Smoking In Peace Gardens

[PeteMorris 10]

Presume is a lot like assume, except it only makes an ass of you.

 

What would make you think that?

 

More insults?

[PeteMorris 10]

It would be better if smokers realised how they're being treated by the pushers. They've developed the perfect delivery system for nicotine, the design has barely changed for decades. They know it's addictive, in addition it's the only product when used as intended as a detrimental effect on the users health. They know that for someone on 20 a day having their shot is one of the first things they do when waking up. They know the chances of a user's children taking up the habit is higher when the parent smokes. So in business terms the customer base is recycled. One of the most depressing sights has to be a parent passing a cigarette to their teenage child.

 

We all know the incidious nature of it. So what's the grand master plan? Make them so expensive taxation wise, so people can't afford them? That's another ploy that won't work. Criminals rule again!

[Xt500 10]

Fat people smell too,they should be banned from the square,they are doing the pavements in and cost us a fortune on the NHS

I think its time for a campain against them and they should be made to eat out of sight cos i dont want my kids seeing them stuff their faces with burgers and chips,it sets a bad example!

They generally come in people carriers.

[Gamadar 10]

Fat people smell too,they should be banned from the square,they are doing the pavements in and cost us a fortune on the NHS

I think its time for a campain against them and they should be made to eat out of sight cos i dont want my kids seeing them stuff their faces with burgers and chips,it sets a bad example!

They generally come in people carriers.

 

They also overspill onto your seat if you sit next to them on a plane, so they should be banned from flying.

[Uptowngirl 10]

We all know the incidious nature of it. So what's the grand master plan? Make them so expensive taxation wise, so people can't afford them? That's another ploy that won't work. Criminals rule again!

 

No just carry on restricting the places where they can be smoked and it becomes ever less attractive.. Simples.

 

I hear that many employers now won't give jobs to smokers.

[damophoto 10]

No just carry on restricting the places where they can be smoked and it becomes ever less attractive.. Simples.

 

I hear that many employers now won't give jobs to smokers.

 

I'd like to see the legal implications of such discrimination!!!

[Uptowngirl 10]

I'd like to see the legal implications of such discrimination!!!

 

There are none because it isn't discrimination.

 

Here's how it works in the US of A.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

 

 

More job-seekers are facing an added requirement: no smoking — at work or anytime.

 

An increasing number of employers won't hire applicants whose urine tests positive for nicotine use, whether from cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or even patches.

 

 

Such tobacco-free hiring policies, designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums, took effect this month at the Baylor Health Care System in Texas and will apply at the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, when it opens this year.

 

STORY: Humana won't hire smokers in Arizona

 

"We have to walk the walk if we talk the talk," says Dave Fotsch of Idaho's Central District Health Department, which voted last month to stop hiring smokers.

 

And in the UK

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3326297/Police-vacancies-non-smokers-only.html

 

A chief constable at war with speeding motorists launched a new offensive yesterday - against smokers who might seek jobs in his force.

 

Richard Brunstrom, of North Wales Police, has authorised an internal advertisement that specifically bars smokers from becoming traffic officers.

 

He has also ordered staff who smoke at work to end their "nasty and dangerous habit'' or face disciplinary action.

 

The advertisement has infuriated many officers. Richard Eccles, the secretary of the North Wales Police Federation, said: "We will take legal advice on it. It is not how you should be treating members of your staff.''

 

It is thought unlikely that Mr Brunstrom will back down. Already, one of his subordinates, Chief Supt Geraint Anwyl, has issued a "robust'' defence of the advert, placed by the operational services department, which includes the dog and firearms units.

 

"These units require the very highest levels of physical fitness and general health," he said. "To protect the resilience of these critical units, it is essential that absences from the workplace are very carefully managed."

 

He added that the force's policy reflected "evidence which proves that smoking is injurious to health".

 

North Wales Police placed the advert shortly after Mr Brunstrom announced that smoking would be banned in all force buildings, car parks and grounds from next year.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Uptowngirl

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Humana (a company I know well ) is a Healthcare organisation. They can probably give you better data on the cost of smoking-related illness than many other companies. - They deal with those costs daily. It's hardly surprising that they are reluctant to hire smokers.

 

But where do you stop? One of the 'Companies' for which Humana provides services dismisses people who are obese and unfit.

 

If a company provides healthcare (private insurance) for its employees, should that company be required to retain employees who allow themselves to get fat and unfit?

[Gamadar 10]

There are none because it isn't discrimination.

 

Here's how it works in the US of A.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

 

 

More job-seekers are facing an added requirement: no smoking — at work or anytime.

 

An increasing number of employers won't hire applicants whose urine tests positive for nicotine use, whether from cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or even patches.

 

 

Such tobacco-free hiring policies, designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums, took effect this month at the Baylor Health Care System in Texas and will apply at the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, when it opens this year.

 

STORY: Humana won't hire smokers in Arizona

 

"We have to walk the walk if we talk the talk," says Dave Fotsch of Idaho's Central District Health Department, which voted last month to stop hiring smokers.

 

And in the UK

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3326297/Police-vacancies-non-smokers-only.html

 

A chief constable at war with speeding motorists launched a new offensive yesterday - against smokers who might seek jobs in his force.

 

Richard Brunstrom, of North Wales Police, has authorised an internal advertisement that specifically bars smokers from becoming traffic officers.

 

He has also ordered staff who smoke at work to end their "nasty and dangerous habit'' or face disciplinary action.

 

The advertisement has infuriated many officers. Richard Eccles, the secretary of the North Wales Police Federation, said: "We will take legal advice on it. It is not how you should be treating members of your staff.''

 

It is thought unlikely that Mr Brunstrom will back down. Already, one of his subordinates, Chief Supt Geraint Anwyl, has issued a "robust'' defence of the advert, placed by the operational services department, which includes the dog and firearms units.

 

"These units require the very highest levels of physical fitness and general health," he said. "To protect the resilience of these critical units, it is essential that absences from the workplace are very carefully managed."

 

He added that the force's policy reflected "evidence which proves that smoking is injurious to health".

 

North Wales Police placed the advert shortly after Mr Brunstrom announced that smoking would be banned in all force buildings, car parks and grounds from next year.

 

 

 

It is understandable why a chief constable would consider it appropriate for traffic cops not to smoke. Traffic cops are of course on the roads most of the time and are constantly inhaling the fumes from cars that are far more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Unfortunately traffic cops need to do this as it is an occupational hazard.

 

For people with cars to subject themselves to these toxins for no good reason of course is a different matter. Companies should stop employing people who travel to work in their dirty cars thus polluting the atosphere for themselves and everyone else. The reasons for people driving should be very closely monitored and if it is found that they are polluting the atmosphere for no good reason they should be banned from driving.

[mort 10]

So far off topic as to be unrecognisable. closing.