• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
Do you feel this strongly about alcohol?

Smoking is a legal activity that while increasing the chances of one developing disease like cancer and thereby killing you. Of course, owning a gun is legal too, and owning a gun also increases your chances of dying by a gunshot, and certainly increases teh chaces of you killing someone else. Drinking is a legal activity much the same.... If I considered it longer, I'm sure I could come up with more...

So I hope you take up the charge against these products as well, 27.
Click to expand...
Don't assume that me asking this question means that I support the company's move, but are you saying that a company can't regulate one type of behavior unless it regulates every other similar type of behavior? When answering, assume that such regulation is legal and ethical, and that the only question is whether it has to be an all-or-none proposition or not.
 
Upvote 0
As a non smoker I could care less about companies doing this. I am in favor of smoking getting banned in all public areas and wish the whole state of Ohio would do this like Cbus did. I went out Friday and Saturday this past weekend and now 2 of my shirts reek of smoke. I am also in favor of huge sin taxes on tobacco. Start charging $10 a pack for cigarettes.
I am fat and would have no problem with companies mandating that employees lose weight and get in shape as long as they offer assistance to do it like they do to get smokers to quit rather than get fired. Offer workout facilities to any employees that want it. I just bought a house and one of the biggest factors that I was looking for in the area was that there would be a good reasonably priced rec center so I could workout and get in better shape.
I have no problem with companies trying to keep their workforce healthier and as long as they can't fire employees because of potential genetic problems or diseases they can do whatever they want. I ask if you were hiring a new employee and were down to 2 options, one being a smoker and the other being a non smoker, which would you hire, all else being equal?
 
Upvote 0
BUCKEYESTUCKNGA said:
so are people that think smoking kills you. My grandmother has smoked for 60+ years. she must be immune.
Click to expand...

My grandfather was in an auto accident in 1986. The doctors told him if he had been a smoker, he'd have never lived due to the damage to his lungs. My grandfather then told them he had been smoking Lucky Strikes for over 40 years. The Doctor's jaw dropped. Said he had the lungs of an 18 year old.

Eight years later, he died of lung cancer.

Its not "if". Its "when".
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
I was asked that where I worked before but I do agree it whould be illegal.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "should". People get asked all kinds of questions they shouldn't in interviews. Like sexual orientation, marital status, number of children and their health issues. Those are all illegal. Asking about any legal activity in an interview should be illegal. Smoking included.
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369 said:
castro smokes cigars. He, like Clinton, doesn't inhale. For the record, George Burns smoked cigars until he died at 100.
Click to expand...

Right, and if Scotts made a distinction between smoking cigarettes and cigars then the policy might actually make some sense. But I'm sure they don't. My health insurer doesn't make any distinction, and it sounds like Longaberger didn't when Thump was there.

By the way, Milton Berle, another notorious cigar smoker, lived to the age of 93. From what I can see, cigar smoking doesn't appear to have any effect on a person's health unless they inhale (which I can't even imagine).
 
Upvote 0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-09-obesity_x.htm

Please note... the 2005 stats that they refer to are not yet available, for obvious reasons.

Btw... true story... an extended family member of mine, who is a cigar smoker (dunno if that's an apples to apples point, but whatever) had his stomach stapled (reduced in size, whatever) because his doctor informed him that he wouldn't live 5 years without the surgery.

He asked the doc if he should quit the cigars.. and the doctor told him that it would be preferable, but if the surgery didn't kill him-- it is very dangerous--, the odds became heavily in his favor that he would live 15 more years either way.

At any rate, soemhting will get you sooner or later, but I know a lot more 70 year old smokers than I do 70 year old fat asses.

And yeah.. the insurance thing doesn't fly... is he going to fire all the African American Men that work there and hire all Asian Women because they are lesser helth risks? (Assuming life expectancy/ hereditary disease risk is worse in one group over the other... if I'm wrong about which one is more risky, please feel free to reverse the order-- ie. fire the asian women and hire the black men)
 
Upvote 0
GoBucks89 said:
Right, and if Scotts made a distinction between smoking cigarettes and cigars then the policy might actually make some sense. But I'm sure they don't. My health insurer doesn't make any distinction, and it sounds like Longaberger didn't when Thump was there.

By the way, Milton Berle, another notorious cigar smoker, lived to the age of 93. From what I can see, cigar smoking doesn't appear to have any effect on a person's health unless they inhale (which I can't even imagine).
Click to expand...

According to whoever runs these studies... cigar smoking is every bit as dangerous as smokeless tobacco and almost as dangerous as cigarettes...

Oh, and we all know how dangerous second hand smoke is.

Now... how dangerous is all that, really?

Good question.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top