| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by garhkal
on Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:43 pm |
|
rlf wrote:
What we need is some kind of a genetic or physical marker that differentiates us from non-smokers. Then we could claim that we are being stigmatized and dehumanized due to a factor that is beyond our control. Like I said, gay people have made advances even though it was once believed their behavior was strictly a matter of personal choice.
Well, arn't they always saying it is addictive?? Therefore should we not use that line to get protection under the americans with disabilities act? |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by rlf
on Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:16 pm |
|
I'm not sure how the addiction rules work with ADA. I know my previous employer was reluctant to confront any new employee who showed signs of alcoholism, due to the legal protections that employee had.
I see where Tennessee state employees are being charged a $50/month insurance surcharge for smoking. Here's a link that tells about it.
http://media.www.mtsusidelines.com/media/storage/paper202/news/2009/04/20/News/Health.Insurance.Rises.For.Smoking.Mtsu.Employees-3716907.shtml
The insurance companies and employers are joyfully hopping on the bandwagon because they've figured out they can get extra money out of smokers, and no one will raise any objections. I think their actuarial tables need to be made public so we can see the figures for ALL health conditions. As far as I'm concerned, if employers can ask me whether or not I smoke, then they should be able to look at everyone else's medical files to see if they have any chronic conditions.
In our case, they are charging every smoker for POTENTIAL COSTS the smoker MIGHT generate during the course of their employment with any particular company. It doesn't matter that most smokers will come and go from most jobs without ever coming down with any smoking-related disease. If anything, these diseases will strike a person after retirement, around the same time their non-smoking peers will start to suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinsons and other diseases that strike non-smokers at a higher rate than smokers. And Medicare, which people have been paying for their whole working lives, will end up paying for all of it.
I have personally never known anyone who suffered from a smoking-related disease during the time I worked with them, so I'm starting to feel pretty skeptical about the "health costs" claims. |
|
|
rlf
Puffer
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 47
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Mon May 04, 2009 1:59 pm |
|
Slearwig wrote: You're kidding, right?
The 9th Amendment establishes and protects Non-Enumerated Rights retained by The People, whether listed or not. Rights such as Liberty are also not listed in The Constitution, yet are in general recognized by The 9th, or damn well should be.
No, not kidding. Liberty is a fundamental right and that's why it would be considered protected under the 9th amendment. Smoking is not a fundamental right, but a right to privacy is. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by JoshNJ
on Mon May 04, 2009 2:20 pm |
|
rlf wrote: Nevertheless, excessive taxation of a minority group as part of a massive effort to "denormalise," stigmatize and impoverish that group has got to be a violation of human rights. It goes far beyond just an effort to reduce the smoking rate. What other minority group is forced to endure a constant barrage of financial extortion, public humiliation and discrimination in employment and housing?
You cannot simply call a group of similar interests a minority group. Smokers consist of all types of individuals from various backgrounds.
Quote: Gay people are in the same boat, because their status as a minority group is based on voluntary behavior. They got more credibility when structural differences were found in their brains, indicating that their behavior was rooted in biology and not done on a whim.
Interesting opinion, but I do not see how sexual orientation relates to increase taxes on cigarettes. Also, you state that being gay is voluntary and then go on to say it is also biological. That sounds like a contradiction.
Quote: What we need is some kind of a genetic or physical marker that differentiates us from non-smokers. Then we could claim that we are being stigmatized and dehumanized due to a factor that is beyond our control. Like I said, gay people have made advances even though it was once believed their behavior was strictly a matter of personal choice.
All the other minority groups have physical characteristics like skin color, gender, disability, etc., that are beyond their control, so they can't be expected to change it. That's the key to getting legal protection from unjust persecution by the majority.
Another interesting opinion, but I think it sounds a little far-fetched to attempt to discover a commonality on a genetic level with all smokers. The definition of a smoker is somewhat vague as is so I won't bother going there. However, a person's race is part of them and smoking is not a physical characteristic of a person. You would be asking the government to assign protection to a class of citizens that choose to smoke. |
|
|
JoshNJ
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 12, 2006
Posts: 312
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon May 04, 2009 7:40 pm |
|
Asmoker2 wrote: FYI, LuvMyMan, that discussion took place in 2003...it's time to rethink the class action suit as far as I'm concerned.
I agree. It has to be some kind of human rights violation, and not just a civil rights violation, to place exorbitant taxes on a group of addicts to finance public services for the majority.
What they are doing is saying we either have to pay the tax or endure the misery of attempting an involuntary "quit attempt," which is unlikely to be successful because it's being forced on us. If by some remote chance we do succeed in quitting, then they expect us to maintain that drastic behavioral change for the rest of our lives.
The odds of that happening are remote, and politicians know that. The statistical information is available to anyone who cares to search for it. They wouldn't bother to fund public programs on the cig tax if they didn't have solid data showing that most smokers will not be able to quit to avoid the tax. |
Last edited by libertarian99 on Tue May 05, 2009 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Mon May 04, 2009 7:43 pm |
|
Quote:
Interesting opinion, but I do not see how sexual orientation relates to increase taxes on cigarettes.
I think the point rtf was making had to do more with the similarities with discrimination against gays and discrimination against smokers. The increased taxes on TOBACCO (not just cigs) is a sign of discrimination against smokers when I take into account the only group of Americans that are helping fund SCHIP are people who choose to smoke.
There are otha forms of discrimination against smokers of course. Like refusing to hire someone (or fire someone) cause the person chooses to smoke. I dunno how someone can't call that discrimination. I can't even see how someone can call it perfectly normal for an employer to fire a worker for smoking OFF of the job and in his/her own home.
Quote: However, a person's race is part of them and smoking is not a physical characteristic of a person. You would be asking the government to assign protection to a class of citizens that choose to smoke.
Based on the way "a class of citizens that choose to smoke" get treated in modern times, is there a problem with protecting a certain group of Americans?
So that means since smokers don't get protection unlike I do as a Black person, then it should be perfectly legal in CA to harass someone for their choice to smoke, it should be legal to deny someone a job simply because that person smokes (and especially if the employer doesn't say "Nonsmokers preferred"), and it should even be legal to give someone a dirty hotel room only cause the person happens to be a smoker?
I may have been born as a Black person, but I'm still an American. And all Americans supposedly have rights. The same thang applies to the context of smoking. Just cause I smoke doesn't mean a hotel has the right to give me the most awful room they have available condition-wise.
It also doesn't mean an employer has the right to fire me for smoking in my own home. I recall hearing about a fireman or a cop in NYC getting fired for smoking off of his job a few years ago.
Smokers DO have different backgrounds. That doesn't mean it's still right to keep targeting them when it comes to funding SCHIP and funding the politicians/antismoking orgs' pockets via tobacco taxes.
Funding SCHIP would make betta sense if smokers weren't the only ones funding the program. And I know if antis got their wish of a smoke-free USA where NO SMOKERS existed in this nation, that money for SCHIP is gonna have to come from somewhere else. Like by raising fast food taxes.
Of course, neva mind the fact a smoke-free USA would make a lot of convience stores go out of business (since most of their sales are tobacco sales), and no smokers in the nation would make a lot of tobacco companies go out of business. Both of those would hurt the nation's economy even more. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Mon May 04, 2009 9:11 pm |
|
JoshNJ wrote: You cannot simply call a group of similar interests a minority group. Smokers consist of all types of individuals from various backgrounds.
For most smokers, smoking is not just an interest. A smoker's body and brain are physiologically and neurologically different than a non-smoker's. And all minority groups consist of diverse individuals from various backgrounds.
JoshNJ wrote: Interesting opinion, but I do not see how sexual orientation relates to increase taxes on cigarettes.
If smokers want legal protection from unjust taxation and other forms of discrimination, the only way to get that protection is to gain official status as a minority group like women, blacks, gays and disabled people. Some states already have laws protecting smokers from employment discrimination, so there is some legal precedent already for protecting smokers as a group.
The difficulty in establishing smokers as a valid legal minority group lies in the fact that they do not share an obvious physical trait, such as skin color. However, there is one other minority group, namely gay people, who are legally protected but whose minority group status is based on behavior. So there is some legal precedent for recognizing a group based on a common behavior, rather than a common physical trait.
JoshNJ wrote: Another interesting opinion, but I think it sounds a little far-fetched to attempt to discover a commonality on a genetic level with all smokers. The definition of a smoker is somewhat vague as is so I won't bother going there. However, a person's race is part of them and smoking is not a physical characteristic of a person. You would be asking the government to assign protection to a class of citizens that choose to smoke.
Researchers are already identifying genes linked to smoking. Google "smoking genes nicotine addiction" or check out the following link for further information.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T290315.htm |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Tue May 05, 2009 8:41 am |
|
JoshNJ wrote: Liberty is a fundamental right and that's why it would be considered protected under the 9th amendment. Smoking is not a fundamental right, but a right to privacy is.
I guess this depends on your definition of "fundamental right". Our founders drafted our Constitution not to give us certain rights but to guarantee that our God-given right to exercise our God-given free will and make our own choices was respected. It is the driving force behind the founding of this country, the acceptance that everyone is created equal, born free and deserves equal protection and rights in life. The Constitution was designed to protect everyone's right to live their own life according to their own beliefs.....as long as they harmed none.
Liberty is not something you can buy or own. It is not a product or law. It IS an unalienable (God-given/inborn) right.
Therefore, smoking IS a fundamental right, as people CHOOSE of their own free will to smoke or not smoke.
These bans and taxes are being forced on us by those who hate the idea that we smoke, can't stand the smell, and want to blame the world's problems on something that won't affect their way of life.
There is a difference between passing laws that keep chaos down and allow all to live peacefully and in an orderly fashion; and passing laws that actually prohibit people from exercising their unalienable rights, while encouraging the denormalization and outright discrimination of the target group. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Asmoker2
on Tue May 05, 2009 2:24 pm |
|
Lynda, you and libertarian articulated my sentiments eloquently, as did Jay in his own inimitable way.
We smokers are being ostracized because we are such a peaceable group (or at least were in the past). I truly do believe that we should organize and file a discriminatory class action suit. |
|
|
Asmoker2
Smoker
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 143
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by libertarian99
on Tue May 05, 2009 6:16 pm |
|
Asmoker2 wrote: Lynda, you and libertarian articulated my sentiments eloquently, as did Jay in his own inimitable way.
We smokers are being ostracized because we are such a peaceable group (or at least were in the past). I truly do believe that we should organize and file a discriminatory class action suit.
Well, how do we go about doing that? What's the first step? |
|
|
libertarian99
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 01, 2009
Posts: 453
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
