• 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
AKAKBUCK said:
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)
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh, good point.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
I told you that you are wrong for assuming I'm being bitchy and that you just are reading the tone the wrong way. I asked you to stop. You come back with "that answers nothing"?
Click to expand...

How else was I supposed to read it? Profanity-laced tirades aren't the best way to get your point across.

It was when I asked if you spending time on BP was the same as wasting time on smoke breaks that you gave me the "Captain obvious" comment.

I wasn't trying to be an a-hole, just showing you the hole in your argument.
Are you just being testy because I called you tibor-lite?
Click to expand...

Not really, thought it was funny!
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
no I knew it was coming because it's another smokescreen smokers use to defend what might be the dumbest thing a person can do with their lives.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not the point... not the point at all.

The point is, should your employer be able to exclude you from doing a job you can otherwise do effectively because of something that you choose to do (which is legal).

And, having said that... I would have no problem if your employer said to the "somke-breakers" that they can't smoke at your office, or on their premises. (This is assuming that they own the building, etc-- If you work in an office park, it might be trickier).

Its a "my house"/"your house" thing.

No one is saying smoking isn't bad for you, relative to not smoking. But as 89 points out, if their "excuse" is going to be insurance costs, then there is no stopping them from excluding anything.... I'm sure those 59 kids he has were expensive for his insurer, relative to the guy who has no kids.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
no I knew it was coming because it's another smokescreen smokers use to defend what might be the dumbest thing a person can do with their lives.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending smoking or saying it isn't harmful. I'm just saying that there is (or should be) a distinction between those who smoke 1-2 cigarettes a week or a cigar once every 2 weeks, and those who smoke 1-2 packs per day.

Occasional smoking may be dumb, as far as health risks are concerned, but, as has already been pointed out, so are heavy drinking and high fat diets. Would you make a health-risk distinction between someone who drinks 1-2 glasses of wine a week and someone who downs two bottles every evening? What about someone who has a Big Mac for lunch once a week versus someone who eats three fast food meals a day?
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
How else was I supposed to read it? Profanity-laced tirades aren't the best way to get your point across.

It was when I asked if you spending time on BP was the same as wasting time on smoke breaks that you gave me the "Captain obvious" comment.

I wasn't trying to be an a-hole, just showing you the hole in your argument.


Not really, thought it was funny!
Click to expand...
I didn't swear at your or call you captain obvious. I did swear at you once you ignored my request.

try again though.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Or maybe it could mean that smokers* who are left to smoke and who don't die in a horrible plane crash, from falling out of a 13th floor window, or just die because of a different kind of cancer will die from smoking. Also, if you are 79 and decide to start smoking, obviously you have just as good a chance of just dying from old age. And of course there are the few exceptions to the rule.

*Since we have to be 100% literal today, I guess I have to define smokers as people who are addicted to smoking.....I'm sure that little curveball was coming sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we should get rid of men (at least in the work place) because if a man lives long enough he will develop prostate cancer.

I don't know that smoking is the stupidest thing to do, btw. Rooting for Michigan seems worse. Abusing heroin seems worse... Cocaine.. Crack...
 
Upvote 0
PrincessPeach said:
I'm not defending smoking or saying it isn't harmful. I'm just saying that there is (or should be) a distinction between those who smoke 1-2 cigarettes a week or a cigar once every 2 weeks, and those who smoke 1-2 packs per day.

Occasional smoking may be dumb, as far as health risks are concerned, but, as has already been pointed out, so are heavy drinking and high fat diets. Would you make a health-risk distinction between someone who drinks 1-2 glasses of wine a week and someone who downs two bottles every evening? What about someone who has a Big Mac for lunch once a week versus someone who eats three fast food meals a day?
Click to expand...
I already made the smoking distinction.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top