On Mar 26, 7:26 am, mm wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:55:39 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"

wrote:
Art wrote:
They also have an interesting smoking policy. Stop or you are fired.
I hate cigarettes but I am not sure I buy into that.

I remember when that one came out. I am a non-smoker but I thought they
were over the top on that.

I"ve never smoked either, and I don't think I know anyone who does,
but I think in general there is more to this anti-smoking stuff than
protecting peopl'es health.

I think since it's no longer acceptable to pick on Blacks or Jews or
Indians or even homosexuals, people have a desire to pick on someone,
and they've chosen smokers. Because in a way, they can't defend
themselves. It's similar to the GEICO commercials where they say, "So
easy a caveman could do it", and in the commericals the Cavemen are
objecting, but unsuccessfully.

In Maryland last week, the wise legislature banned smoking at all bars
and restaurants in the state, including even private clubs like
veterans' halls, even if the members vote for it.

Oh, there is also a proposal to ban trans-fat at all restaurants. Not
only is there the desire to have a group to pick on but the general
desire to be powerful. When they say that power corrupts, it's not
just about accepting graft, it's about exerting power for its own
sake.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


In the case of employers telling employees that they cannot smoke if
they are employed there, the issue is healthcare costs. In every
instance I am aware of, when companies do this, they are paying for
the employees health insurance. Their rational is that if the
employees do not smoke, it lowers their cost for health insurance. On
that basis, it would seem the argument does have validity. I guess
they could offer an alternative, which is if you want to smoke, you're
going to pay the increased cost for your health insurance yourself.