Will PROHIBITION Of Cigarettes Work??

[Mr. Shaman]

If something is deemed dangerous or bad then ban it.

....And, who's gonna decide what's dangerous or bad????

 

[Mr. Shaman]

the LAST thing I woud want is for liberals to find religion. Just one more thing for them to twist and tork.

I'd say Religion has pretty-much managed that, on it's own.

BTW.....that's t-o-r-q-u-e......and, c-o-r-r-u-p-t.

 

[Pandora]

you must live in a cave then.

no, i live in a town infested with liberals and none of them have any spiritual life, except for a few wiccans.

I know lots of dems though and some have faith a few even go to church. Oregon is the least religous state I am told. Its easy to see that. I know we have the least ammount of churches than any other state

 

[Pandora]

....And, who's gonna decide what's dangerous or bad????

well the liberals in controll of course

BigFood
BigOil
BigTabacco
BigCoorp. Walmart exc....

we can just add

BigChurch and tax the wholy hell out of them.. that will show those right wingers

 

[foggedinn]

Imagine that; in the past 40 years tens of millions of Americans have voluntarily quit smoking a legal, yet highly addictive intoxicant. Millions of others have refused to initiate the habit. And they’ve all made this decision without ever once being threatened with criminal prosecution and arrest, imprisonment, probation, and drug testing."

People not being threatened with drug testing over cigarettes isn't exactly accurate. There are workplace prohibitions against employees smoking cigarettes either on or off the job. The companies that do this do it to reduce insurance costs. When new employees are hired, it's made clear that it is a condition of their employment that they not smoke on or off the job. Violators can be and have been fired.

 

[Pandora]

Imagine that; in the past 40 years tens of millions of Americans have voluntarily quit smoking a legal, yet highly addictive intoxicant. Millions of others have refused to initiate the habit. And they’ve all made this decision without ever once being threatened with criminal prosecution and arrest, imprisonment, probation, and drug testing."

People not being threatened with drug testing over cigarettes isn't exactly accurate. There are workplace prohibitions against employees smoking cigarettes either on or off the job. The companies that do this do it to reduce insurance costs. When new employees are hired, it's made clear that it is a condition of their employment that they not smoke on or off the job. Violators can be and have been fired.

I think its fair to tell "new" employees we dont want smokers. If you dont like that rule then dont apply here. as long as they dont say that to existing employees. well even them its ok to say you cant smoke on the job but they should not be able to say that about off the job.

funny though the ACLU would be all over this just like flys on dog crap if the employer said to reduce insurance costs you could not smoke pot even with your medical mary jane card. and if the employer said "to reduce insurance costs" we wont hire homosexuals because they are more prone to contracting HIV.