The new Smoke-Free Ohio Law

[wootsie73 0]

Wow. Really? You buy his cigarettes -- contributing to his addiction -- but you won't take care of him if (and when) he gets sick?

Wow. That's just cold.

W0W Bullwindle,

I totally agree with you! How could someone be that cold to their spouse. Makes you wonder....:omg:

[wootsie73 0]

Maybe the next move should be to forbid unruly children to dine in adult restaurants -- now there's an idea (for those people who want to spend quality time with their kids).

*** Or, perhaps it will soon be illegal for obese people to order fattening foods. After all, some people are disgusted by watching an overweight person eat. Think about what that does to the observer's stress level, watching a fat person scarf down a cheeseburger.....

Not a very valid argument here.

1. unruly kids are not causing others lung cancer or any cancer at that.

2. Fat people eating fattening foods are killing themselves and noone else.

Secondhand smoke that kills others, not just the person smoking can't be compared to unruly children or fattening foods. really.

You are wrong about unruly children not causing others lung cancer! They drive me nuts, which in turn makes me smoke even more, so yes, they are helping me along the way! I've always said there should be child free resturants just as much as non-smoking ones! I have to add that I have a 33 year old daughter to, but there were just some places I didn't take her when she was little. However, my child was rarely unruly like todays kids are because she was disiplined. Most kids today just do whatever they want when they want, because the GOVERNMENT again will get you if you disipline your child. And, I'm not talking about child abuse either!

[Valentinebaby 0]

Speaking for those of us with asthma etc,I am all for the smoke free laws.I know it's hard for you smokers and I guess you all feel like your personal rights are being violated ... but I am sure your lungs and non -smoking freinds/family members are jumping for joy I love being able to go out to the bars,clubs etc to dance & party without smelling like smoke or having to leave because the stench was making me sick' BUT.....I did hear that some smokers are forming private clubs so that they can puff puff puff as they drink etc

[wootsie73 0]

January 1st Texas raised the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00, making them about $4.50 per pack. I wish they would not resort to "sin" taxes. The die-hard smokers will ante up the extra $$$, even if their kids have to go barefoot to do it.

Oh Carlene,

I agree that smoking should be done only outside away from entrances to buildings, but do you really think people are going to let their kids go hungry or barefoot in Texas because of this increase in taxes? I certainly hope not! I, for one, am trying very hard to quit right now. Partically because of that outrageous tax, and because of my health. I know only to well how bad it is for me, so I'm trying to quit AGAIN! Please wish me luck guys!

[wootsie73 0]

To my knowledge, no one has talked about restricting people's smoking inside their homes. What has been discussed is the restriction of smoking in businesses and in public.

Laurend,

The current law doesn't say you can't smoke in your own home, but it will soon. There are companies out there who won't hire you if you smoke on or off the job. Mesa Petroleum in Amarillo, TX owned and operated by T Boone Pickens at the time, was just such a place. There are also companies starting to tell their employees they will be fired if they continue to smoke. Even though I'm a smoker, trying to quit, I try not to offend anyone with cigarette smoke. I've quit before and I know how disgusting the odor is. However, when given the opportunity, the goverment will start with an inch then take 10 miles. That's the way it's been with other issues as well. Gun control, for instance. Do I believe you should be able to buy guns off of the street? Absolutely not, but I do know if all of the guns are supposedly taken away from law abiding citizens, the criminals are still going to have guns. The laws don't matter to criminals.

So, I ask again, what freedoms that important to you are you willing to give up? Because, eventually there will be something that's important to you that someone will try to outlaw because they don't agree with you.

[Carlene 12]

Oh Carlene,

I agree that smoking should be done only outside away from entrances to buildings, but do you really think people are going to let their kids go hungry or barefoot in Texas because of this increase in taxes? I certainly hope not! I, for one, am trying very hard to quit right now. Partically because of that outrageous tax, and because of my health. I know only to well how bad it is for me, so I'm trying to quit AGAIN! Please wish me luck guys!

Congrats, Wootsie! You will be sooooooo glad you quit!

As for the "sin tax", yes...I believe the poorest people in Texas who smoke now will continue to do so and their kids will be the ones who "pay" the increased tax.

[anonemouse 1]

I don't necessarily disagree with companies putting restrictions on their employees, or at least making them choose between smoking (or another health-harming habit) and getting insurance that is provided by the company. They are, after all, the ones paying for it. I can understand them not wanting to pay for someone's health problems that were caused by an unnecessary habit. Should they be allowed to fire or not hire someone because of that habit? No. But I do think that they should be allowed to set standards of behavior for their employees, including behaviors that can effect their bottom line.

Even as an obese woman, I believe that my employers should be able to tell me to lose weight or lose health benefits. Would I be happy about them telling me that? No, but I think I would be better for it in the long run. To be honest, I think a lot of us have to have the effects of our obesity (or other bad habits) shoved in our faces before we truly understand the repercussions of it. I know I did. I never really thought much about being fat until I started having some potentially severe effects. I have been overweight since I was a child, but I always had the belief that it was "baby fat" that would come off as I reached adulthood. I was most definitely wrong. It wasn't until I started having problems with asthma (coughing and unable to stop), insulin resistance, PCOS, joint problems, etc. that it finally hit me that I was FAT and I was going to stay that way. So I definitely think that having someone give me an ultimatum would have helped me. You know. "Lose weight or lose your benefits."

So, I ask again, what freedoms that important to you are you willing to give up?

I am not sure what freedoms that I enjoy that people would want to take away. I don't smoke. I don't drink. If they want to take away my right to eat trans fats and refined sugar, they can go right ahead. That should only help me lose weight. Seriously though, I think the only rights that are in danger of potentially being taken away are those that are likely to negatively effect others. And I am not talking about those that others just don't like, I am talking about those that have the potential to harm other people. And in cases like that, I prefer to think that another person's welfare trumps my right to do something. Don't you?

[irishamerican 0]

Hello,

I am in management in a hospital. I am in positon to know about people calling in sick. I know about 4-5 people who smoke very heavy and call in sick frequently. I am talking 1-2 times in a space of 2 months all year long. Their cloths 'stink' and their skin 'stinks.' We passed a no smoking in-the-hospital policy a number of years ago and it has expanded to on hospital property (parking lots) as of Jan.1, 2007.

So back to smoking, it cost me personally and every person in the United States lots of money to take care of people who smoke. People who smoke are not just wealthy people that can afford to be sick in a hospital but people of every economic class. The people on welfare and medicare are subsidized by you and me. Who pays their bills in a hospital when they end up sick not just as an inpatient but in the Emergency Room? How about all the people who call for an ambulence due to not being able to breathe.

Smoking is a major contributor to heart disease. Everytime a person smokes it constricts the vessels in their body (including the heart) causing greater chances for chest pain and myocardia infarction. Again, who is paying their bills. Smoking causes increased premiums for insurance. Insurance companies calculate smoker's increased medical needs and charge us with increased premiums for the future needs of the smoker.

I am not even going to talk about cancer and a multitude of other problems smoking causes.

Sorry for my soap box but I lived around second hand smoke for 27 years. I live in Washington State and its the law here and I am glad for it.

All the above information generally applies to obesity. I'm so glad I got a lap band.

irishamerican

[Bullwinkle 1]

Are they going to pass a law that fat people can't be in certain places?

Too late. That already happened. An airline asked a fat guy to get off the plane because he weighed too much.

What about being descriminated against about your weight for jobs.

Again, too late. I interviewed for a job but didn't get hired because the guy told me I was too fat to fit into the office space. Also, airline attendants and myriad other jobs have weight restrictions.

What about companies not covering you on insurance because you are obese?

They already do that for smokers, as well as the obese. Well, they will probably cover you, but for a much higher premium.

Wootsie, I agree with you and will restate my position. This is simply an issue of Politically correct control; smokers are looked at as pariahs -- even those who are so very careful never to smoke around anyone. When I smoked, I took GREAT pains to ensure that my cigarette smoke was NEVER around another human being, but I was still looked upon like I was a substandard, second-class human being, as evidenced by the judgmental tenor of the majority of the comments in this thread:

"If you smoke cigarettes, you are unworthy of being in the human race, and I am SO much better than you."

It's just that attitude -- and not the law -- that rubs me the wrong damn way. A non-smoker is not better than me, if I choose to smoke. Just as a slender person is not better than me, if I choose to be obese. Just as a non-drinker is not better than me if I choose to drink alcohol.

This is just another one of the myriad PC movements, and the cigarette smokers are getting they turn on the "let's bash a minorty" pile. A few years back it was the people who wore real fur coats. They were labeled as inhuman simply because they chose to wear an animal pelt. Well, that "bashing" ran its course, people wear fur again without fear of recrimination, and now it's some other cause in the headlines.

And please spare me the "but because of your choice to smoke, I don't get a choice of NOT getting cancer from your smoke" argument. I've heard it a ka-zillion times, and I'm not saying that it's not a valid argument.

What I have a problem with is this holier-than-thou attitude running rampant through this nation -- and this thread. No one is entitled to think that they are better than me, for whatever reason.

Go ahead.....bash away at me now.

[Carlene 12]

Wootsie, I agree with you and will restate my position. This is simply an issue of Politically correct control; smokers are looked at as pariahs -- even those who are so very careful never to smoke around anyone.

I used to smoke too, so I have been on both sides of this issue. Once smoking was prohibited inside office buildings, the thing I noticed a LOT was how many "smoke breaks" the smokers took. At my last job, the boss was a smoker, so no one complained, but all the non-smokers grumbled about it. The smokers probably worked an average of 45 minutes per day less than the non-smokers. That's about 75 hours a month!

[TruBlueSue 0]

I used to smoke, and I am a future skinny person...lol..but I will say this - the discrimination I faced as a smoker was NOTHING compared to what I faced in my last job with weight discrimination!

[Carlene 12]

I used to smoke, and I am a future skinny person...lol..but I will say this - the discrimination I faced as a smoker was NOTHING compared to what I faced in my last job with weight discrimination!

I honestly don't think I was ever discriminated against in the work place due to my weight. But when I was in college (the first time) I worked for temp agencies because my schedule might change drastically from one semester to the next. I had just popped into the office one day to turn in my time sheet as a new applicant - a fat girl - was leaving. I wasn't a fat girl at the time, but my mouth almost hit the floor when the counselor turned to me and said, "I hate to see fat girls walk in the door. It's so hard to place them."

It had never occurred to me that employers might be biased against overweight people, but I guess the temp agency heard it all the time...."Don't send me any fat girls."

I thought to myself, you're so much better off to hire 19 year old hotties who come to work on Monday so hung over they can hardly lift their head off the desk - if they come in at all. Or the 22 year old who spends 4 hours a day in the bathroom retouching her makeup and gossiping with the other 22 year olds, all of whom are looking for Mr. Right, or at least Mr. This-Month's-Rent.

[anonemouse 1]

I used to smoke too, so I have been on both sides of this issue. Once smoking was prohibited inside office buildings, the thing I noticed a LOT was how many "smoke breaks" the smokers took. At my last job, the boss was a smoker, so no one complained, but all the non-smokers grumbled about it. The smokers probably worked an average of 45 minutes per day less than the non-smokers. That's about 75 hours a month!

I've noticed that, too, and it really burns me up. I personally believe that I should be allowed the same number of breaks as a smoker is, or that they should be forced to sign out and lose pay every time they take a smoking break. I don't like people getting paid to smoke, especially if it means that I have to work more because of it. Yes, I know it is a physical addiction and that people think they can't go without smoking, but alcoholics aren't given paid drinking breaks, are they?

All I can say is that if I had a business and caught my employees sneaking outside for smoking breaks without signing out first, they would get fired. I feel that they would essentially be stealing from the company because they are getting paid for time that they did not work. I wouldn't be able to prosecute them, but I would fire them if they had done it repeatedly. I know people will say, "It isn't that much.", but it does add up. If you use the figures that Carlene provided, and the person is earning $10/hour (which isn't that much), you could be potentially losing $750 per month, per person. If you have several employees, and you live in an area of the country where smoking is very common, it could severely affect your bottom line.

[TruBlueSue 0]

(and for those who wondered, my last job was the military - where the weight standard made one look for any crack way to lose a fast ten pounds or be made to'get taped' - the DoD 's way of calculating body fat...) Under BF % and you were ok - barely.

[Bullwinkle 1]

I've noticed that, too, and it really burns me up. I personally believe that I should be allowed the same number of breaks as a smoker is, or that they should be forced to sign out and lose pay every time they take a smoking break.

AMEN, Sister!!!!

Our company instituted a Smoke-Free Policy (per Ohio law now) and the owners gave smokers three choices:

1. Smoke at your company-paid, 15-minute break, and your half-hour, unpaid lunch break ONLY!

2. Smoke at the breaks described above, PLUS you may take three, 5-minute breaks during the day. So that productivity will not diminish, you must stay over for 15 minutes after your shift is finished -- UNPAID -- in other words, you must clock out and then stay an additional 15 minutes to make up for the 15 minutes you took during the day to smoke.

3. Stop smoking. The company will help you in your endeavors by offering free smoking pamphlets and free support groups.

I think for such a small company -- there are only 23 employees, and six smokers -- that those choices are MORE than fair.

It just pisses me off to know that some people are taking breaks -- be it smoking, playing around online, making personal calls, putting on makeup in the bathroom, lingering too long down the hall with coffee and donuts, chatting with friends, et cetera -- while I'm working my butt off, without taking advantage of the company like they are.

It's just the principle of the thing, yanno?