"He has a choice to be there or not under the conditions of the owner."

The same could be said for Woolworth's "whites only" lunch counter. They were wrong then and you're wrong now.

"Gibson's dignity is worth everything, Gator Ted's is worth nothing."

Gibson is minding his own business, like some woman breast feeding their baby. If other customers get offended - tough luck. Babies gotta get fed and people in pain need their meds.

Gator Ted lost all his dignity on his own when he told the harmless in-pain guy to walk thirty meters away.

"Of course he's not LIMITED to tobacco smoking zones..."

Then why did you use the word "ONLY" in your informal poll? Had you not used that word, the question would have gotten a different result.

The word "ONLY" was valid in referencing the only places private business's offer the courtesy to smoke, I thought it was clear to everyone. And it even works referencing many Public places, where those in control of the public space also extend a courtesy to smokers in some areas.

But not anymore. What this all means for tobacco zones is that even if you’re walking down Robson street smoking a cigarette, you are breaking the law as you’re passing countless entryways to establishments. Full state control of morality.

Again, It makes no sense to anyone but you and him that he's asking to have his permissible zone (which is at least 90% of all the land area in Canada) INCLUDE cigarette zones that are unhealthy private environments by claiming his health reasons trump the property rights.

Fear turns into actions....
Print



Employees fired - for smoking
29/01/2005 09:52 - (SA)





Washington - A United States health care company has fired seven workers who refused to quit smoking.

Michigan-based Weyco Inc's new policy bans its staff from smoking - even away from work - to cut health care costs.

"Some call this a violation of privacy," Weyco president Howard Weyers said in a statement.

"Weyco is proud of its stance on smoking and wellness.

"For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave."

The company told workers in late 2003 that smokers would not be employed after January 1.

About 15 to 20 of the firm's 200 employees were smokers at the time and about a dozen quit smoking.

What's next?

Three smokers left in the months leading up to the change and four others quit in late December before they could be fired for failing a smoking test, a spokesperson said on Friday.

Such incidents are part of a trend as employers seek to control the lives of their workers, opponents say.

"Your boss has no legal business to tell you what to do in your private life," said Lewis Maltby, president of the Princeton, New Jersey-based National Workrights Institute, a spinoff of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The idea that an employer has the right to control an employee's private life in the name of health has sweeping implications ... because everything is health related."

Maltby said that if employers are serious about reducing health care costs they can simply charge smokers higher insurance premiums.

A study by the Atlanta-based US Centres for Disease Control found the economic costs of smoking averaged around $3 400 per smoker per year: $1 760 in lost productivity and $1 623 in medical costs.

Tobacco kills nearly half a million people a year in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. Smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer, the nation's leading cancer killer, and contributes to heart disease and respiratory illnesses.

Weyco is not the only US company to ban smoking. Union Pacific Corp stopped hiring smokers in seven states last fall and Alaska Airlines requires job applicants to pass a nicotine test.

However, firing employees who smoke is relatively new.

Weyers said that it is "natural for us to take a leadership position on this issue" because Weyco is "in business to help other companies save money and improve employee health through innovative benefits plans."

While Americans enjoy workplace protection from discrimination by race, gender, religion, creed, national origin and other factors, federal law does not necessarily protect workers for other activities. However, 29 states have banned employers from firing smokers. - AFP http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1654376,00.html

There are 45million tobacco smokers in the USA compared to 15 million pot smokers. I myself can not possibly find a good excuse for a pot smoker whether they are an MMAR patient or not to fire up in front of anyone in public they do not know. What with tobacco being shoved out of public life and now being condemned by more and more employers, it would appear that a pothead would exercise better control over their use. Then again, if they`re addicted to marijuana, it would follow that marijuana is controlling them. Liberal Democrats have been championing smoking bans, raising taxes on tobacco and voting to appropriate money to pay for government anti smoking advertisement campaigns while most Republicans have defended big tobacco because smoking is legal and when the price gets expensive because of unreasonably high taxes, it is the government who losesout because smuggling tobacco products becomes profitable. I believe our Ontario ding bat and others who may try to make an issue of having the right to smoke mj could easily provoke a response which bans all smoking from almost any location, including bars. Oregon already has such a law, as does many other states which makes it difficult, if not impossible to smoke inside any business public or private. The only exception being in bars where anyone under twenty one years of age are barred from entering. What a fucking irony; a selfish pothead provoking a crackdown on all smoking.
Good luck activists; keep pushing and forcing.

So Goodster can prove you`re a tobacco Nazi; this is indicative of the rampant hypocrisy of the Left crying freedom while selectively demanding Liberal tyranny on others. You`re advocacy has now aquired a hollow promise of bondage even for marijuana reform.
..................................
Increased taxes on cigarettes have been called the best smoking cessation program in the world.

In Canada, between 63 and 79 per cent of the price of a package of cigarettes is tax. In New York, by comparison, the tax on cigarettes is 38 per cent.

Ontario which had the lowest-priced cigarettes in Canada, added $5 a carton in June 2002 in an attempt to deter smoking. But they may have succeeded in pushing some smokers to seek out cheaper alternatives and bootleggers to claim a larger part of the cigarette market.


Sources: Finance Dept., Provincial Govt's, Finance Canada

On February 28, 2003, major Canadian tobacco company JTI-MacDonald Corp. and some of its former executives were charged with fraud after an investigation into alleged smuggling of cigarettes in the 1990s.

RCMP laid charges against the company, accusing it of supplying the Canadian black market with Canadian-blend tobacco products manufactured in Canada and Puerto Rico.

Police laid six counts of fraud against JTI-MacDonald Corp., formerly known as RJR-MacDonald, Inc., and several of its subsidiaries, alleging the companies conspired to defraud the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec out of $1.2 billion in tax revenue between 1991 and 1996.

Twenty-three per cent of Canadians over 15 years old were smoking in June of 2001... that's 5.7 million people.

Despite the availability of some cheaper cigarettes, the U.S. surgeon general reported that higher cigarette prices result in lower rates of consumption. A 10 per cent price increase should result in a two to three per cent drop in the number of smokers. The report also states that fewer young people will be likely to smoke if cigarette prices are higher, and more people will be driven to quit.

The Canadian government has initiated several programs to try to lower rates of smoking in Canada. These include:


Informing Canadians about the health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke;
Providing programs to support those who choose to quit smoking;
Reducing access to tobacco products by minors;
Deterring smokers by increasing product pricing through taxation;
Placing restrictions on where smoking may occur;
Restricting tobacco product advertising and promotion;
Encouraging Canadians to support smoke-free living;
Requiring tobacco companies to release information on the composition of cigarettes and cigarette smoke; and
British Columbia challenged the tobacco industry to recover the costs due to tobacco related illnesses.
Health Canada recommends that these programs all continue, since all have enjoyed a level of success, but the government wants to go further.

It wants to increase taxes on cigarettes so that they are closer to covering the social costs incurred from smoking.

They estimate that, in Canada, the societal costs attributable to smoking for 1993 were approximately $11 billion, of which $3 billion was spent on direct health care costs such as hospitalization and physician time. The remaining $8 billion was due to lost productivity. In comparison, it is estimated that in 1993/94, revenue from taxes on cigarettes totalled $2.6 billion.

The argument around taxation and smoking is, and always has been, does the good outweigh the bad? Will the health and economic gains from taxation pay for the negative effects of the act of smoking? Well, more taxes might pay the governments bills, but will increased taxation be enough to make people quit?

Fuuuugit DML, MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Be a Nazi or a communist; support government takeovers of individual freedom based on standards set by community policy, or bring in the Nazis to prohibit all smoking, or shut your gob.

You`re trying to fuck Maryjane

Denial of medical care for smokers is being considered and pushed here. Smoking in California is prohibited in any facility including bars, public parks and open air stadiums. Henry Ford used to send people around to employees' homes at night to make sure they weren't drinking alcohol. But then, he was pretty much a nazi anyway. It's the politically correct discrimination.

Yeah; one man`s fascism is another man`s pain in the ass; all the while, the Nazi persecutes commie bastards who likewise have their pet oppressive agendas. The hilarious part of the entire scheme is that both sides, when in the minority promise freedom while they themselves serve corruption. I was reminded of a principle I`ve practiced for many years when I attended a required course for obtaining a carry concealed permit here in Oregon. The instructor hammered home a point. What it boils down to is that above all else, if you carry a gun, learn to leave people alone. Do not go out of your way to escalate a dispute into a full blown fight. Just walk away and separate yourself from violent men. The entire principal rests on not even trying to find out what sort of person you`re dealing with; in other words, if a fat tobacco addict in a park walks a hundred yards to tell me to put out my joint my correct response would be to apologize and put the joint away. On the other hand, if I replied by refusal and blowing smoke in the fat nicotine addicts face and cursed him, if he assaulted me and pulled a weapon, morally speaking, I would be just as much at fault for not ending the dispute peacefully.

Yep; a big part of our dwindling freedom(s) are a direct result of Nazi and Marxist idiots going to the government and asking them to intervene in their private lives. Another thing advocates and agitators in favor of legalization fail to mention is an ever growing number of former users banding together with government to fight all drugs.

So come on, bring down the heat while you promise me freedom. Just do not expect me to join any party that looks for trouble.

Gibson is minding Gator Ted's business otherwise there would be no dispute.

Too bad Steve Gibson wasn't minding his own business and called the government to his aid in what should just be a dispute between Gator Ted and Steve.

The fundemental difference between us is that you support government when they suit your purposes and hate government when they go against your beliefs.

Me, I just got no use for government at all.

Case in point, no matter what "right" Steve Gibson wins, Gator Ted will always feel wronged and percieve the law as unjust.

Picking sides and engineering brotherly love is not the proper use of the coercive power of the state.

Making people do things they don't want to do is slavery.

You have no problem with Gator Ted being a slave to the government but I do and so does anybody who believes in property rights.

You don't seem to like the tough luck the prohibitionists have told you to suck up over your choice of vice pleasure and percieve the law as unjust.

You have to appreciate that other people will feel the same way about oppressions you inflict for their own good too.

Tough luck laws breed hatred. You have no use for prohibitionists who oppress you and the same will hold true for Gator Ted, he will have no use for those who oppress him.

Eternal struggles like this don't end with social engineering laws.

Gator Ted has the respect and support of everybody who believes in property rights.


The law was never meant for any of this. The law that liberates one man opresses another in this case. Hatred will grow from such seeds.

You, like all the other law lovers will bring about more of what you are trying to battle with by abusing the law.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson

I`ve seldom seen government as capable of settling disputes; more to the point it usually pits people against each other. Division creates the perfect environment for authoritarian reformers to step in and take everything the people themselves have failed to mend.

Do not be surprised to see more restrictive laws against smoking arising from bullshit complaints from people like the anorexic marijuana addict. I just put that description in to highlight the fact that calling someone an overweight tobacco addict ups the ante, bringing counter charges which puts the MMAR patients in a bad light.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson was trying to convey about people disciplining themselves?