Hey smokers, how would you like to get denied a job because you smoke?

[Northern Lawn]

Smoking is a bad habit and though it's not a rule, where there's one bad habit there are probably others... or to say another way, where there's smoke, there's fire.

[Pantoot]

Originally Posted by Northern Lawn

Smoking is a bad habit and though it's not a rule, where there's one bad habit there are probably others... or to say another way, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Hah, and to bring it back to the mj arguments, when one is shown willing to disregard one law...

[Ns1]

Originally Posted by Pantoot

Hah, and to bring it back to the mj arguments, when one is shown willing to disregard one law...

<searches ATOT for threads containing piracy>


Goddamn I love that slippery slope.

[Northern Lawn]

Originally Posted by Pantoot

Hah, and to bring it back to the mj arguments, when one is shown willing to disregard one law...

That is COMPLETELY different from the point I was making because.... uhm... Smoking weed is a good habit.. smoking tabacco Bad Habit.

You could fit my morality lessons on a fortune cookie.

[etrigan420]

I'm disappointed that this thread hasn't yet degenerated into nehalem bitching about how afraid he is of vaginas.

[Pantoot]

Originally Posted by Ns1

<searches ATOT for threads containing piracy>


Goddamn I love that slippery slope.

Or speeding, or double parking, or...

[destrekor]

Originally Posted by Pantoot

Hah, and to bring it back to the mj arguments, when one is shown willing to disregard one law...

Originally Posted by Ns1

<searches ATOT for threads containing piracy>


Goddamn I love that slippery slope.

Originally Posted by Pantoot

Or speeding, or double parking, or...

What is this, do you have, like, surveillance on me? STOP IT. I do NOT consent.

I mean, uh...

[SlitheryDee]

We all end up paying for what others are doing. You can't live in a bubble, completely free from the influence of anyone outside of it. We maintain freedom mostly by putting up with the little shit we all do that annoys other people. When we become the type of finicky, bitchy, busybody people that feel like they need to take legal and/or administrative action against everything that bothers us even a little bit, we start stepping on each other's freedoms.

I quit smoking something like 4 years ago, but I have never been bothered one bit by other people's smoking. I can take a bit of unpleasantness entering my life when someone who just smoked a cigarette walks by and I smell it. I can take standing in a room where people are smoking right there in front of me. I don't find it pleasant, but it also doesn't cross the threshold of irritability such that I feel the need to insert myself actively into their lives by doing anything to stop them, either in the moment or later in a voting booth. What kind of shifty, hand-wringing, worrisome gnat of a person would do that is the question I ask.

You can't allow even a little bit of unpleasantness into your life so that other people can do what they want to do? Everything has to be perfect for you, and damn everyone else, who are likely putting up with a lot of shit from your neurotic ass already? Do them the same solid they're probably already doing you.

[Eli]

Is there a thread on the legalization of MJ in those states? I'd like to discuss there rather than clog this thread up.

I'd like to see testing for it drop too, but I'm not sure if it will happen. It's the same problem that the cannabis user has always had, unfairly singled out because of the physics of metabolite detection in the days and weeks after one uses.

Washington will be implementing a standardized blood test to enforce DWS(Driving While Stoned). I sincerely hope that the rules surrounding this blood test were spelled out in very detailed, bold face type. It's going to be a tragedy if we have people getting arrested for DUI because they smoked a day, or even a few hours before driving. What is the general rule with alcohol, 1 beer per hour? Wonder what it will be for MJ... To be honest, this aspect is almost more scary than it being illegal in the first place. The detection threshold had better be fair.

Anyway, such a blood test could be a more fair approach to employment drug screening. IE: If you come to the job interview/drug test baked out of your mind, forget it. And that is fair enough, just like it would be for alcohol or any other drug.

[CottonRabbit]

Originally Posted by lxskllr

General lössnus ;^)

I'm tired of looking for a full study that doesn't come from a site that's biased one way or the other. It's criminal the way they lock knowledge behind a pay wall.

Here's a meta analysis, but it falls a bit short on science. It does link to numerous studies, so anyone wishing to search, or jump through hoops to find the original data, they can...

http://cro.sagepub.com/content/15/5/252.long

Haven't read the thread, but...

I must say, I was quite surprised by the lack of evidence linking smokeless tobacco use and cancer. At least in the US, there appears to have been no major studies done since the early 1980's. All the recent research seems to have taken place in Sweden and indicate that oral snuff use does not increase the relative risk for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in that population. Basically, if you're a Swedish male and use Swedish snuff while living in Sweden, you are at no higher risk of developing oral cancer than a regular Swede.

However, a study in the Lancet (very high impact medical journal) indicates that Swedish snuff users are at a 2 times higher risk for pancreatic cancer than non-users. Of course, this result can't be applied to US users, but it's something to consider, especially since Swedish snuff has lower levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (presumably the primary carcinogen) than American snuff.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498797

[wirednuts]

Originally Posted by SlitheryDee

We all end up paying for what others are doing. You can't live in a bubble, completely free from the influence of anyone outside of it. We maintain freedom mostly by putting up with the little shit we all do that annoys other people. When we become the type of finicky, bitchy, busybody people that feel like they need to take legal and/or administrative action against everything that bothers us even a little bit, we start stepping on each other's freedoms.

I quit smoking something like 4 years ago, but I have never been bothered one bit by other people's smoking. I can take a bit of unpleasantness entering my life when someone who just smoked a cigarette walks by and I smell it. I can take standing in a room where people are smoking right there in front of me. I don't find it pleasant, but it also doesn't cross the threshold of irritability such that I feel the need to insert myself actively into their lives by doing anything to stop them, either in the moment or later in a voting booth. What kind of shifty, hand-wringing, worrisome gnat of a person would do that is the question I ask.

You can't allow even a little bit of unpleasantness into your life so that other people can do what they want to do? Everything has to be perfect for you, and damn everyone else, who are likely putting up with a lot of shit from your neurotic ass already? Do them the same solid they're probably already doing you.

thumbs up.

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by SlitheryDee

We all end up paying for what others are doing. You can't live in a bubble, completely free from the influence of anyone outside of it.

best post in this whole thread.

[lxskllr]

Originally Posted by CottonRabbit

However, a study in the Lancet (very high impact medical journal) indicates that Swedish snuff users are at a 2 times higher risk for pancreatic cancer than non-users. Of course, this result can't be applied to US users, but it's something to consider, especially since Swedish snuff has lower levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (presumably the primary carcinogen) than American snuff.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498797

That group they used has some issues. I think the results are worth noting, but it needs to be repeated. Everything's been very fogged by statistics to make up for group deficiencies. Also, production methods during the study period weren't as refined as they are now, and Swedish snus had higher TSNAs than moist snuff does today.

In the end I can live with the "doubling" of risk for a rare cancer. 8:10,000 chance isn't that much worse than a 4:10,000 chance :^)

Edit:
Changed 100,000 to 10,000 sorry

[destrekor]

Originally Posted by CottonRabbit

Haven't read the thread, but...

I must say, I was quite surprised by the lack of evidence linking smokeless tobacco use and cancer. At least in the US, there appears to have been no major studies done since the early 1980's. All the recent research seems to have taken place in Sweden and indicate that oral snuff use does not increase the relative risk for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in that population. Basically, if you're a Swedish male and use Swedish snuff while living in Sweden, you are at no higher risk of developing oral cancer than a regular Swede.

However, a study in the Lancet (very high impact medical journal) indicates that Swedish snuff users are at a 2 times higher risk for pancreatic cancer than non-users. Of course, this result can't be applied to US users, but it's something to consider, especially since Swedish snuff has lower levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (presumably the primary carcinogen) than American snuff.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498797

American snuff studies have shown such negative results, and it's pretty much accepted as a possibility.
Swedish snus is entirely different, due simply to the curing method iirc. It leaves less byproducts (nitrates, iirc), plus the additives are all regulated food-grade (their version of the FDA). And all listed as the E-types on the labels (good luck finding a list of what's in American shit, and I suspect some is decidedly not FDA-approved for food though who knows).

And hell, for the pancreatic cancer (I've seen more than one study reference this fact), the 2x likelihood is often repeated, but the numbers are still important. I think the regular incidence of non-snusers in Sweden is like 1:8000 - it reduces to 1:4000 odds for snusers.
And I suspect there are other considerations - try with all your might, but some factors cannot always be perfectly removed from such studies (so that everything is equal between two groups minus one specific variable). Sometimes that variable also means the one group is also more prone to do X, Y, and/or Z simply because of their likelihood to use said Variable (Snus, in this case). It's a difficult system to accurately conduct such types of medical research case studies. Bad self-reporting, for one - and possibly not thinking of including one question that could produce a tell-tale secondary difference between the two groups. One works out more often than the other? Is more likely to use these supplements? Etc.

But still, it also makes sense. You're introduce straight tobacco (juice, at least) into the digestive system - and tobacco, or at least nicotine, has in at least one or two studies been identified as a pro-tumor agent (meaning, it makes it more likely for certain types of cells to not correctly engage in apoptosis (cell death) when they otherwise should. In contrast, marijuana has been identified to be an anti-tumor agent, promoting cell death in cell groups that suddenly stopped following the rules. Neither is 100% perfect in its role, and marijuana specifically will not show that role for all types of tumors, but for certain organs it favorably assists... not sure of nicotine/tobacco's specificity/selection. It's definitely not a carcinogen in of itself, but when coupled with freak cells/bad luck, or with actual carcinogens, tobacco makes the environment more favorable for tumors. Introduce such a thing directly into the digestive system, and it makes sense that it might not be the most beneficial thing one could do. That said, that's not really bad odds at all for pancreatic cancer. Though, it is definitely not a cancer one would wish to have... those patients have among the worst prognosis for cancers.

Might not even have anything to do with swallowing of tobacco juice itself, and rather, simply the presence of nicotine in the body.

According to wiki, cigarette smoking is reported as the cause of 25-30% of pancreatic cancers.


Being that head and neck cancers from oral snuff (American) definitely seems to have a statistically significant higher prevalence compared to the standard population, I'd wager the specific differences between Swedish Snus and American Snuff is ultimately what drives the cancer risk up.

There's still the tooth and gum health issues to stay on top of, but that can be controlled even with use.

It's enough to make me realize I don't want to use the stuff my whole life, and I'd rather quit sooner rather than later. I just want to get other aspects of my life in order and stabilized first, before I deal with any consequences of quitting and cutting back anything. Caffeine intake needs to come down too; Frankly, my heart must be made of the strongest shit in the world considering what I must put the damn thing through. Even high caffeine, some ephedrine, high physical exercise and summer heat/humidity in Georgia couldn't send me into cardiac arrest (stupid of me when I think of it now)... some kind of prize-winning heart I have.

[BUTCH1]

Originally Posted by gorcorps

If you don't understand then you need to google "at will employment". Many (I want to say most) states are "at will" employment states, meaning the employer or employee may terminate at any time for any reason... AS LONG AS it's not a "protected" reason (ie, can't fire folks for being old, gender, disabled, gay, and others). Tobacco use is not a protected class so they can fire you for that reason and it's legal.

I live in an "at will " employment state, they can fire me because the sky is blue or fire me for testing positive for nicotine but either way they will foot some of the unemployment bill when I file, If I don't smoke on their property but at home only and I was already smoking before they started testing I will win the unemployment battle easily, I didn't engage in anything illegal or smoke on their property..

[OverVolt]

Originally Posted by SlitheryDee

We all end up paying for what others are doing. You can't live in a bubble, completely free from the influence of anyone outside of it. We maintain freedom mostly by putting up with the little shit we all do that annoys other people. When we become the type of finicky, bitchy, busybody people that feel like they need to take legal and/or administrative action against everything that bothers us even a little bit, we start stepping on each other's freedoms.

I quit smoking something like 4 years ago, but I have never been bothered one bit by other people's smoking. I can take a bit of unpleasantness entering my life when someone who just smoked a cigarette walks by and I smell it. I can take standing in a room where people are smoking right there in front of me. I don't find it pleasant, but it also doesn't cross the threshold of irritability such that I feel the need to insert myself actively into their lives by doing anything to stop them, either in the moment or later in a voting booth. What kind of shifty, hand-wringing, worrisome gnat of a person would do that is the question I ask.

You can't allow even a little bit of unpleasantness into your life so that other people can do what they want to do? Everything has to be perfect for you, and damn everyone else, who are likely putting up with a lot of shit from your neurotic ass already? Do them the same solid they're probably already doing you.

I agree btw.

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

Sounds fair enough. Next best thing to being outright outlawed.
Where one could catch fines & such over smoking tobacco, they would be able to pay their way out of it, given they have the money.
With this in place, they wouldn't have that money. Good deal.
Also a drag on insurance. Oh yes, let's smoke for years, knowing the health risks. Then immediately regret it soon as health complications arise, then still don't quit.
Also, it can mutate our DNA, then offspring are more fucked up future generations.

I have been smoke free for over 4 years now.

[tommo123]

wow, give it a few more years and the US will be like Japan and asking employees to take photos of their meal, send it in to be "approved"!

fucking retarded.

[dabuddha]

BTW how do you pronounce snus?

Cause I keep thinking of

[Broheim]

I get all the smoke breaks I want at work and I'm actually more productive because of it, I've had many epiphanies up on the roof. They pay me to do my job and as long as it gets done they don't give a flying fuck how I spend my time doing it.

and the healthcare cost argument doesn't work here in Denmark, the government earn more from tobacco taxes than they spend on treatment of tobacco related illnesses. actually all the non-smokers are the ones leaching off of my cigarette money

[lxskllr]

Originally Posted by dabuddha

BTW how do you pronounce snus?

snüs

[shocksyde]

Originally Posted by lxskllr

No, and neither does smokeless tobacco, not that that's any concern of an employer anyway. You're there to do a job, and your private life is private.

You HAVE to be joking. Ever hear of mouth/throat cancer?

[mikeymikec]

Originally Posted by dabuddha

BTW how do you pronounce snus?

Cause I keep thinking of

Best episode of Futurama, ever.

[PhoKingGuy]

I wonder if any of you actually know what pancreatic cancer is.....

[CountZero]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

By the same token, I don't think a private company should be forced to hire smokers either.

It shouldn't be their business if you smoke while not at work.

Essentially any legal activity you partake in outside of work hours and off of company property should not be a part of any employment consideration. There are some exceptions but those are few and far between and smoking isn't one of them.

This isn't forcing a company to hire smokers it is forcing a company to not take smoking into consideration one way or the other.

As to the health care cost reasoning there are many high risk behaviors individuals take part in that will inevitably cost insurance companies more money. All this really does is highlight yet another reason why tying health insurance to employment is a bad idea.