|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by Pete
on Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:32 am |
|
Today I was watching the news and they was talking about a company in Ohio that was firing people for smoking and also for smelling like smoke. Well I think this has gone far enough! What gives any one the right to tell me what I can and can not do with my life and my body? This is supposed to be AMERICA! land of the FREE! We are not a COMMUNIST country!
(Or ARE WE)? I have smoked for 40 years and raised 2 kids. That don't smoke or drink, and now they have kids of their own and are always bitching about second hand smoke. I told them they grew up with it and it didn't and hasn't hurt them at all, so stop complaining about it! I have high blood pressure and I used to go to the doctor on a regular basis for my check up, but I stopped going so much because he would always tell me to stop smoking because it will kill me! Anyway what is so stupid about the whole thing is, I am also a drinker and I told him of some problems I have had because of my drinking. The doctor or doctors I have been to all of my life, (and I am 54 years old) Have never once told me to stop DRINKING!! But every one of them has told me to stop SMOKING! They say that Smoking kills more people than any other thing in this country. Well I think if they spent as much time and money on finding out how many people actualy get sick and/or die because of Alcohol and Alcohol related problems and accidents they would truly be amazed. I just think that NO ONE has the right to run MY LIFE, BUT ME! |
|
|
Pete
Newbie
Joined: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1
Location: Kimberling City. Missouri
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Zippy
on Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:53 pm |
|
First, let me say Welcome aboard.
You will see that many are on board with the way you think. In my humble opinion, the story you talk about in your post is the first step in the return of Slavery. People getting fired for taking part in a legal activity, while off the clock is absurd.
However, you will find those on this board that support this. I fear it is a battle that could rage on for decades. The good news is that our side always wins in the end. |
|
|
Zippy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 681
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by bill1077
on Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:00 am |
|
 |
Last edited by bill1077 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
bill1077
Puffer
Joined: Jan 07, 2006
Posts: 42
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Zippy
on Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:34 am |
|
Your attempts to shut me up have failed.
But, since your a failure, that doesn't surprise anyone. |
|
|
Zippy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 681
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by bill1077
on Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:08 am |
|
|
Last edited by bill1077 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
bill1077
Puffer
Joined: Jan 07, 2006
Posts: 42
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Zippy
on Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:00 am |
|
Just didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle!
Quote:
Are some people mad that the government took away their so-called right to drink while driving? Sure. I mean, after all, it's inconvenient to have to arrange a designated driver or a bus ride. However, the law is in place to protect others.
"Sure. I mean, after all, it's inconvenient to have to arrange a designated driver or take a bus. However (and this is a key point that JRS9000 glosses over) the law exists to protect others"
OH, so laws exist to protect others. And all along YOU said "I don't care why the law exists......"
Changing horses in mid-stream are you?
The law against drunk driving exists because driving a car, after the consumption of alcohol drastically impairs a driver and can result in harm to the driver and to the innocent.
YET, driving after the consumption of alcohol IS NOT, in itself, ILLEGAL. It IS only illegal AFTER the safe limit of consumption is exceeded.
The Government sets that limit, AS IT HAS WITH ETS.
Watch JRS9000 again run from his own argument.
Quote:
Quote: "The law exists to protect others"
Once, there was no law against drunk driving and studies showed that a law against drunk driving would save lives. The Government instituted laws that prohibited driving while drunk, and STATISTICS PROVED that the laws worked as the studies theorized that they would.
As to our debate. A theory that banning smoking in private businesses would save lives, resulted in several states that participate in the HCUP survey, to ban smoking. A second "study" concluded that these bans should reduce AMI admissions for heart attacks by 30% immediatelly.
Statistics disproved the "theory" as AMI admissions in 4 of the 5 states studied ACTUALLY rose after the bans took effect, and the 5th state only had a miniscule reduction in AMI admissions for heart attack.
"Sure, it's inconvenient to have to drive to a bar that is smoke free, but I can't prove that ETS is harmful enough to ban, so bar owners should not have to change their management just because I don't like it. After all, law exists to protect others and STATISTICS could not back up the initial studies."
Sound familiar? |
|
|
Zippy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 681
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
