a little. You seem very arrogant as to say others smoke bothers you so much. Do your feet have roots :)
Posted via Mobile Device

apparently you want my feet to have roots, so I can stay wherever I'm at away from smoke - maybe the stinky nogoodforsociety smokers need to stay in one spot instead of acting like nomadic MarlbaroMen.

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 01:10 PM
On the contrary, I think smoking is dieing off. I think that we can cohabit. Let businesses decide laws were leaning towards non smokers. And we could have made sacrifices instead of telling owners what they had to do. Just like original post, sparrow can decide who it wants to hire. I don't label non smokers as arrogant I only said you were showing signs of arrogance. Freedoms are taken away from one group and given to another. I am not crying about it, instead I made a possitive. I save money not eating out or frequenting the pubs:) and yet I still socialize and don't have too worry about being over served :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 01:18 PM
maybe it's just the smokers that are dying off

and I think I speak for a lot of others when I say: thanks for not smoking. Keep up the good work, and killz oil-base should cover that tar on your teeth and garage walls.

remcorebond
05-03-2011, 01:22 PM
Smok'em if ya got'em!:D

oxdog66
05-03-2011, 01:30 PM
Well let's just agree to disagree :) so what ya fish and hunt for ? I want to get me some silver bass soon :)
Posted via Mobile Device

Manthus
05-03-2011, 01:40 PM
Well let's just agree to disagree :) so what ya fish and hunt for ? I want to get me some silver bass soon :)
Posted via Mobile Device

when I find the time or make the time I would go after about anything. :)

I've heard the silvers are tough to keep off or maybe that was white bass not sure.

BIGCHRIS
05-03-2011, 05:12 PM
Smok'em if ya got'em!:D
That's right, smoke em if ya got em. This air was screwed to begin with so my smoke isn't making a dent. I really despise that I'm no good for society. Oh well, suck it up and deal with it cuz this smoker isn't going anywhere. Oh and for the record I'm still getting my packs for $5 a pop.


Sent from my Droid Incredible

FREEPOP
05-03-2011, 06:12 PM
All the fault of the smokers for the polution in the world :dizzy::dizzy: Step off the high horse, you drive a car, truck, heat your house ................... smoking's effect is so miniscule, I'd like to give you an elbow in the adam's apple.

BIGCHRIS
05-03-2011, 07:00 PM
All the fault of the smokers for the polution in the world :dizzy::dizzy: Step off the high horse, you drive a car, truck, heat your house ................... smoking's effect is so miniscule, I'd like to give you an elbow in the adam's apple.

Right on!!!....straight elbow to the Adams apple, turn that mother****** into applesauce.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

Molson
05-03-2011, 07:29 PM
I am an overweight smoker who drinks. I've NEVER missed a day of work that was not pre-planned other than for a funeral. I'm 53 years old and I have been working since I was 15. I know, I'm in the minority.

hey buddy, are we somehow twins and got seperated at birth ?????

:D

k9wernet
05-03-2011, 07:57 PM
Manthus, you strike me as a petty, little man who's probably never "throat chopped" another individual in his life. I'd bet the ONLY way you can hold your own in a throwdown is to engage in online hissy-fit thowdowns like we see in your posts from today.

Are threats of violence tolerated in these forums?

This was a relatively intelligent discussion until you decided to post.

Carry on as you will, I'm done with this thread.

KW

bigsablemike
05-03-2011, 09:18 PM
Who said dope in your system was ok?


little weed isnt the end of all things.
alcohol is by far worse.
experience.:D

bigsablemike
05-03-2011, 09:20 PM
Smoking isn't as bad as unsafe sex especially if its same sex and there partner is all fat and sweaty so they should not hire fattys or gays along with the smokers and drinkers after all least the smokers and drinkers paying a sin tax they need to tax cake and cookies and anal creme like they do smokes :)
Posted via Mobile Device


rock & roll brother!:D:D

bigsablemike
05-03-2011, 09:29 PM
My point was that: we all have rights and we all have flaws. And many of our flaws can be picked apart as a burden to insurance companies. So where does one draw the line? Most smokers rights to smoke in public have already been taken away. Yet they are still heavily taxed. And are the non smokers who already complain of being over taxed ready for that burden when cig tax revenue is gone? And who is next on the agenda for discrimination was my idea , gays ( that's higher risk for hiv or at least was belived to be at on time). Obesity? Drinking? Heck one could even say people who hunt and eat wild game and fish are a burden for higher risk of deer tick (lime disease) or mosquito bites or mercury poisoning or possible drowning falling or being shot. And as a smoker I say ban it, don't tax it, its a hard habb it to break. And when I can legally purcase them at any store and in plain view as I pay for gas its even harder. Then the obese can be next and then the next group and so on. I am for democracy , just don't cry when the. Nation as a whole is attacking your own personal flaw!!
Posted via Mobile Device


alman brothers song tied to the whippin post.
we are the whipping boy.we are just bad,cause we smoke.christ we are accussed of killing other people by second hand smoke.
tax us,remember when the mole said it was to help us quit?
ive been smoking since it was 65 cents a pack.
we are just an easy touch.
they know we arent gonna quit.
cash cows.

oxdog66
05-04-2011, 10:05 AM
Geesh!!! a non smoker that I went to bat for, that needed a job!!! Just quit!!! Work to hard, to much heavy lifting. And ha ha were all smokers!! So much for the lazy smokers comment! ! Boo hoo :)
Posted via Mobile Device

BIGCHRIS
05-04-2011, 04:14 PM
Geesh!!! a non smoker that I went to bat for, that needed a job!!! Just quit!!! Work to hard, to much heavy lifting. And ha ha were all smokers!! So much for the lazy smokers comment! ! Boo hoo :)
Posted via Mobile Device

What is ur occupation? Just curious

Sent from my Droid Incredible

oxdog66
05-04-2011, 09:22 PM
Flour mill stack 100 # sacks all day
Posted via Mobile Device

BIGCHRIS
05-05-2011, 02:52 PM
Damn, that's worse than throwing shingles.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

Manthus
05-05-2011, 03:49 PM
drive a cigarrette truck

BIGCHRIS
05-06-2011, 12:09 PM
If I got hooked up on cigs I might just do it.

Sent from my Droid Incredible

oxdog66
05-06-2011, 12:17 PM
roofing is far worse! i used to remodel houses, and our boss kept bidding roof jobs, and we hated it!!!!!! So when we got backed up ( ahh the good old days) we told him to bid the jobs sky high so we wouldn't get them. And we still got them nasty tear off, three story, a frame houses !!!!!!!!! much rather do new construction or siding jobs. Roofing sucks donkey eyeballs :)