Anyone still smoke?

[ThinClient]

No exaggerations. Smokers are assholes, that's why they smoke. To be assholes. To everybody around them. "Hey, I'm in a crowd, looks like it's time to light up!" Total assholes.

You're a fool.

 

[IronWing]

You're a fool.

No, just someone who lives in the real world where smokers really act the way they really act, not the way they claim they act on internet forums. Smokers are assholes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

No exaggerations. Smokers are assholes, that's why they smoke. To be assholes. To everybody around them. "Hey, I'm in a crowd, looks like it's time to light up!" Total assholes.

I think you're on to something. I haven't smoked in years, but I am still a enormous cockbag to damn near everyone on and off the intrawebs.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, just someone who lives in the real world where smokers really act the way they really act, not the way they claim they act on internet forums. Smokers are assholes.

I think you need to relax and have a smoke or something.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The argument that cars and garbage are just as bad isn't valid. Cars and garbage certainly aren't necessary in any existential sense, so don't even bother trying that angle, but they're necessary for modern life. Cigarettes aren't necessary for anything. They quite literally have no functional purpose, which is why they're shit-like stink can't be categorized with other stuff that creates stink while also having purpose.

FWIW, I would vote for a law that outlawed perfume and cologne just as I would cigarette smoke.

It's not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask you a question on a job application. You don't have to answer it and they don't have to hire you. I don't hire smokers and there are many perfectly valid reasons for that. I also don't hire other groups of people for which I, too, have perfectly valid reasons. Don't get addicted to stupid shit if you don't want to face these kinds of issues or simply learn to accept that you made a choice and there are consequences. Yes, there are consequences to many other types of self-indulgent behavior that are trivialized more than smoking, but that doesn't mean smoking should be ignored. If anything, it means we should probably cast a broader net.

 

[Phoenix86]

Yes, we can't hire smokers because of the health risks associated. I'm not in HR but something about the employment safety act I think.

What does that have to do with past smoking?

 

[ThinClient]

No, just someone who lives in the real world where smokers really act the way they really act, not the way they claim they act on internet forums. Smokers are assholes.

Your anger is fueling your perception problem.

 

[Markbnj]

The argument that cars and garbage are just as bad isn't valid. Cars and garbage certainly aren't necessary in any existential sense, so don't even bother trying that angle, but they're necessary for modern life. Cigarettes aren't necessary for anything. They quite literally have no functional purpose, which is why they're shit-like stink can't be categorized with other stuff that creates stink while also having purpose.

FWIW, I would vote for a law that outlawed perfume and cologne just as I would cigarette smoke.

It's not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask you a question on a job application. You don't have to answer it and they don't have to hire you. I don't hire smokers and there are many perfectly valid reasons for that. I also don't hire other groups of people for which I, too, have perfectly valid reasons. Don't get addicted to stupid shit if you don't want to face these kinds of issues or simply learn to accept that you made a choice and there are consequences. Yes, there are consequences to many other types of self-indulgent behavior that are trivialized more than smoking, but that doesn't mean smoking should be ignored. If anything, it means we should probably cast a broader net.

Around here I would be in a constant state of agitation if any of the following bothered me: wood smoke; horse shit; two-stroke exhaust from leaf blowers; perfume; cologne; spandex-clad bicyclists riding down the middle of a 45 MPH road at 15 MPH; barking ankle-biters; etc.

But I don't tolerate all those things because I'm tolerant. I tolerate all those things because they are absolutely necessary for life, so what can I do?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The argument that cars and garbage are just as bad isn't valid. Cars and garbage certainly aren't necessary in any existential sense, so don't even bother trying that angle, but they're necessary for modern life. Cigarettes aren't necessary for anything. They quite literally have no functional purpose, which is why they're shit-like stink can't be categorized with other stuff that creates stink while also having purpose.

FWIW, I would vote for a law that outlawed perfume and cologne just as I would cigarette smoke.

It's not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask you a question on a job application. You don't have to answer it and they don't have to hire you. I don't hire smokers and there are many perfectly valid reasons for that. I also don't hire other groups of people for which I, too, have perfectly valid reasons. Don't get addicted to stupid shit if you don't want to face these kinds of issues or simply learn to accept that you made a choice and there are consequences. Yes, there are consequences to many other types of self-indulgent behavior that are trivialized more than smoking, but that doesn't mean smoking should be ignored. If anything, it means we should probably cast a broader net.

How are cars needed for modern life? They are certainly convenient, I agree with that. Actually, let's take a step closer to the issue. How are cars/trucks over x horsepower and pollute more needed for modern life? What's worse, a smoker who drives a Chevy Volt (101mpg/93mpg equivalent) or a non-smoker who drives a Dodge Ram 3500 (16mpg) because he likes it? How far do we want to go with deciding what people can do that is good or bad based on their purpose in society? Is there any needed purpose for bbq food? Should that be outlawed? I bet using half a bag of charcoal puts out more smoke, pollution, and carcinogens than numerous packs of cigarettes. How broad of a net should we cast to save people from every possible boogeyman out there? I say if the information is unveiled and easily accessible, yet people want to do something that is not a healthy choice, that's their own personal choice and liberty to do so.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Around here I would be in a constant state of agitation if any of the following bothered me: wood smoke; horse shit; two-stroke exhaust from leaf blowers; perfume; cologne; spandex-clad bicyclists riding down the middle of a 45 MPH road at 15 MPH; barking ankle-biters; etc.

But I don't tolerate all those things because I'm tolerant. I tolerate all those things because they are absolutely necessary for life, so what can I do?

I'm not disagreeing with you that most of those things are annoying. We're talking about smoking and nothing else. That was my entire point. You don't have to answer my question and I don't have to hire you. Just because there are other annoying things doesn't mean smoking gets a pass. I can and often am just as discriminating against other socially unacceptable and/or offensive behaviors such as extremely strong perfume. I've passed on good candidates for weirder things than smoking, but, as I said, that doesn't mean I all of a sudden shouldn't pass on them because of smoking. It's one of many to me and obviously others feel the same way because they specifically ask.

 

[MrDudeMan]

How are cars needed for modern life? They are certainly convenient, I agree with that. Actually, let's take a step closer to the issue. How are cars/trucks over x horsepower and pollute more needed for modern life?

I specifically said I wasn't going to engage in a discussion about the need for cars. If you seriously think modern civilization would work without gasoline powered vehicles, you're... <insult removed, but please continue to feel insulted because you deserve it if you think this>. This is the epitome of a fallacious argument and there is literally no common ground between the need for transportation and the want for a non-functional addiction unless you want to have an argument about the purpose of human civilization, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

What's worse, a smoker who drives a Chevy Volt (101mpg/93mpg equivalent) or a non-smoker who drives a Dodge Ram 3500 (16mpg) because he likes it?

The smoker is a problem either way, but I can't comment on his choice of vehicle because maybe he needs the truck for work. You specified no context in your incredibly poorly conceived attempt to counter my opinion. If he drives a Ram 3500 go pick up his cigarettes from CVS, he's an idiot anyway who also happens to smoke.

How far do we want to go with deciding what people can do that is good or bad based on their purpose in society?

You're on a roll with missing the point in parallel with constructing terrible arguments. I never said I care what you do with your life or whether or not I think I should be able to impose my worldview on you. Smoke 45 packs a day for all I care. I'm allowed to ask if you do that and subsequently justified in moving to another candidate based solely on that criteria. I literally stated exactly the opposite position of the point you're trying to make: realize you're making a choice and it has consequences. I never said you shouldn't have the choice.

Is there any needed purpose for bbq food? Should that be outlawed? I bet using half a bag of charcoal puts out more smoke, pollution, and carcinogens than numerous packs of cigarettes. How broad of a net should we cast to save people from every possible boogeyman out there? I say if the information is unveiled and easily accessible, yet people want to do something that is not a healthy choice, that's their own personal choice and liberty to do so.

Even if you had a good point, which you don't because eating and cooking are necessary unlike smoking which is completely unnecessary, the act of smoking still has nothing in common with the things you listed. I don't want to save people from every possible boogeyman. I actually want to let people do whatever the fuck they want, but also have the ability to cut them off from things like insurance unless they pay much higher premiums. Make your own choices and accept the consequences. You're free to engage in whatever legally allowable risky behavior you so choose and you're also free to move if enough people agree (via vote or some other maintained governance) to disallow said behavior.

 

[Markbnj]

You don't have to answer my question and I don't have to hire you.

You're right, I don't have to answer your question, and you don't have to hire me. That's the beauty of free enterprise. You also can't stop me from making sure everyone knows that your company policies are set by intrusive douchebags. That's the beauty of free speech. But hey, if you like trolling for intolerant assholes and people who have no other choice, I guess those are good hiring policies. Who knows? Maybe an entire corporation staffed by intolerant assholes would do really well.

 

[ThinClient]

You're right, I don't have to answer your question, and you don't have to hire me. That's the beauty of free enterprise. You also can't stop me from making sure everyone knows that your company policies are set by intrusive douchebags. That's the beauty of free speech. But hey, if you like trolling for intolerant assholes and people who have no other choice, I guess those are good hiring policies. Who knows? Maybe an entire corporation staffed by intolerant assholes would do really well.

:awe:

 

[SlowSpyder]

I specifically said I wasn't going to engage in a discussion about the need for cars. If you seriously think modern civilization would work without gasoline powered vehicles, you're... <insult removed, but please continue to feel insulted because you deserve it if you think this>. This is the epitome of a fallacious argument and there is literally no common ground between the need for transportation and the want for a non-functional addiction unless you want to have an argument about the purpose of human civilization, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The smoker is a problem either way, but I can't comment on his choice of vehicle because maybe he needs the truck for work. You specified no context in your incredibly poorly conceived attempt to counter my opinion. If he drives a Ram 3500 go pick up his cigarettes from CVS, he's an idiot anyway who also happens to smoke.

You're on a roll with missing the point in parallel with constructing terrible arguments. I never said I care what you do with your life or whether or not I think I should be able to impose my worldview on you. Smoke 45 packs a day for all I care. I'm allowed to ask if you do that and subsequently justified in moving to another candidate based solely on that criteria. I literally stated exactly the opposite position of the point you're trying to make: realize you're making a choice and it has consequences. I never said you shouldn't have the choice.

Even if you had a good point, which you don't because eating and cooking are necessary unlike smoking which is completely unnecessary, the act of smoking still has nothing in common with the things you listed. I don't want to save people from every possible boogeyman. I actually want to let people do whatever the fuck they want, but also have the ability to cut them off from things like insurance unless they pay much higher premiums. Make your own choices and accept the consequences. You're free to engage in whatever legally allowable risky behavior you so choose and you're also free to move if enough people agree (via vote or some other maintained governance) to disallow said behavior.

The point I am making is that the argument about cars IS valid. A high horsepower car provides nothing of benefit to society or modern life vs. a much more environmentally friendly vehicle. I never said we have no need for gasoline powered vehicles. Do you get that? Modern self powered vehicles help modern society function, there is a practical purpose. But that doesn't mean they are 'needed' vs. other options. It doesn't mean that there aren't parallels between something like smoking that provides little benefit (other than economical) vs. a high horsepower vehicle that someone bought just because they like it (as I pointed out). BBQ food is the same thing. I didn't say that we don't need to eat. I asked what value does BBQ specifically provide? BBQ being a method of cooking that produces lots of harmful smoke and pollutants. Or do we need to cast a broader net and save ourselves from every possible harmful choice? If not, I say live and let live.

You have every right to not hire someone based on whatever criteria you feel if the company is your own. You may be missing out on good talent for silly reasons, but that is your right and you should do whatever works best for you. If passing on smokers, people with tattoos, left handed people, etc. works for you, more power to you.

 

[ThinClient]

With advances in electric vehicles, there's no reason the vast majority of vehicle owners in this country would need a gasoline powered vehicle.

 

[MrDudeMan]

You're right, I don't have to answer your question, and you don't have to hire me. That's the beauty of free enterprise. You also can't stop me from making sure everyone knows that your company policies are set by intrusive douchebags. That's the beauty of free speech. But hey, if you like trolling for intolerant assholes and people who have no other choice, I guess those are good hiring policies. Who knows? Maybe an entire corporation staffed by intolerant assholes would do really well.

I'm not sure if I was supposed to feel burned by this, but I definitely don't. I've had zero problems finding candidates even with my apparently draconian hiring practices. BTW, every company I've ever worked or interviewed at asked me about smoking/tobacco/various other things. That's not a huge sampling, but it's at least 25 and I'm completely positive I was asked on an application or verbally every single time.

You're free to yell from the rooftops that I won't hire people who smoke. I'm not imposing on anyone's ability to do as they please and most people agree with this opinion as evidenced by 80% of the population not engaging in said behavior. My pool of viable candidates is still extremely large and you're yelling won't do a single thing to influence that. If you started saying I won't hire minorities, women, men named Bob, or anything else that actually is a problem, then I would expect a righteously angry mob in one form or another. No one cares if smokers are discriminated against partially because it smells bad and partially because it's 100% opt-in. I would never turn someone away due to something out of their control if they could do the job.

I think you feel slighted by this opinion because you choose to smoke, which isn't my intention. There's some strong language being tossed around simply because this is the internet, but the real point is what we're both stating repeatedly. However, you seem to be missing the salient point: one of your choices is something most people find annoying enough to take action against. That's fine, you can still choose to participate in that behavior, but don't be surprised when doors close because of it. If it became very unpopular to wear red - the reason why is immaterial - I would expect a similar response from people who like to wear that color. That's actually a generous analogy because there's no proven health risk to wearing the color red, but the point is still the same.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The point I am making is that the argument about cars IS valid. A high horsepower car provides nothing of benefit to society or modern life vs. a much more environmentally friendly vehicle. I never said we have no need for gasoline powered vehicles. Do you get that? Modern self powered vehicles help modern society function, there is a practical purpose. But that doesn't mean they are 'needed' vs. other options. It doesn't mean that there aren't parallels between something like smoking that provides little benefit (other than economical) vs. a high horsepower vehicle that someone bought just because they like it (as I pointed out). BBQ food is the same thing. I didn't say that we don't need to eat. I asked what value does BBQ specifically provide? BBQ being a method of cooking that produces lots of harmful smoke and pollutants. Or do we need to cast a broader net and save ourselves from every possible harmful choice? If not, I say live and let live.

You have every right to not hire someone based on whatever criteria you feel if the company is your own. You may be missing out on good talent for silly reasons, but that is your right and you should do whatever works best for you. If passing on smokers, people with tattoos, left handed people, etc. works for you, more power to you.

You're trying to debate the implementation of the car. The car is necessary and all of them pollute, so yes it is wholly and completely unrelated to smoking in this regard and many others. Please continue to ignore the several points I made suggesting this line of thought as evidenced by your last two sentences that are literally in agreement with half of my post. I also literally stated your opinion about certain types of cars being worse than others, but maybe it needs to be more on the nose for you to understand.

Edit:

It's worth pointing out your inability to grasp the overarching concept here because you lumped left handed people. Smokers and people with tattoos opted-in to their 'conditions' whereas a left-handed person did not. I won't hire a person who smokes and I won't hire a person with visible tattoos. I have nothing against tattoos, but it's unprofessional to look at it if you can see it in business clothing. If you want to have a cigarette tattooed on your nutsack while you snort cocaine, go for it. You just can't work for me or most other white-collar establishments. I don't think it makes you a worse person to smoke, which is what you seem to think, but it does impact the perception people have of you and also me if I employ you. If you really think there's not a social stigma against these things, you need to open your eyes. I wouldn't hire a smoker because I don't want to smell it, but that's not the primary reason I don't hire them.

 

[MrDudeMan]

With advances in electric vehicles, there's no reason the vast majority of vehicle owners in this country would need a gasoline powered vehicle.

Completely irrelevant. Any kind of vehicle produces byproducts regardless of when it happens with respect to operation of the vehicle. Cars have no relation to smoking simply because they both have chemical byproducts. One is necessary and the other is completely unnecessary. That's as far as the analogy needs to go to disassociate smoking from cars.

 

[ThinClient]

Completely irrelevant. Any kind of vehicle produces byproducts regardless of when it happens with respect to operation of the vehicle. Cars have no relation to smoking simply because they both have chemical byproducts. One is necessary and the other is completely unnecessary. That's as far as the analogy needs to go to disassociate smoking from cars.

This conversation is about fumes and vapor. Go have your irrelevant conversation about other issues elsewhere.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have pure H2O byproducts. Suck it.

 

[brandonb]

I'm not sure if I was supposed to feel burned by this, but I definitely don't. I've had zero problems finding candidates even with my apparently draconian hiring practices. BTW, every company I've ever worked or interviewed at asked me about smoking/tobacco/various other things. That's not a huge sampling, but it's at least 25 and I'm completely positive I was asked on an application or verbally every single time.

At least 25 times you've interviewed/filled out an application that asked if you smoked tobacco? You must have trouble keeping a steady job. I feel bad for you.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Ah, excellent. That response answers far more than the questions I asked.

This. Mark just saved the HR department the hassle of discovering he's an insufferable toolbag after hiring him.

Well done, Mark :thumbsup:

 

[MrDudeMan]

At least 25 times you've interviewed/filled out an application that asked if you smoked tobacco? You must have trouble keeping a steady job. I feel bad for you.

I filled out applications for 11 big companies right out of college to maximize my potential of receiving multiple offers. That's hardly uncommon and, by the way, it worked out quite well to have done that. I had multiple jobs in high school and college as well as a few internships, all of which also inquired about smoking and tobacco as I said. You're confusing applications with job hopping. I've had one job since I graduated from college and I left on my own free will to start my own company. Nice try, though. This has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[MrDudeMan]

This conversation is about fumes and vapor. Go have your irrelevant conversation about other issues elsewhere.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have pure H2O byproducts. Suck it.

Are you in the wrong thread? You must be because the title of this one is "Anyone still smoke?" with an OP specifically discussing smoking. I'm pretty sure it's all about smoking other than your attempt to derail it. Just because other things create fumes and vapor doesn't mean smoking doesn't do the same thing. That's the fallacy of your argument.

Also, it's hilarious that you think your last comment is somehow in opposition to what I'm saying. Great - less fumes and byproducts and if we can get rid of smokers then we'll be even more well off. It takes energy to create the technology to create hydrogen fuel cells... see, I can make specious arguments, too!

 

[SlowSpyder]

You're trying to debate the implementation of the car. The car is necessary and all of them pollute, so yes it is wholly and completely unrelated to smoking in this regard and many others. Please continue to ignore the several points I made suggesting this line of thought as evidenced by your last two sentences that are literally in agreement with half of my post. I also literally stated your opinion about certain types of cars being worse than others, but maybe it needs to be more on the nose for you to understand.

But what you don't seem to get is that I was never really at odds with your opinion for the most part. But, you said comparing smoking to cars isn't valid, missed the point that was being made, and have been firing stupidity from the hip ever since.

Point being, that it seems only smokers (and the obese) are held to such standards, but people make unhealthy choices that are often not the most 'green' all the time. Choices that can and do have some negative effect on those around that person. Should we look down on people who BBQ? Should we look down on someone who owns a car that gets less than 40 mpg? Should we look down on those who would eat an unhealthy lunch at McD's?

 

[MrDudeMan]

This. Mark just saved the HR department the hassle of discovering he's an insufferable toolbag after hiring him.

Well done, Mark :thumbsup:

To be fair, Mark is smart and probably quite good at his job, so I understand why he takes exception to this. I suppose I need to clarify my position on hiring practices: I don't care what you do if I don't have to put you on my insurance plan and you don't have to meet my clients. If I can hire you to work from somewhere else and you produce results, then smoke like a chimney while you're sending my emails for all I care. I very rarely hire someone in this capacity, though, so that's why I stated it as an absolute.