WHO anti smoker action
Ken Dixon
By Andrew Jack in London
Published: December 2 2005 02:00 | Last updated: December 2 2005 02:00
The World Health Organisation yesterday became the largest international
employer to ban the hiring of smokers in an effort to promote its public
health campaign against tobacco use.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9f66807c-62d7-11da-8dad-0000779e2340.html
kilted1
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BVQjf.36327$s92....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
BASTARDS!!!
kilted1
RickPiatt
--
Rick Piatt
Smoking Pipes since 1997
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BVQjf.36327$s92....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Ravenwood
legal (I'm not aware that it's ILlegal ANYwhere), can get away with
this sort of thing. It's ludicrous.
whisk...@sbcglobal.net
all the same thing, what's good for one is good for all.
And just concider this juicy little fact. The thought that they won't
give up the taxes that they receive from tobacco is wrong, when you
think of the fines they can throw on people for infractions of the no
smoking rule. Look at DUI for an example. I may have mentioned it here
before, but the States Attorney in a county near me, was caught on
public record saying in effect " I don't care about other crimes, I
want the court rooms full of DUI cases." Plain and simple it is a very
large source of revenue. Just say for example, average fine of $1000, 8
hours of court per day. Next time you have a day off, go down to your
local courthouse and see how many DUI's they run through everyday. It
adds up folks, and I think that is where they are headed with tobacco.
It won't be illegal, but they will find a way to set major fines.
Now before I get flamed, just let me say, I'm not for drinking and
driving. Just making a point here.
Skip
When it comes to private employers, I think they should be able to set
whatever policies they want regarding eligibility for employment. That
said, I personally wouldn't work for an employer who mandated or
prohibited specific activity or behavior in my time away from work.
It's not an employer's business what I do away from work.
The WHO is a United Nations agency, not a private employer. I don't
really have an opinion about them.
Skip.
Ravenwood
It's a poor precedent. What's next? Will employers hire based on
eating practices or personal hobbies? I know a couple of people at the
local grocery store who would smell BETTER if they smoked, but no one
is trying to regulate hygienic behavior.
Since I work in the government sector, I can understand restricting
smoking to certain areas in the vicinity of public buildings, however,
that too is becoming more restrictive. As of January 1, 2006, we will
not be able to blaze up on any government property.
In a society that prides itself on freedom, this is certainly an absurd
development.
Ravenwood =^..^=
Ravenwood
I can confirm that the revenue-generating offenses are very popular
with DA's. Criminal traffic is about as lucrative as it gets.
Allen
> In a society that prides itself on freedom, this is certainly an absurd
> development.
>
> Ravenwood =^..^=
[warning- semi rant mode is now on]
I think we are all too many generations from the original settlers and
those who fought against the British for freedom. The British, no
offense meant, guys, were very much a controlling govt. at that time,
and those who came here were looking for freedoms they weren't allowed.
This country was founded upon this notion, and I find we are continually
relenquishing this in our current govt. I strongly feel it boils down
to the judicial branch, where the personal interests of a few regulate
the freedoms of all. I believe the personal freedom of a few is
important, but not at the expense of the personal freedom of all, and
here in lies the problem. Those past sentences sound like socialism,
but it's socialism only in the sense of individual freedom for all, and
in this way it is not socialism. To clarify, some examples... the
personal right to not be offended, is removing our personal right to
freedom of religious expression and the personal "right" to breathe
non-stinky air is becoming more important than the personal freedom to
enjoy a legal smoke. Actually, that first one, freedom of religion,
should be a big indicator here. Since our country was primarily
concerned with this at its founding, and we now find it near impossible
to have a Creche or say "Merry Christmas" freely in our places of
employment, aren't we not in a new form of religious oppression? Where
is our freedom of religion and freedom of speech here? - two things we
are loosing due to the judicial branch.
To me, smells are impossible to regulate (unless you're willing to fine
Betsy the cow, and Porky the Pig- who knows, maybe they will...).
Tobacco *is* legal, and smoking *is* legal. This country's money was
founded upon the tobacco leaf (see early printings of money with leaf
actually on the money).
Recent generations are hell-bent on solving our tendency to die. 100%
of us die, so we're not doing a very good job, are we? After this, it
all boils down to others telling you how to live your own life, and what
is "better" for you. You, as I do, may feel that smoking a pipe has
advantages which outway it's disadvantages... but if "they" had "their"
way, they wouldn't allow this personal freedom of decision. They are
certainly doing everything they can do... they're making it illegal
wherever they can get a foot-hold, they are villifying the users of a
legal substance, and they are teaching our children to villify them as well.
Here's a good example of how silly this stuff has become: Chicago is
loosing it's wonderful Chocolate smell....
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-choc25.html
A few more interesting tidbits (sorry for the semi-rant here)...
I strongly believe the whole anti-smoking movement is the same ol'
movement that was around ever since tobacco made it's way over from the
new world. The difference, is they pretend that they have the medical
institutions on their side. [They do have them on their side in spirit,
but not in actual scientific proof.] So, it primarily boils down to one
section of society believing itself to be "better" [nose in air with
clothes-pins in place], and they finally see in this crap-science a way
of making it into law. Unfortunately, the divide and conquer approach
is apparently working for them. It appears the politicians are either
clothes-pin wearers, or they can't read and understand simple statistics
and question all the data put before them.
The other interesting thing, is that the squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Apparently the squeeky wheel can also be in the minority and law
becomes made at the expense of a relative majority... here's a link from
Madison, WI detailing an e-mail "flub" regarding anti-smoking e-mails to
the city council... (most being from a single man)
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=63161&ntpid=1
So, they have no problem whatsoever with trying to twist the system and
numbers to suit their interests. They do poor science, and use
underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. There is no morality here,
they can't trust the system of govt., they must lie to it and twist it.
[and they are being successful, everyone, why? - because we aren't the
squeeky wheel...]
In my local area's ban attempts, the council members received hundreds
of postcards each... I'll have to get the actual numbers for you. The
funny thing? Most were from out of state. They got them from Florida,
Colorado, California... And one member in particular had only 1 or 2
from their own constituents. This is a glaring example of how a few are
frustrating everyone. The good news, is for most, this is noticed, and
it actual hurts their attemps. It certainly did to a few on the board,
but others [the clothespin wearers] liked to tout that they had received
"hundreds" of postcards for the ban. Yeah right. I wonder how many of
those people ever spent a single penny in our area.
Finally, a note about hospitals and doctors. I'm continually finding
doctors and hospitals forcing the elderly to stop smoking. What amazes
me is their complete lack of understanding of the situation. These
elderly people are well on their way to their final years, and stopping
smoking actually may be more detrimental to their health. It could
cause the onset of Parkinsons, it could allow Altzheimer's to begin, and
cause serious stress mentally, and stress on their cardiac system. At
this stage in their life, quitting is not in their best interest. What
ever happened to "first do no harm"?
[semi rant mode is now off]
Alright, I've gone and done it... ranted. :( Sorry, everyone. Feel
free to light the flames on my rump... but, I had to let go with some of
this. It's my hope that you understand the above as I meant it, and
haven't stepped on anyone's toes.
My best to all of you!!
-Allen
[SG Balkan Flake -wonderful wonderful stuff- in an HCAII.]
[one final note: I'm Canadian by birth, and so, I can't bash the
British too hard. ;) So, please don't take those first few lines too
poorly my fellow commonwealthers. ;) I'm US in heart, and hopefully
soon in law as well... 25+ years in this country, through all of my
schooling...]
--
------
a.s.p. Brother of the Briar
May 2001
rkzenrage
hear if it is none of their business, just like I have no problem
telling Canada that my package contains Hobby Supplies becaue they have
no right to tax my gift to my friend... they can kiss my ass.
An unjust law is not a law, flame away.
Namaste'
Robert
gonz
acknowledge both Allen and Robert as being 100% spot on IMO. We're well
on our way down the slippery slope and eventually.... eventually....
there will be a line crossed. When sensible people get to the point of
having taken it unlubed for long enough.
Or maybe not, perhaps we'll evolve into another North Korea.
Ken Dixon
> Ravenwood wrote:
>
>> In a society that prides itself on freedom, this is certainly an absurd
>> development.
>>
>> Ravenwood =^..^=
>
>
> [warning- semi rant mode is now on]
>
> I think we are all too many generations from the original settlers and
> those who fought against the British for freedom. The British, no
> offense meant, guys, were very much a controlling govt. at that time,
> and those who came here were looking for freedoms they weren't allowed.
Years ago someone said the difference between Americans and Europeans
(and Brits) is that Americans believe they are born with certain
inalienable rights and damn those who try to change that, while those
across the pond come from a history where rights were granted or
canceled at the whim of the crown.
Allen
> Years ago someone said the difference between Americans and Europeans
> (and Brits) is that Americans believe they are born with certain
> inalienable rights and damn those who try to change that, while those
> across the pond come from a history where rights were granted or
> canceled at the whim of the crown.
Very very interesting, Ken. In some talks with a Ch*nese friend of mine
(one out of many), I was told she didn't believe the general public in
Ch*na should have the ability to vote. This shocked me. Turns out she
was more of a C-nationalist than I thought, and was at odds to most of
my friends who I have here... it's a similar situation perhaps... [the
* is in attempt to thwart the filters they have over there...]
Also, does anyone know whether or not the "bearing of arms" is linked to
the heraldic system of "Arms"- aka family Sheilds/Arms? It appears to
me, that only land-owner/heraldic families could have a family coat of
Arms, and only they had the right to "Bear Arms" (swords, shields
etc.)... hence, the focus on our fore-fathers of the "Right to Bear
Arms" for the general population?
I never linked the two (across the pond), but it seems to me it fits...
but have never had confirmation of it.
Very interesting, Ken.
-Allen
Skip
> I disagree with private business dictating off-work employee behavior.
> It's a poor precedent. What's next? Will employers hire based on
> eating practices or personal hobbies? I know a couple of people at the
> local grocery store who would smell BETTER if they smoked, but no one
> is trying to regulate hygienic behavior.
I do not like the idea of employment discrimination, Ravenwood, nor do I
like the idea of employers dictating people's off-work behavior. So you
could say that I disagree with that, just as you do. I would not work
for someone who sought to dictate how I behave away from work. But
neither do I think it is proper for a private employer to be forced not
to discriminate if he wishes to do so. Just as I have a right to seek
employment with whomever I like, a potential employer should have a
right not to employ me if I don't meet their approval, whatever that may
consist of.
> Since I work in the government sector, I can understand restricting
> smoking to certain areas in the vicinity of public buildings, however,
> that too is becoming more restrictive. As of January 1, 2006, we will
> not be able to blaze up on any government property.
I think it is really outrageous that your government employer seeks to
limit your personal liberty that way. But I believe they have the right
to while you are on the job or while you are on their property.
> In a society that prides itself on freedom, this is certainly an absurd
> development.
>
> Ravenwood =^..^=
>
Agreed. But the freedom you speak of is and has been an illusion for a
very long time, perhaps since the 4th of March, 1789.
Skip.
J. Greer
I would never consider working for anything related to the U.N. anyway!
Jeff
Ravenwood
anyway! "
Agreed.
Robert Uhl
>
> I think we are all too many generations from the original settlers and
> those who fought against the British for freedom. The British, no
> offense meant, guys, were very much a controlling govt. at that time,
> and those who came here were looking for freedoms they weren't
> allowed.
Hah! Compared to the government of any US state, or the US federal
government, the Brits of the time were easygoing and mild. Tax rates
were low, laws were few and life was good. Sure, there were some
particular practises here and there that even now we'd not care for, but
for the most part America had it better before our rebellion than today.
We had it even better _after_ our revolt, of course. But things have
gotten worse since.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
New! Microsoft Wheel! Now available with three or four corners.
Microsoft Wheel Pro is available with five--yes, FIVE--corners!
And for those who need the best and latest, Microsoft Wheel Pro
2005 Platinum will be out in July 2019.
Robert Uhl
>
> Also, does anyone know whether or not the "bearing of arms" is linked
> to the heraldic system of "Arms"- aka family Sheilds/Arms? It appears
> to me, that only land-owner/heraldic families could have a family coat
> of Arms, and only they had the right to "Bear Arms" (swords, shields
> etc.)... hence, the focus on our fore-fathers of the "Right to Bear
> Arms" for the general population?
Unrelated--the word 'arms' has multiple meanings: weapons; a heraldic
display; or those things wot attach to one's torso.
As I understand it, in England free men had the right to bear arms
except under certain circumstances. In fact, at various times it was a
duty
(cf. <http://www.minarsas.demon.co.uk/harn/lionheart/armsassize.htm>).
Of course, nowadays that right is no longer recognised.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
all day long and I assume they deserve it. --Dogbert
Ravenwood
One of my college professors (Arrest, Search, and Seizure law), way
back in the Dark Ages ;) , explained the interpretation of the Second
Amendment in this way.
At the time the Constitution was written there were no police. Men
essentially governed themselves under the organization of a military or
local leader to address issues that required a lot of manpower. The
Second Amendment insured that these men could arm themselves. At that
time, obviously, everyone was armed, more for hunting than for personal
protection, so they just brought along whatever they had hanging above
the door.
These days we have organized police forces and military units. These
have taken the place of the citizen soldier. Certain groups now view
the Second Amendment as archaic since the guns are in the hands of
trained professionals whose principal duty is to protect the citizenry.
This is why the right to keep and bear arms is under attack. The
citizen soldier is an anachronisim.
The Founders were not psychic, but they did have the foresight to
compose a broad document that would stand the test of time. The
Constitution has done pretty well on its own. It's our perverted,
litigious society that has subjected the thing to outrageous
interpretation.
Personally, I would rather people have the ability to defend themselves
if necessary. The creeps will always have guns. It is the nature of
the beast. Continued private ownership of firearms is essential to
keep the scales balanced. Anyone who disagrees is ill-informed and
unnecessarily hysterical about the issue.
Ravenwood =^..^=
-------------------------
Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.
Ravenwood
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming . . .
Ngo Dinh Diem
Can they legally do this? I am no labour law expert but it would seem
that is extreme discrimination akin to a refusal to hire women
etc-sounds a bit dodgy to me....
Ken Dixon
Is it legal, probably not, but to borrow a term from Richard Pryor (and
with Absolutely NO racial intent what so ever), tobacco users are
societies "new niggers". It's perfectly "acceptable" to discriminate
against us.
Ken in Miami
Stephen E. Williamson
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>>
>> Can they legally do this? I am no labour law expert but it would seem
>> that is extreme discrimination akin to a refusal to hire women
>> etc-sounds a bit dodgy to me....
There is a law on the books in West Virginia that prohibits companies that
do business in the state from telling employees what they can or can not do
in their off hours, although I do believe that the State Police prohibit
their officers from using tobacco (not sure about undercover work though)
Jim Ruble
"RickPiatt" <eng...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WuYjf.35151$4l5.30305@dukeread05...
> I would call that discrimination.
> --
> Rick Piatt
> Smoking Pipes since 1997
>
>
>
>
>
SCOTTY
rkzenrage
and I will always have the right to bear arms... I hope the person who
tries to take them from me does not have a family... I will feel
terrible about it.
Namaste'
Robert
Jari T
kilted1
"Ken Dixon" <nsvm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BVQjf.36327$s92....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> WHO puts a stop to the hiring of smokers
> By Andrew Jack in London
> Published: December 2 2005 02:00 | Last updated: December 2 2005 02:00
>
> The World Health Organisation yesterday became the largest international
> employer to ban the hiring of smokers in an effort to promote its public
> health campaign against tobacco use.
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9f66807c-62d7-11da-8dad-0000779e2340.html
As I see it, this behaviour will become more wide-spread in the coming
years. The biggest motivators:
1. Insurance companies (who are already excluding tobacoo users from
coverage)
2. Vote counters (politicians seeking to gain votes from "critical
constituencies")
3. Ambulance Chasers (lawyers who serve the "public good" making a living
(presumably a very comforatble one) off human suffering, bringing class
action law suits against anything tobacco related)
4. ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms) I suspect their activities in the area
of tobacco growth, distibution, taxation will increase dramatically in the
next 1-5 years. States are "loosing" billions in tax revenue each year.
Look for tighter regulations for online and across
state/country/international lines in the near future. Look for "examples"
to be made for "offenders". The "press" will have a role in this, look for
snesational "coverage" when the ATF bag their first "big offender".
kilted1
Skip
If the right to smoke and to own guns were taken away all at once, many
would share your sentiment and would doubtless stand ready to defend
those rights. I would. I don't know if it's true that most people
would anymore. But governments and control freaks know the abrupt
curtailment method will seldom fly and they generally don't do it that
way.
The successful method of eliminating your rights involves incremental
infringements that take place over a long period of time in conjunction
with a propaganda campaign to build public support for the restrictions.
This method works because most people believe they have the right to
limit the freedom of others through the magic ritual of voting.
No, wait, that's preposterous. No such incremental curtailments of
liberty with respect to smoking or gun ownership or carry laws could
possibly occur, right? After all, we can still smoke everywhere we like
without restriction and we can buy and carry whatever arms we like
without permission. That Nineteen Eighty-Four stuff is just Orwellian
science fiction.