Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcgill-vision.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: [longish] Re: ATTIS's force reduction: A Modest Proposal Message-ID: <146@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 19:15:03 EDT Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.146 Posted: Sat Sep 21 19:15:03 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 07:53:43 EDT References: <802@homxb.UUCP> Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 106 > > It is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or creed. > > These things do not affect the people around you, and as such are > > no one's business but your own. Your habits, however, *do* affect > > those around you. If my habits included buggering small children, [ better example: if my habits included never bathing, though this is too mild - it doesn't really hurt anyone. Smoking, on the other hand, well, "The Surgeon General has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Harmful to your Health" and the guy next to you is forced to either breathe the smoke too or stop breathing. ] > > would you argue that I should not be discriminated against on these > > grounds? > > It's hard to compare smoking to sick shit like child abuse. Things > of that ilk ARE CRIMINAL ACTS, NOT HABITS!! Not at all. I happen to be fond of my lungs and when some twit smiles idiotically at me and blows a cloud of junk in my face I have to restrain myself to keep from reaching over and putting out the cigarette (cigar, pipe, whatever) myself. What, exactly, is a "criminal act"? A criminal act is one which contravenes some law (they can be habits too, especially minor, innocuous crimes). I don't see that there is necessarily any connection between an act being criminal and its being bad in the sense being flamed about here. There are a lot of stupid laws still on the books forbidding completely personal, harmless acts. In which category I do NOT include smoking in public. Smoking in private is another story; if you want to smoke in your home that is none of my business. But in a restaurant, or in an elevator, or on the sidewalk, that's the business of everyone using that restaurant, elevator, or sidewalk. > > Of course, if your smoke bothers me that much, I have the option > > to leave. You DON'T always have the option to leave. Nothing spoils a nice walk in the park like suddenly choking on a lungful of tobacco (or worse) stench. > > to leave. In the original posting, I belive that the point was > > that non-smokers are forced to assume the > > costs of the additional health care costs incurred by smokers, and > > that the company is forced to assume the extra costs of things like > > changing air filters, emptying ashtrays, repairing holes burnt in > > carpets and uphlostery, etc. That's the company's business, not yours or mine (unless, of course, we are involved one way or another). If they feel the cost is worth allowing the smokers to indulge, that's up to them and their (other) employees. Let their health insurance take care of the health costs; presumably companies will charge higher premiums for smokers. I recall an auto-insurance company which wouldn't insure drinkers; same story. I would love to see a health insurance company issue policies which would not pay costs deriving from the insured's smoking. No, you'll be second in line, behind me. Sorry, *you* probably won't be in that line at all.... > Great piece of philosophy there folks. So why don't we also get rid > of the [ junkies, pimps, etc ] because they all cost us money to enforce > laws, provide food and shelter in prisons or detox wards, etc. Think about > this, idiot, if there was fair compansation for all of us who have to > support other's offensive habits (or crimes, from your point of view), we > would definitely not be enjoying our respective lifestyles in this country > as we presently do. As far as I can see, this "fair compensation" merely makes the "undesirables" assume the costs (and other responsibilities) for their actions. This makes life better for everyone else. I agree, our respective lifestyles would be very different. Better, not worse. Or are you a junkie / pusher / pimp / other? Then I concede your lifestyle will (probably) take a turn for the worse. > The main point is, I do not consider cigarette/cigar/pipe smoking to > be: (a) detrimental to one's performance on the job (b) a factor > in evaluating an individual. (a) Agreed, at least in most jobs (some, like gas-station attendant, excepted [fire hazard]). (b) I can use any factor I please in evaluating an individual. If I don't like people who wear brown hats, that's my business. A company is restricted by law from discriminating based on certain factors, but since smoking is not one of them (surely) a company is free to refuse to employ smokers *if they like*. > Obviously, someone with a drinking or drug problem, or involved in > *child buggering* is going to be in heavier shit than just his or > her job. Your comparison doesn't make sense. Nicotine addiction is a drug problem (or do you not consider it a problem?). And don't tell me it isn't addictive. There are a *lot* of people out there who've tried to stop and haven't been able to. They'll tell you how it "isn't addictive". Sorry for the length, but in net.flame I don't feel as much need to restrain myself. -- der Mouse {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse Hacker: One responsible for destroying / Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com