Neither have I but to ban smokers from employment is ridiculous.Cucurbitophobia » 08 Sep 2022, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Sounds good to me. Non smoker, never have, never will.
I got hired at a bank.. A big one? They were more concerned if I smoked? Then if i could add?Cucurbitophobia » 08 Sep 2022, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Nahh. they are not productive. Always taking smoke breaks.
Pastafarian » 08 Sep 2022, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Ban smokers from jobs.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J_FHm0LELfU
Nor are they making it. They are merely allowing employers to do so.Xavier_Onassis » 08 Sep 2022, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑ There is some justification for smoking to be banned during working hours by some employers for some jobs. But this is not a call for the state or national government to make.
Just ask them for a light. If they go for their pocket - buustid.
That’s one town and it only bans smoking when sharing walls with other residents.Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 10:14 pm » wrote: ↑ The blue states are the ones pushing this, stupid. Cali outlaws smoking in your own home, if you rent an
Or, "live in an apartment" - ****.Pastafarian » 10 Sep 2022, 6:43 am » wrote: ↑That’s one town and it only bans smoking when sharing walls with other residents.Cannonpointer » 08 Sep 2022, 10:14 pm » wrote: ↑ The blue states are the ones pushing this, stupid. Cali outlaws smoking in your own home, if you rent an
Whatever you drool, skeeter.Pastafarian » 10 Sep 2022, 6:43 am » wrote: ↑California isn’t banning people from being gainfully employed.
Yes, so. Other people share that space with you.Cannonpointer » 10 Sep 2022, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑ Or, "live in an apartment" - ****.![]()
And what about vax naziism? Wanna get a quick mouthful of **** on that one, fruitcake?
Whatever you drool, skeeter.
How did that mouthful of **** taste? Regular?
Actually, smoking rates fell after it was banned in restaurants.Neo » 10 Sep 2022, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑ Dumb position. Almost as dumb as banning menthol cigarettes to reduce black smoking rates.
Restaurants should have had the option to allow smoking. Smoking bans are unconstitutional government interference with private enterprise.Pastafarian » 10 Sep 2022, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Actually, smoking rates fell after it was banned in restaurants.
Do, it’s a proven method to curb smoking.
You race baiters always fall back to that bcuz y’all are dumb as stumps.
Deflect, you weak, weak man.Neo » 10 Sep 2022, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑ Restaurants should have had the option to allow smoking. Smoking bans are unconstitutional government interference with private enterprise.
Not a deflection. You support government controlling minutiae like what legal behaviors a private business can allow. Thought America was about freedom?
If you are insured by a group policy, your individual premium will NOT likely be higher than others under the same policy. Normally rates for group policy are determined by the percentage of men and women in the group and the average age of members of the group.LincolnNebraska » 08 Sep 2022, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑ This all started when medical insurance got tied in with employment. People demanded employers cover their employees. Drug testing came along. Now workplace drug tests to determine your rates.
Big gov advocates demanded this. You asked for this. You got it.
Only when it affects the health of those around them.Neo » 10 Sep 2022, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Not a deflection. You support government controlling minutiae like what legal behaviors a private business can allow. Thought America was about freedom?
Others freely associate with smokers. Don't like abortion, don't have one. Don't like smoke, stay out of places that allow it. But no, you need the government all up in small businesses ***, usually at the behest of corporate interests.Pastafarian » 10 Sep 2022, 5:46 pm » wrote: ↑ Only when it affects the health of those around them.
Second hand smoke is lethal to those around you.
Freedom to hurt others? I think not.