• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
--Can the boss really say "You, stop smoking or you're fired" without also saying "You, stopping taking it in the ass, or you're fired" or "You, stop eating at McDonalds or you're fired" and still be legally in line?<can boss="" really="" say="" smoking="" without="" also="" saying="" stopping="" taking="" it="" the="" ass="" you="" stop="" eating="" at="" mcdonalds="" or="" you're="" fired="" and="" still="" be="" legally="" in="" line="">

Yes, it appears so.</can>
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeFlorida said:
This issue (aside from the whole business can or cannot tell you what to do "outside" work) represents a larger problem with society. As a whole, Americans lack the ability to take responsibility for one's actions.
Click to expand...

Uh... yeah.. its called, Make the Smokers pay more for their health insurance, and make the WT have flood insurance.

No problem.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeFlorida said:
1) Scotts is a private (although I acknowledge that there could be some govt subsidy or assistance there, but without full access, I'm assuming there isn't) company who has an obligation to the bottom line, the stakeholders and the employees of the company (both past and present). The obvious steps toward meeting your obligations in the business world is to reduce your overhead, thereby increasing profit and maximizing bottom-line gains, stock values and employee perks/benefits (including the maintenance of an active and successful pension and retirement plan). As is clear, by reviewing this thread, most of us agree that smoking is bad for you and it also appears we commonly define "bad for you" as serious illness and possibly death. These agreements coupled with the outlandish and unregulated health care industry could easily lead to the a inflated insurance overhead
Click to expand...

Did you really read the rest of the thread? We've been through this insurance stuff. The problem is solved by going to a policy that charges higher premiums to smokers.

2) Having lived in Florida for 7 hurricane filled years, as a low risk liver (i.e. -non-smoker, drinks occasionally, non-obese) and white, male from a family full of system-milking WTs, I'm sick of covering the cost of everyone elses' decisions. Build a beach front house in Florida and it gets leveled by a hurricane - surprised? I'm not! Lead a high risk life and cost the system (insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and other users more money, you should be dropped or charged higher premiums. And as for my WT family - get off your ass and get a job - stop having kids to get a paycheck!
Click to expand...

Obviously, the answer to these problems is for politicians to stop looking for potential beneficiaries whose votes they can buy by promising benefits. But you might as well try to get a leopard to change his spots.

P.S. - Having lived in a state (Florida) where smoking was outlawed in public places and restaurants, I wish Ohio would get on board as mentioned earlier. As a non-smoker, it's nice not to smell like smoke after a night out
Click to expand...

And now we see the real reason for smoking bans and other such things: people just get annoyed by smokers. That's it. The insurance cost thing is just a red herring.
 
Upvote 0
27, chill out, bro.. I'm not worried about whether you said might or definate... I'm saying there are more stupid things to do... you seem to be the one worried about who's being literal.
Click to expand...
Thats because I can't say anything without the smoking defenders taking it to be 100% literal and using that to knock down my argument.

My original argument was that this isn't a violation of anybody's rights anymore than telling people they can't commit homicide. The only reason smoking is legal now is because it makes lots of money. If we had known then what we know now about smoking, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.

The people who say this is taking away our rights and use the scare tactic that they will take away all of our other rights are just using smokescreens so they can continue to suck down their cancer, because it's easier than admitting you're addicted to something completely retarded and just quitting.
 
Upvote 0
AKAKBUCK said:
Uh... yeah.. its called, Make the Smokers pay more for their health insurance, and make the WT have flood insurance.

No problem.
Click to expand...


Word

BuckeyeNation27 said:
My original argument was that this isn't a violation of anybody's rights anymore than telling people they can't commit homicide. The only reason smoking is legal now is because it makes lots of money. If we had known then what we know now about smoking, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I disgaree, becuase smoking causes direct harm to ones-self only, so long as no one else is forced to breathe that crap in.
Which is exactly why I am 100% for public smoking bans..
 
Upvote 0
My original argument was that this isn't a violation of anybody's rights anymore than telling people they can't commit homicide. The only reason smoking is legal now is because it makes lots of money. If we had known then what we know now about smoking, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.
Click to expand...

just like alcohol.
 
Upvote 0
the question i must raise is this:

Scott's indicated that cost/benefit analysis supported this action due to increasing health care costs.

However, this is an action that is likely going to result in lawsuits. When Scott's is shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more to defend itself, it's going to shoot that argument in the foot.
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369 said:
I'm sure even Morton Downey would have checked the "No" box on the questionairre as to whether he smoked or not.
Click to expand...

With health insurance, what you put on the application has to be true at the time that you receive a benefit. If it is found that you misrepresented something on an application, they can deny benefits. This is different from life insurance where is has to be true only at the time of application. Does that make sense?
 
Upvote 0
PrincessPeach said:
Uh, no, he said smoking is harmful to ones-self only (sic.).

Edit - never mind. You edited....

So, really, it's more like saying you can't commit suicide than saying you can't commit homicide.

Yet another stupid, protect me from myself law. Ugh.
Click to expand...
If people aren't smart enough to protect themselves.....
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top