fired for smoking off the job,man sues

Comment #11

guesser — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:19:11 GMT

If I sat in an office, do I want the person next to me to be smoking ? NO. But by the same token, if I want to go out to dinner or to a bar, or a KENO PARLOR, I know there are places people smoke, and if I don't like it, guess what ? I don't go there. Far be it for me to tell a business owner how to pick his customers, if he wants my business, he won't allow smoking, if he wants the business of smokers, more power to him, he has a choice, and so do I, and I have NO problem wi... [ More ]

Comment #10

Rick G — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:27:55 GMT

This is a major reason why our children are P.O.'ed at us. We were supposed to be the example. They'll take a choking, dying smoker any day over a lying government employee or holier-than-thou hypocrite. The smoker is willing to admit he was stupid. The others aren't.

Comment #9

konane — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:34:59 GMT

Congrats Mike!!! WTG, may you never start again because they believe there's a correlation between parents smoking and asthma/allergy development in children. Neal Boortz says he's a pretty severe asthmatic and attributes it to his parents' heavy smoking when he was growing up.

Comment #8

LOTTOMIKE — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:52:03 GMT

i quit in christmas of 2000 so its been almost six years since i stopped.cold turkey.i smoked three packs of marlboro red a day then went to lights right before i quit.

Comment #7

justxploring — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:25:07 GMT

I just got home and I need to leave at 5AM to get to a meeting in Tampa Saturday. Otherwise I was going to write about the new mandatory drug testing in the Naples schools. I am really against it and think it violates the rights of students. What do you think? It's a Federally financed program that is supposed to make students think twice before taking illegal drugs. This is from the Naples Daily News on Nov 28. **The Collier County School District will receive $209,662 for a dr... [ More ]

Comment #6

konane — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:09:59 GMT

Jim, you're correct that's what I had reference to that actuarial figures show smokers have higher long term claims than non-smokers so drive everyone's premiums up. As a non-smoker I don't want my potential premium assessed higher for smokers in my group. BTW, I'm a reformed smoker as of 22 years so know both sides of the argument.

Comment #5

JAP69 — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:06:48 GMT

Insurance companies should have clauses where they only will insure people who have passed a physical 100% . When the federal gov't makes it a crime to smoke tobacco is when all hell breaks loose. If I were the cigarette companies I would pull all tobacco products of the market for 30 days. See what happens then.

Comment #4

Rick G — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:38:02 GMT

Going back to the original question, where does an employer draw the line on off-duty behavior? An employee speeding to work because he's running late after drinking a fifth of gin last night and having unprotected sex with a prostitute is more damaging to to the insurance liabilities of the "group" than the smoker. This behavior is not censored by an employer, nor is the weekend bungee-jumper. No wonder our work is being outsourced by employers...Political Correctne... [ More ]

Comment #3

jim695 — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:33:06 GMT

I'm a smoker myself, but I'm conscientious about lighting up around non-smokers, even at the poker table. For some reason, it seems that any cigarette in the ashtray will always waft its noxious fumes toward the nearest non-smoker. Putting myself in his place, I don't think I'd like it, either, so I'll take a break and go outside. Sadly, most players stand on the imaginary "Smokers' Rights" principle and say, "If you don't like it, find another table!" I've looked, and I can fi... [ More ]

Comment #2

justxploring — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:54:55 GMT

On the other hand, regarding premiums "infringing" on the rights of smokers, I have a problem with that term. I want to make it clear that I am not arguing or criticizing Konane's comment. We all have our opinions. I just don't agree the insurance companies are infringing at all on their rights. Before I go on, I want to admit this subject is one of the few on which I'm inflexible and find no room for compromise, so I might have difficulty staying brief. I just deleted a few paragraphs an... [ More ]

Comment #1

konane — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:34:21 GMT

If the employer is paying for health insurance for its employees, premiums are higher for smokers thereby making premiums higher for everyone. This one is going to be fought in the courts but believe employers will prevail over time due to higher premiums infringing on the rights of non-smokers.

Original Blog Entry: fired for smoking off the job,man sues

LOTTOMIKE — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:09:33 GMT