DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Barring smokers from employment isn't right

I completely disagree with this article simply because I feel it is an employer's right to hire whomever the hell they want to.

I don't agree with anyone telling them who they have to hire, I don't agree with racial quotas having to be met and I don't think Joe Public should get one ounce of say in it just because he has a vote.

The Gov't doesn't get to tell you who you have to let into your home, I don't see how & where they get they right to tell a business who it has to let into it. It is a PRIVATE entity, the public should have absolutely ZERO say in it.

Just as the public should have zero right in keeping smokers out of bars & restaurants, they should have no say in letting smokers into those businesses.

That is where I was trying to go with my post. Good one purp.

Most of the country has laws either limiting and/or prohibitting indoor smoking in public places. IIRC, there are about 15 states that have no such limiting legislation in place. Even PA .... who so many held out as last hope when the Ohio smoking ban went into effect ... enacted a statewide smoking ban, which includes restaurants, but excludes bars. (those whose food business is less than 20% of their total business)

I think that most of the people upset at the smoking ban .... at least most that I talk to ..... are most upset by the bar restriction. Most of the smokers I know say they don't mind the restaurant ban ..... grocery store ban ...... children daycare ban ....... and so on .... but the bar ban really bugs them. However ..... why should bars be exempted. Why shoild certain businesses be permitted to allow behavior prohibitted in a neighboring business?

Taking it a step further ..... why should a restaurant with a sizable bar business have a smoking restriction, while a bar only business does not? What about a restuarant whose later evening and night business is almost all bar service ..... with some food business mixed in? Where do you draw the line? Or are you for any business anywhere allowing smoking on its premises, so long as that's what the owner wants? If so ..... how about hospitals ..... and daycare centers ...... schools ..... and the like. If it's all just much to do about nothing ...... then why now allow it in all of thsoe places? So we might not be able to find a non smoking hospital. So what? Right? Maybe children should get used to being exposed to smoke .... whether or not their parents smoke or not. I mean .... if they all went smoking .... then parents would have no choice.

In most civilizations, we don't make laws allowing behaviors .... we make laws that prohibit certain specific behaviors. Under our Constituion, those behaviors not subject to prohibition are legal, and allowed. (as long as another's Constitutional rights aren't violated as a result) There are laws that prohibit one from carrying a forearm into a bar. (even though absolutely nothing *might* happen in any given instance) There are laws that prohibit slander and libel. Every law prohibits some undesired behavior. These laws are put into effect by the people, either by vote, or through the actions and votes of their representatives.

In out system of government, we have any and all (Constitutional) actions and activities not legally restricted viewed as legally allowed. Any restriction must pass the test of being Constitutional according to both the State and US Constitution. Laws are the only legal restriction upon behavior .... and thus every law restricts in some fashion.

The smoking ban is no different.

Good thing in the end it's up to the employer. If they don't want you to smoke and you want to smoke, find a new job.



The employer knows smokers will cost them more in insurance premiums and they should not be forced to pay more for your filthy, life-shortening habit.



And if you want to include overweight people in there too, great.

Maybe changes like this would get people back on track of trying to be healthy which this country desperately needs.

Quote:

---

Maybe changes like this would get people back on track of trying to be healthy which this country desperately needs.

---

An example of the absolute worst type of reason to make policy. (not picking on ya, just pointing something out as I saw it)

An employer should never be given the right to do it just because someone, somewhere has deemed that it is healthier for you; an employer should inherently have that right because it is HIS business and thus it is his inherent RIGHT to hire or not hire whomever he wants, for whatever reason(s) he deems fit.

To use your example of a reason is simply the same sort of wrongful legislation as if they were to rule that he should have to disregard them being a smoker if he doesn't want to hire smokers.

I know one thing, when I start my business I'm not hiring any wimpy doo-gooder nannies.

j/c

I listen to Glenn Beck on the radio as I have time.........today he mentioned that some health care act, or something along those lines - some health care for children or something like that - just enacted a new law/spending bill. It is based on cigarette taxes. He said, in order for this bill/law/spending to be paid for it would take 22 million new smokers per year.

I'll look for the details. Maybe I could call Glenn? Anyway, just a "for what it's worth" thing. Without smokers, there isn't a state in the union that could balance a budget. Not that it's a good thing, either.

Quote:

---

I know one thing, when I start my business I'm not hiring any wimpy doo-gooder nannies.

---

I am gonna ONLY hire chain smoking, beer drinking, Browns Fans

I might get a couple employees

I guess Babe, Dawgy and I need not apply...