# National news, Scotts Co., Smoke and you ARE fired



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

Do not know where the post is, this is a test before I write it again.

It was on the National News that Scotts (Miracle Grow) will fire any employee who smokes.

Not at work, but who smokes period. They will have to submit to nicotine tests and if they fail, they are fired. If they refuse the test, they are fired. :new_shocked: :new_shocked:

I agree that non smokers have rights, but what right does any company, or the government have to tell me I can not smoke out on my own 5 acres???? Or in my own house????????

I do smoke, but I am not a rude smoker. I even asks guest in my own house if they mind. We smoke in on small area of our home, or outside.

Some of these people have worked for Scotts for years. Scotts will provide them with any tool, or aid free of charge to help them quit. Other companies are already doing the same. Ok, can not smoke in THEIR building, that is their right. Where are ours???????

Their reasoning, smokers use more health care dollars. I will agree with that as well. But, I PAY more for my health care. So, who is next? Over weight people? They too use more health care dollars. Drinkers, they as well use more health care dollars and the list could go on and on.

One company as well does not allow workers in who SMELL like smoke. So, if your spouse smokes, or the person you car pool with smokes, tell them they have to quite!!!!!!!!!!! Good luck with that.

Where does it end? Do you drink on Saturdays? Be careful, you may be next!


----------



## ChrystalPaths (Jan 12, 2006)

Shades of "big brother" and "1984"! :new_shocked: This is way above and beyond..hopefully someone there will contest this. One's constitutional rights are being threatened here!


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

Other companies are ALREADY DOING THIS!

This is legal to do in 21 states!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## NMMack (Jan 12, 2006)

That is just plain Wrong! On SO Many Levels!




:

Nancy


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

Here is a quote from a Newspaper in Columbus.

"Your smokes or your job"

In less than a year, Scotts Miracle-Gro plans to start firing employees who light up â€” even at home

Friday, December 09, 2005

Monique Curet and Ken Stammen

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

"Beginning in October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.

Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs.

Many other companies also are focusing on smokers, whether by raising their healthinsurance premiums or not hiring them.

Scotts took dramatic action because it wants to hold down health-insurance costs by "helping people live healthy lifestyles," said James Hagedorn, chairman and chief executive.

With operations across the country, Scotts can fire smokers legally in 21 states, including Ohio, company officials said.

Scotts appears to be one of only a few companies that will fire employees if they light up.

The Society for Human Resource Management found in a 2004 survey that 4.4 percent of those polled preferred to not hire smokers. Less than 1 percent of the 270 professionals surveyed said their companies have a formal policy against hiring smokers.

Weyco Inc., a Michigan company, began firing smokers earlier this year and received widespread attention.

Scotts has given employees a year â€” and free counseling, nicotine patches and cessation classes â€” to quit smoking. The company has not determined how it will verify compliance with the new policy, said Jim King, a spokesman. "


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

Sorry but not much, if any, sympathy for smokers here. The threat of being fired might be the impetus for some to quit the disgusting habit. No one has to smoke and no matter how polite a smoker is the smell on them can still make others wretch like too much perfume and many are allergic to smoke and the odor of it. Commercial buildings in WA have just mandated via the health department that no one can smoke within 30' of the entrance of the building and if they allow it will be heavily fined. As far as I know you will not be hired at Microsoft, they test, and can be fired if you lie to them and smoke at home.

I find it totally disqusting to be on the way to work and some jerkwad is smoking his head off in the car ahead of me and the stench is coming in through my vents so I'm forced to smell it at a stop.

Smoking is one of the most stupid, selfish, disgusting, vile things any human being can do and more power to anything that makes it harder to do!


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

Sorry but not much, if any, sympathy for smokers here. The threat of being fired might be the impetus for some to quit the disgusting habit. No one has to smoke and no matter how polite a smoker is the smell on them can still make others wretch like too much perfume and many are allergic to smoke and the odor of it. Commercial buildings in WA have just mandated via the health department that no one can smoke within 30' of the entrance of the building and if they allow it will be heavily fined. As far as I know you will not be hired at Microsoft, they test, and can be fired if you lie to them and smoke at home.

I find it totally disqusting to be on the way to work and some jerkwad is smoking his head off in the car ahead of me and the stench is coming in through my vents so I'm forced to smell it at a stop.

Smoking is one of the most stupid, selfish, disgusting, vile things any human being can do and more power to anything that makes it harder to do!


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> I find it totally disqusting to be on the way to work and some jerkwad is smoking his head off in the car ahead of me and the stench is coming in through my vents so I'm forced to smell it at a stop.


And being behind a bus or big truck putting off fumes, makes my stomach sick, but they still are allowed to drive that truck legally and it is about 100 parts per million stronger.

If you do not like my habit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DO NOT COME TO MY HOUSE WHERE I LIVE PERSONALLY!!!!!!

As if whatever your habit is that I soooooooooo hate; tobacco chew, spitting, swearing, what ever it may be, I would make a choice NOT to come to your house.



> Smoking is one of the most stupid, selfish, disgusting, vile things any human being can do and more power to anything that makes it harder to do!


Your opinion. For me, it is chewing and then spitting it on my shoes. My other is, people who have sex with different partners week end and week out.

But no matter how much YOU hate my habit, it does not give YOU the right to tell me I can NOT smoke at MY house.


----------



## Cathy_H (Jan 12, 2006)

Actually if I were a company & paying any health benefits, insurance or medical for an employee I would want to have the right to not hire or let go anyone who smokes.................. Would like the same for an alcoholic also.................... But then you get into, well this person is obese, that could & will cost the employer, this person has allergies, that could & will cost the employer, this person is on & on & on............................. I think it boils down to decent health care of everyone without it being the burden of a business or employer - it's not the employers fault - but who should help these average Joe Moe's pay for their health problems - the government - many are already complaining that the government is where it should not be & others complain that the government is not doing enough. What is the solution?.


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

Most companies that I know, ours included. The smokers pay much more for health care, so I do believe I am covering a big part of mine.

My point with all of this, if each person here made a list of what bothers them, and somehow we put a stop to ALL of it, then we all might as well stay home because something WE do, bothers someone else.


----------



## lvponies (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree with you Frankie. What I do in the privacy of my home (as long as it's legal) is my business. I don't believe any company should be able to dictate to me or threaten me with the loss of my income for something I am doing legally. I do understand the company's point of view re health care, but as someone else stated, where does it stop? Drinking alcohol is also a voluntary activity that can lead to many health problems. Obsesity can be caused by health problems (thyroid or whatever), but is most often caused by over eating which is also legal.


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

Yeah, what's next? Next thing you know, smoking's going to get people killed...

Seriously, it does shock me that a company could fire someone for doing something that is totally legal for someone to do, and do it on their own vs. company time. However, like I'm implying, getting fired is not the worse thing that smoking can do to a person.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 12, 2006)

Many more have done this because of the rising cost of health insurance. Can you blame them?? No Way... It is there right to protect their interests productivity, and time lost by workers who smoke, It has been Proved that people who smoke get sick and take time off at a higher rate then a non smoker. So it is the companies rights to protect themselves from productivity lost and their interests, which in this case is there workers Health.. And if you smoke Good Bye...No sympathy from me..You want a job? Quit smoking simple as that. And no I am not a smoker, but I do use tobacco (Skoal) And if the company I worked for had a program like this Quit or get fired, Guess what? I would quit chewing tobacco, simple as that.


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

I am not asking anyone to agree with MY habit. Even smokers will tell you it is a nasty habit.

Yes, we do know what CAN happen to us.

This is not a perfect world. Millions of people have millions of non healthy habits that cost our health care system.

This is not about A HABIT, whether smoking, drinking or over eating.

It is about living in America and the last I checked, a country that prides its self on freedom and rights for all.

Last night I had not 1, but 2 twinkies!!!!!! Am I in trouble????? :new_shocked:


----------



## Ashley (Jan 12, 2006)

I have heard this before with a different company. Our company is trying to go tobacco free...........personally I dont care. If they do, its gonna be a lot worse of a work place as some of them need to smoke to keep them decent enough to work with.

I dont care if a person smokes its there right. Granted the smell I cant stand, but when your a ex smoker the smell gets to you more. I dont think its anybodys right to say wether or not somebody can smoke.

And speaking from somebody who started smokeing when she was 12 and just finally quit about 3 or so months ago its not as easy as all you non smokers think it is.

Oh and for our company they do random drug and alchol tests. If you do get tested positive with that then you are in trouble. They cant fire you because its a "disease". But they do send you to classes, and do random drug/alcohol tests for one year. If anytime in that year you fail, then your fired.

I think companys spend more health care money on people with depression then those who smoke. The ones I work with that are the most frequent sick ones are NOT smokers.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

Frankie said:


> > If you do not like my habit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DO NOT COME TO MY HOUSE WHERE I LIVE PERSONALLY!!!!!!As if whatever your habit is that I soooooooooo hate; tobacco chew, spitting, swearing, what ever it may be, I would make a choice NOT to come to your house.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> Many more have done this because of the rising cost of health insurance. Can you blame them?? No Way... It is there right to protect their interests productivity, and time lost by workers who smoke, It has been Proved that people who smoke get sick and take time off at a higher rate then a non smoker. So it is the companies rights to protect themselves from productivity lost and their interests, which in this case is there workers Health.. And if you smoke Good Bye...No sympathy from me..You want a job?


There are a number of things that contribute to the rising health costs.

So by doing this, ALL of those people who are contributing will have to quit doing whatever, or give up a job?

Is anyone over weight???????????? You HAVE to lose 60 pounds or you are fired!!!!!!! Have you seen the number of people out there FIGHTING for the rights of those over weight? That would never ever happen.

But, you can not just single out ONE. So all would HAVE to follow.

By the way, I have smoked for a long time.

I have had only 3 jobs in the past 30 years, been at all my jobs a whole lot of years. In the past 30 years, I have missed 2 days of work due to illness, total.

A friend here has missed 3 days this month alone, due to the on set of diabetes from weight.

I'll go check to see if it is legal to fire her.



:



:


----------



## kaykay (Jan 12, 2006)

for all of you who dont care just keep in mind next will be something you do and dont want your right taken away!! It always starts with something most people argee is bad but then it continues on. I have unfortunately worked with a lot of alcoholics. IMO these people ARE MUCH MORE dangerous then any smoker. And what is the death rate and health bill of an alcoholic?? Then it will be overweight people. And on and on and on.

My husbands former company started doing this right when we left. Not only was he required to stop smoking within one year SO WAS I!!! What right do they have to tell me?? They also started a fitness program. You had to go to THEIR doctor and if he determined you were not physically fit you had to agree to go to a fitness center. If you OR YOUR SPOUSE refused you could be terminated.

People who think this is good better really think about it. Todays its smokers tomarrow who knows?? Maybe they will figure people who own horses are too distracted and should be let go?? Sounds far fetched?? Not really

Kay


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> I do smoke, but I am not a rude smoker. I even asks guest in my own house if they mind. We smoke in on small area of our home, or outside.


The above is in my original post,,,,,,,,,,,,obviously you missed it.



> No problem I wouldn't want to visit anyone with that much disrespect for their guests so don't worry Carolyn. You habit is obviously more important to you than anything else. Hmmm, isn't that a red flag


It amazes me how some people can make comments about other people, THEY DO NOT KNOW, AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

My habit is not important to me, I have quit a number of times, including each time I was pregnant,

what IS important to me, IS MY RIGHTS.


----------



## kaykay (Jan 12, 2006)

also keep in mind parents that work. How many days do they miss and how much does insurance go up paying for babies



The list is endless. No one will complain now but you just wait. Soon it will refusing to hire people will young children etc etc. Then you all will be up in arms but it will be too late because the door will be open


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

I still don't feel a company should do this, but we are talking about something that people do by choice, and something they can choose to stop doing. I'm sure it's very, very hard to quit smoking, but it is possible and is a choice that's available to all smokers. Unlike people with small children, you really can't quit the kids. I would think if I smoked, the threat of loosing my job which is pretty immediate compared to the fact that it kills you eventually, would make me really try hard to quit. The flip side of this controversy is for the employees who do choose to quit, this rule may be one of the best things that ever happened to them.


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> Then you all will be up in arms but it will be too late because the door will be open





> Unlike people with small children, you really can't quit the kids


But you can make a choice of to have them or not.

What if you go to work somewhere and are told, as long as you work here, you can not have children?

My point is how very endless this could end up being. Then no one would be working.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

Frankie said:


> > I do smoke, but I am not a rude smoker. I even asks guest in my own house if they mind. We smoke in on small area of our home, or outside.
> 
> 
> The above is in my original post,,,,,,,,,,,,obviously you missed it.
> ...



No I didn't miss it, What are they supposed to say?

and "



Frankie said:


> > If you do not like my habit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DO NOT COME TO MY HOUSE WHERE I LIVE PERSONALLY!!!!!!"
> > Well that had nothing to do with knowing you or not just a response to this snotty off the wall comment. It wasn't personal until YOU made it so.
> >
> > And as for rights yours end where mine begin, just like the health of your unborn child. Just like mothers are prosecuted for doing crack while pregnant I'd not be against them doing the same to smokers. It is not the innocuous, victimless habit some seem to think.
> > ...


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 12, 2006)

Sounds like the same reasons that so many people don't want to have the NAIS program for animals Hmmmmm. And McDonald's has already stopped the Super Sizing things for health reasons..Many schools are not letting soda pop bought for health reasons, You can't even Buy Chocolate Whole Milk anymore for health reasons, You can't even But Whole Butter Milk anymore the kind that even had butter chunks in it, Why? Because of the concern over health reasons..And I may chew but I do not Spit, so nobody gets any Pollution from me, and on a side note/: I don't have worms either




: So many things in the past years have stopped because of health reasons.. And why do you think R J Reynolds owns about 40% of the OTHER food stuffs in supermarkets? Because smoking and buying tobacco products is on the decline Big Time... And of course what R J Reynolds does not own, the rest is owned by Miller Brewing Company~!


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

As a non smoker and someone who has never smoked, to me the choice of having kids vs. the choice to smoke are so extremely different.

To compare apples to apples, you already smoke, Jane Doe already has kids... Isn't it easier for you to quit smoking than Jane to quit the kids?

Oranges to oranges, you want to start smoking and Jane wants to start having kids... which is the easier thing to deny yourself?


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> Oranges to oranges, you want to start smoking and Jane wants to start having kids... which is the easier thing to deny yourself?


For me, I'd give up smoking before giving up sex. Uhhhhhhh, kids.

I am only saying, BOTH should be my right.

I was hoping this would be a fight fFOR rights, a fight over smoking itself and the health risks, your right to not be around it, might be another thread.


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

As an employer, I'd be more likely to let you take a smoke break than a .... oh never mind :lol:


----------



## kaykay (Jan 12, 2006)

jill i know you think its far fetched but its not. The last job i was hired for i was asked POINT BLANK how old my children were and how many i had. When i replied that my girls had moved out to college and the boys were teenagers the manager gave a huge sigh of relief and said it was a good thing or he couldnt hire me if I had "babies" at home. he laughed about it and told me how he would NEVER hire anyone with kids under 12 as they miss too much work.

Now I know my rights and I know its illegal to even ask someone if they have kids or how many. On the other hand I needed the job so I didnt fight it. So its already going on but pretty soon it will be LEGAL to do it.

Kay


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

Oh I *know* it is not far fetched because when I've hired people for the business I own, I have preferred those without small children. I am sure this is not fair and not legal, but I need employees to be there and work when they are supposed to be there. Luckily, the more mature women w/ grown or nearly grown children have also been the ones that were best for all the legitimate reasons, too.


----------



## kaykay (Jan 12, 2006)

Jill im glad you have the guts to admit you do it and yes it is illegal to ask for age or children etc when applying for a job. For sure you are not alone. So you see employers getting rid of all parents of young children is DEFINATELY within the realm of possiblity. Or maybe you have worked somewhere for 5 years and decide to get pregnant and they decide to fire you for it?? Right now thats illegal but I can see where it wont be for long.

Anytime you willingly give up your right to do whatever on your own personal time be it the government or an employer you are giving up a lot more then just that one right. Because if one is good more is better.

Like I said next time maybe it will be owning horses?? I know a lot of people that miss work due to a mare foaling, sick horse etc.


----------



## Jill (Jan 12, 2006)

Well, as I said right from the start, it shocks me that a company would go to this extreme, however, we are talking about something that is detrimental to a person's health and is in fact deadly. Most of the things we are comparing smoking to are life enhancing vs. damaging.

And, we're talking about employee rights, but remember, business owners (all businesses have owners) also have rights and should be able to do what's best for their business, which in turn, is usually what's best for their own families.


----------



## minimama (Jan 12, 2006)

So, if you are a smoker and you don't like that policy, don't work there. Pretty simple.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 12, 2006)

Wow it's sad to see this turn in to a personal attack.

Frankie I see exactly what you are talking about, this story is all over the news here as Scotts is in Ohio.

It IS a matter of what will they take/change/demand next, this is just a foot in the door, what will be next, diabetes? weight? asthma? children?

And yes, many business DO already base hiring on children, I worked for a corporation for years that if you applied and were pregnant or had anything that clued them in to small children you did not get hired, oh they'd find another reason to tell you that you didn't fit the position, but it was based on children.

I for now am not looking for employment off the farm because I know that it wouldn't be fair to employers if I had to take time off for animals, so for now I scratch what living I can off the farm.

Krisp


----------



## Anne (Jan 12, 2006)

I am aware of companies that won't hire smokers, companies that won't hire anyone with small children, companies that won't hire you if you are overweight, and an emplyoyers who won't hire if you don't fit "their image" in appearance. A guy that won't hire a woman who comes in wearing "too much" makeup and a cologne they consider "obnoxious.

The difference is that only so far as a "rule" are the smokers being singled out for firing. Though I have heard on one occasion that an overweight person was fired, for that reason though it was not the 'stated" reson on the termination.

OK companies can hire or fire as they choose, who they choose whenever they choose. Most are considered "at will" employees with no union or contract, so they are truly at :the will" of their employer.

Some perfumes and colognes people find obnoxious and very offensive, (allergies)some people are grossed out by their obese co-worker, some people are very upset by the time missed by co-workers with small children, others have to carry the load.

Some employees come back from lunch, and a few drinks, even more than once a week.

Someone is going to object to SOMETHING you do with your life.

They're going to say it's not good for you or the people around you.

How much should your company control employees personal lives is a very good question.


----------



## Horse Hugs (Jan 12, 2006)

I think any employer has the right to restrict certain habits during work hours but what people do when they are off work is their own business. I agree that companies have higher costs with insurance nowadays, but you can't just single out one group and I think most smokers pay a higher premium so they are already being penalized. As an employer, I would be more concerned with an accident- prone individual than a smoker. How about requiring all hospitalization and medical records before hiring someone to make sure they don't go to the Emergency room often. I also probably wouldn't want to hire anyone over weight, either, as they are so much more of a health risk than a slim, fit person. I would make sure that they have always been faithful to their spouse because there are so many dieases that they could get if they are sleeping around. There are a lot worse things than smoking.This becomes pretty absurd when you start looking at all the possibilities.

I am not a smoker and I do find the habit repulsive, but this is only my opinion and I respect anyones right to smoke if they so chose. I would have to lose 40 pounds, give up chocolate, exercise more and never drink before I would be in any position to pass judgement on any one else's bad habits. :bgrin


----------



## Scoopiedoo (Jan 12, 2006)

I have NOT read all of the posts, nor do I really intend to, but it is MY opinion(a statistically backed one at that) that obese people largely outnumber smokers, so are they next? Are companies going to start paying for gastric bypass surgery to make obese people thinnner? I think not, yet their medical expenses are equal to or higher than that of the average smoker.... I think civil rights are at stake here and if we don't get a voice soon, it will be forced surgeries, don't eat, or lose your job. Please! Yes, I know smoking is a hot topic, but when it is abolished, they WILL move on to something else, like obesity or maybe things like anemia, or diabetes. Where will the people stand up and draw the line??? It's looking to me that the "Land of the Free" is becoming less free by the day and that scares me to death, it should scare all of us.

Jodi


----------



## Jenn (Jan 12, 2006)

I applaud Scotts for taking a stand!

We are in the process of hiring a new employee and I personally gave extra points to anyone who fessed up to clean living. Three of our ten employees are smokers and it drives me bonkers everytime they stop in the middle of what they are doing to go have a cigarette.

Non-smokers are more efficient workers. If I could, I'd dock the pay of every smoker in the company because they're not worth as much as the non-smokers.


----------



## backwoodsnanny (Jan 12, 2006)

I have read with interest this entire thread and I think it is just one more way for big business to infringe on the rights of the masses. Smoking is just the vice of choice at this point but I do think that there are other vices that will come under fire soon. Obesity is rampant in the USA. So it would follow that this would be the next vice that is targeted and I cant imagine that there will be such a laid back attitude when that is the vice that is targeted. Yes they are taking soda out of the schools but what happens when they take the soda out of your home? Or chocolate or twinkies. This is what Frankie was originally talking about before this ended up being a p - - - - - - contest. As for smokers losing more time than non smokers or smokers wasting more time on a job than non smokers this may be true in some instances. But I timed the eaters in my workplace when our state started on the smokers. The eaters waste far more time going to and from the snack bar than the smoker who took 7 minutes to smoke a cigarette. The over eaters at least in my workplace also missed far more time than the smokers did and there were more of them so it would follow that their health costs were much higher. Its only a matter of time before the smokers are gone from the workplace but rest assured that the over eaters may well be next.


----------



## Anne (Jan 12, 2006)

So, if you have a smoker within the company who has been honest and working for 5, 10 or something years, The general opinion seems to be that their life doesn't really matter beyond the smoking, they should be fired.

Just like the overweight person I am aware of, over 5 yrs with the company of honest reliable work, didn't matter, they were fired.

Nothing that is contributed mattered beyond these facts.

Smokers and overweight people should not be employed unless they "change" to suit "you".

Any person who costs the "system" money above what "soneone" decides is "average.

So the money and financial statement is clearly worth more.

Ok now they are unemployed, now what?

Now what is the financial impact on the health insurance system, medicaid, medicare and social security, seems there are a large number of what would be contributing members of our society no longer contributing.

And there are still a large number of problems yet unsolved.

I wonder what else all those who "know best" will come up with. How many changes we will have to make to all become "the same", politically correct "humans" that won't offend anyone, is that possible?

Really, this goes beyond the blind "hatred" that is out there for an individual who smokes.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

There are already things in place you CAN'T do on the job and rightly so. Many companies can and do fire if someone is on a rehab agreement for alcohol and partake in it *off* the job. Some companies just outright fire an alcoholic without even bothering to help and more and more are tired of footing the bill. At least Scott is giving them a chance to rehab and kick the habit but if smoking means more to you than a job then that's the way it goes.

It's not that cut and dried with a food addict because they cannot just stop consuming the object that causes their addiction while it IS possible for someone to never take another drink or smoke cigarette again.

And for the record (statistically) it's a rare smoker who *doesn't* cost a company an inordinant amount in both time lost thorough illness and unproductivity. If people want to cripple industry to preserve some percieved right then don't whine when jobs go elsewhere. It's all about the bottom line.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Jan 12, 2006)

Frankie said:


> Your opinion. For me, it is chewing and then spitting it on my shoes. My other is, people who have sex with different partners week end and week out.
> 
> But no matter how much YOU hate my habit, it does not give YOU the right to tell me I can NOT smoke at MY house.



Ok not sure where I stand on this issue at all yet but you cant compare smoking in public anywhere be it at work or not with having sex with mulitple partners... very few of them (although more then we think)




: are having sex as I walk by to enter a building or at the doorway of a resteraunt..

again though not saying I agree with you smoke you cant work here

unless at a hosptial or something only cause the smoke does stay on you and carry on to patients which could be life threatning.. but even then


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 12, 2006)

Shirley Very Well Said :aktion033: :aktion033:


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72524.htm

The above link is about cost of health care and how Obesity now rivals smokers as far as health care. There are many other articles to back it up.

Just adding information maybe more factual.

Average of the 10 sites I looked at:

Obesity: 92 Billion

Smoking: 72 Billion

Again, an average of those I looked up.

NOt about someone who can't quit whatever. Just factual.


----------



## Sue_C. (Jan 12, 2006)

> I find it totally disqusting to be on the way to work and some jerkwad is smoking his head off in the car ahead of me and the stench is coming in through my vents so I'm forced to smell it at a stop.


You are either too close to the car in front of you...what you are actually smelling, is the exhaust...



:



> food addict because they cannot just stop consuming the object that causes their addiction while it IS possible for someone to never take another drink or smoke cigarette again.


And just wherein lies the difference? I think an addiction, is an addiction...no matter what it is. I have done a lot of positive things in my life, including quitting smoking...and trust me...ciggarettes were _by far_ the most difficult thing to get out of my life.

I don't like broccoli burps and bean-farts either...but don't tell people what they may go home and have for supper... :new_shocked: :lol:

Really...what this post [/i] about, is an employer's _supposed_ right to tell YOU what *you* are allowed to do in *your own home*_. I firmly disagree._

_ _

_ _


----------



## minimama (Jan 12, 2006)

Each company has certain policies that are a part of who they are. It is up to the management and owners to determine what that companies policies are to be. And, as companies grow and develope, policies change here and there. Years ago, flight attendants were required to be single, a certain height, non smokers, non drinkers, and they HAD to be pretty, with a cettain sized breast!!! This was a company policy. Disneyland required you be clean shaven, hair above collar, no smoking no drinking, not too much makeup and many many other items that were a part of their policy. It is part of the image that is required for working there. Restaurants, airlines, the armed forces, all have a policy that requires you to wear a uniform. Some people feel this is an infringment on their personal freedoms as well. But, the fact is the same in all of these cases, it is company policy and we are not taking away your freedoms by having these policies in place because, you have the freedom to choose not to work here. But, if you do work here, these are the rules you will be required to work by. Pretty simple!

I do have to say I find it very amusing that these same people that are complaining about this are the ones that just Friday were telling me "if you don't like it, change the channel" (in regards to The Book of Daniel TV show) well, same applies, if you don't like it, don't work there. Not a real toughie decision there folks.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

Sue_C. said:


> > I find it totally disqusting to be on the way to work and some jerkwad is smoking his head off in the car ahead of me and the stench is coming in through my vents so I'm forced to smell it at a stop.
> 
> 
> You are either too close to the car in front of you...what you are actually smelling, is the exhaust...
> ...


_ _

_ _

_
Exhaust? Oh please anyone knows the difference and how can one be "too close" if they are in the lane next to you? Then to top it off many throw the lit butt out the window as well. After having ridden motorcycles for many years as a the operator and a passenger I can't tell you how much this pizzes me off. Polite smokers? ahem yah._



_: _

_ _

_
And as for the difference if you care to reread what I said is that while the mechanism of addictions is pretty much the same across the board you can never have another cigarette, never have another drink of booze and live quite well. Try not eating for the rest of your life _



_: _

_ _

_
Sorry but it boggles the mind that anyone would defend such a destructive and useless habit regardless of the implications to our "rights." THink of it how you will but like Jenn, I applaud Scott and other companies who already have and will follow suit._


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 12, 2006)

minimama said:


> I do have to say I find it very amusing that these same people that are complaining about this are the ones that just Friday were telling me "if you don't like it, change the channel" (in regards to The Book of Daniel TV show) well, same applies, if you don't like it, don't work there. Not a real toughie decision there folks.


:aktion033: Yep, aint that the truth. It always applies to everyone else but never them.



:


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Jan 12, 2006)

Minimama i think disneyland and for that matter universal studios (who i worked for as a teen) has some of those things still in place. It was very much part of the perception and image

even down to nailpolish that was allowed and color bra you wore


----------



## lvponies (Jan 12, 2006)

But the difference with Disney or the military or whatever, is that they have rules for when you're on the job. They aren't reaching into your home and saying, for example, you can't listen to hard rock, you can ONLY listen to A Small World. After all, smokers are not allowed to smoke in most work places already. Smokers need to work and have adapted to these policies. It's when an employer reaches into your personal life, into your home, that I consider that an intrusion and a violation.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 12, 2006)

Quoting LVponies here

But the difference with Disney or the military or whatever, is that they have rules for when you're on the job. They aren't reaching into your home and saying, for example, you can't listen to hard rock, you can ONLY listen to A Small World. After all, smokers are not allowed to smoke in most work places already. Smokers need to work and have adapted to these policies. It's when an employer reaches into your personal life, into your home, that I consider that an intrusion and a violation.

This was the BASIS for this whole thread to begin with, just how far are they going to intrude into our lives? Can they tell you what you can eat? drink? How much you have to exercise a day? Then are they going to tell you WHERE you can eat, where you can shop? Let them get a foot into your home and who knows whats next.

Yes I've worked for companies with dress codes/hair codes/nail polish codes/jewelry/piercing, etc, etc, etc but thats for AT WORK, not in my own home.

So, do you want them in YOUR home?



:

Krisp


----------



## Frankie (Jan 12, 2006)

> This was the BASIS for this whole thread to begin with, just how far are they going to intrude into our lives? Can they tell you what you can eat? drink? How much you have to exercise a day? Then are they going to tell you WHERE you can eat, where you can shop? Let them get a foot into your home and who knows whats next.
> Yes I've worked for companies with dress codes/hair codes/nail polish codes/jewelry/piercing, etc, etc, etc but thats for AT WORK, not in my own home.
> 
> So, do you want them in YOUR home?


:aktion033: :aktion033:

:worshippy:


----------



## NMMack (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree, The way I see it is, during the work day, (with prior agreed upon hours and days), my Employer is paying me for my time, to work for them, to do as they want me to do to the best of my ability. I have agreed to give them my time as they will in exchange for payment. And then yes, I do what they want, or leave their employ. But the minute they stop paying me for my time, after the work day is through, that time is mine to do with what I choose as long as it is legal. Be it smoking, eating, playing with horses, sky-diving, swimming or watching funny movies with no significant social value. I would not care to have someone else dictating what I do with *my* time.

Nancy



KrisP said:


> Yes I've worked for companies with dress codes/hair codes/nail polish codes/jewelry/piercing, etc, etc, etc but thats for AT WORK, not in my own home.
> 
> So, do you want them in YOUR home?
> 
> ...


----------



## minimama (Jan 12, 2006)

They're still not taking away your rights. They are not saying you cannot smoke in your home, they are not saying you have to quit. You still have the right to smoke all you want to. But, if you want to work for them, then as part of their policy, you must be a non-smoker by the end of that one year term. No ones rights are being infringed upon here. And yes, if the want to make a policy that tells me what I can and cannot do in my own home, I will adhere to it or I will find other employment. Simple!


----------



## KrisP (Jan 12, 2006)

minimama said:


> They're still not taking away your rights. They are not saying you cannot smoke in your home, they are not saying you have to quit. You still have the right to smoke all you want to. But, if you want to work for them, then as part of their policy, you must be a non-smoker by the end of that one year term. No ones rights are being infringed upon here. And yes, if the want to make a policy that tells me what I can and cannot do in my own home, I will adhere to it or I will find other employment. Simple!



Ok, and then once that happens they have their foot in the door to tell you other things that you have to change, you have to lose 30 pounds, you have to quit riding motorcycles, you have to stop riding horses (sorry, to dangerous a hobby) then will you still adhere to it? Again it not WHAT they're demanding you quit, it's how it effects your PERSONAL life, which SHOULD be each individuals choice as long as it's not illegal.

BTW, just a funny side note, as a smoker I maybe missed 4-5 days of work in all the years I worked, and those were NOT for respiratory (sp?) reasons but due to injury. Now my old room mate used to miss at LEAST a day a month for cramps



: , so, is that ANOTHER thing they'll fire you for?

krisp


----------



## backwoodsnanny (Jan 12, 2006)

Again I have read with interest all of these posts. I worked in a non smoking, no alcohol, dress code environment etc. for many years. BUT they did not say that if I smoked or had a drink or wore jeans at home that I could be fired. I think the point trying to be made here is that what if there are no places where a smoker can work where this isnt the rule what if it goes nationwide not a few select companies? What if the next step is to get obese people out of the workplace? Right now you are absolutely right either quit smoking or find another place to work but what happens when there are no more places where you can work if you are a smoker. What happens when all smokers are now unemployed and they start on the next unique group that is costing money?


----------



## kaykay (Jan 12, 2006)

They're still not taking away your rights. They are not saying you cannot smoke in your home, they are not saying you have to quit.

YES THEY ARE SAYING THAT!! I think a lot of people are not reading this entire thread. My husband ex employer (and no this is not why he left) gave MY HUSBAND AND I one year to quit. If EITHER of us refused he could be terminated. Quitting was to be verified by random urine tests that we had to submit to ANYTIME we were asked.

They are saying YOU HAVE TO QUIT AND YOU CANNOT SMOKE AT HOME.

And again my husbands employer also stated that if a dr determined that we were not PHYSICALLY FIT we had to agree to join a fitness program or again he could be terminated.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 12, 2006)

Yes and your rights still were not taken away..You Had the Option Quit Smoking Or Quit Working for that ferm... You had a choice one or the other but not both..Working for a company is a Privilege not a Right.. So people that are given a choice either quit smoking or leave just had a Privilege taken away and not a right taken away~!. Apples to Oranges...


----------



## Roxy's Run (Jan 12, 2006)

I, personally, would LOVE to see the statistics on time taken off due to various reasons including but not limited to to the following:

1. Smoking related time off - whether a person is a smoker or not

2. Maternity leave - at LEAST 4 - 6 WEEKS for the most part

3. Child care - summer vacation, school holidays, snow days, kids are sick which seems like every other week during the winter.

4. Family (other family member(s) besides children - mother, father, brother, sister, grandparents

5. Car trouble or can't get to work due to transportation reason - transit strikes, car won't start, etc.

6. Illness like flu, medical problem(s) NOT related to smoking

7. "Playing hookie"

8. Disability claims

9. "personal" days

Now don't all of these factors have to do with everyone's "personal" lives outside of the work place? Especially, children!?!?!?!?! Look at how much health insurance dollars and "work" time is spent on raising families and caring for family members not necessarily below the age of 18.

Statitstics, I would like statitistics on this one. Who knows, maybe I'll learn something. But, my overall feeling about this is that NO ONE should be able to tell me what I can and CANNOT do in my own home which I pay TAXES for and maintain as long as everything that I do is legal. The books, "1984" and "Brave New World" keep coming to mind. SCARY THOUGHT!!!!!

Linda

Roxy's Run Miniatures/Renditions


----------



## NMMack (Jan 12, 2006)

Nope, it is of "Mutual Benefit"

Meaning it mutually benefits both parties. It is neither a Privilege nor a Right. You "Negotiate" your salary, your work hours, your benefits, your time off, what is expected of you, everything to do with your employment. And your Employer "Negotiates" the terms that will best will benefit the Company. Of Mutual Benefit means that both parties benefit by your ability to perform requested functions for them during the agreed upon working hours, and their ability to pay you for that performance during the agreed upon working hours. You need to work to make money, they need you to do the work to make them money.

I think what people are not grasping here, is that this thread is NOT about smoking, either for or against, vile or pleasurable, healthy or unhealthy, but it is about someone other than yourself deciding, and telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home on your own time. Smoking just happens to the be the choice *offense* in this particular situation. Others have suggested other *offenses* that might follow the smoking cessation decision. If you were to re-read this thread inserting ie;"Sugar Cookie", everytime you saw cigarette or smoking, you might better understand the long term ramifications of this situation, it is not about smoking, per se.

Just my .02 on it, I understand and respect that everyone will have their own opinion on this, and I totally respect that. I know that I could not work for a Company that thought they could/should micro manage their employees to that degree.

I can tell you, that I will never buy another Scott product again.

Nancy



shminifancier said:


> Yes and your rights still were not taken away..You Had the Option Quit Smoking Or Quit Working for that ferm... You had a choice one or the other but not both..Working for a company is a Privilege not a Right.. So people that are given a choice either quit smoking or leave just had a Privilege taken away and not a right taken away~!. Apples to Oranges...


----------



## KrisP (Jan 12, 2006)

Funny, my husband who is a non smoker saw the story on the news tonight and went on a tangent (and this is a VERY quiet man



: ) He went on all through chores about how his home life is his private life and they have NO rights to tell him what to do. Hubby is a VERY private person and does not share anything about his home life at work and shows the same respect for the employees, what they do on their time is their business, as long as they show up for work ready to go and knowing that they could be hit with a random drug test at any time thats all he wants. He's in a management position where he oversees a lot of the hiring, the background checks, insurance paperwork, etc. His comments also on the amount it would cost in time off, marital problems, costs in testing, etc were interesting to hear.

Also, the majority of employees at Scotts are going to be blue collar employees, and the really ironic thing is that the vast majority of these employees work daily with highly hazardous chemicals.

Hmm, and what else, no rock climbing, no sky diving?

krisp


----------



## Horse Hugs (Jan 12, 2006)

Not everybody has a lot of choices as to where to work. So, it's not as simple as some of you make it sound. If working for Scott was the only job you could get in your town, county, state- whatever, and you tried really hard to quit but you couldn't- then what are you supposed to do?

As I said before- I am not a smoker and I don't like smoking, but I do understand that it is a very hard addiction to quit. I think the majority of people that smoke (except for teens and a small minority) don't prefer to smoke- they just have been unable to quit.

I don't smoke, but I am over-weight. I have been struggling with this for the last few years. I know with my MS that it would be so much better for me to be thin again, but despite how much I would like to lose weight, I can't seem to stick to a diet. I am lucky that I don't have to work for someone else, but if I was suddenly thrown into the work force and was told I could only be hired if I was 40 pounds lighter- I would be in big touble.

I still think that what people do in their own homes after work should not be controlled by an employer.


----------



## minimama (Jan 13, 2006)

Hey KrisP, what if your employees do those drugs in their own homes on their own time? Who are they hurting, isn't it their right? By giving drug tests you are taking away their rights to do drugs in their own homes.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 13, 2006)

Yes, there's a *HUGE* difference unless the law changed in the last few hours and drugs that are tested for suddenly became legal, I know they sure haven't in our area. I don't see cocaine, opium, speed, crack, heroin, marajauna becoming legal any time soon, and these substances impair your abilities.

These employees have to answer to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the guidelines are VERY strict. Did you know that every single time there is a car/train incident that the train crews are automatically pulled and tested? These are hard working men and women that dread nothing more than someone not paying attention at a crossing, it's their worst nightmare. Regardless of why the accident happened it's NOT the crews fault, they can NOT just stop a train on a dime, but they are the ones that have to answer for it. Any trace of drugs and the Railroad would get nailed to the wall.

Again, this isn't about smoking, this is about a persons rights to do what they want when they want on their own time.

Krisp


----------



## minimama (Jan 13, 2006)

You don't have to justify testing to me, I am all for it. I support it totally!!!! But, the point is the same. What they do in their own home is their business and you are infringing on their rights by testing.

Just making a point. I am all for drug testing but I am also all for a companies right to make their own policies.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 13, 2006)

minimama said:


> You don't have to justify testing to me, I am all for it. I support it totally!!!! But, the point is the same. What they do in their own home is their business and you are infringing on their rights by testing.
> 
> Just making a point. I am all for drug testing but I am also all for a companies right to make their own policies.



And I'm for a persons right to privacy to do what they want within the law on their own time and in their own home, give them an inch and they take a mile.




:

krisp


----------



## kaykay (Jan 13, 2006)

mini that doesnt appy here because tobacco is LEGAL. drugs are not. i can see a company testing for something that is illegal and firing you for doing that.

As for smokers being lousy workers. My office manager spent half her day on the internet which seems like a lot of our forum members also do while they are at work



: I can guarantee you she spent more time playing on the internet then i ever spent smoking. LOL

Anyway as said previously this isnt about why people should quit. All smokers myself included know they should quit. Its about having an employer tell you what you can or cannot do on your own time.


----------



## jdomep (Jan 13, 2006)

My first thought when reading this post was "are the going to fire heavy people too?" My husband has a few beers when he comes home from work - Guess that will be on the list soon



: My dad died of a heart attack and I had a hard time finding life insurance - guess they will check heredity too to save on health ins. when I need to find a job.

I hate that I am an awesome worker and I will be judged for having kids


----------



## Frankie (Jan 13, 2006)

All that you guys have listed is my point. We let them control ANY part of our personal life, then the list becomes endless.

I don't think anyone is perfect. Think of your one bad habit, or your thing as unrealistic as it may sound to you, that someday an employer could tell you NOT to do.

Smoking is just the theme with this case.

Children has already been listed. What about those who take care of aging parents? I know for sure they can be very time consuming, health problems for sure and that too time consuming.

If an image is set forth by a company, have to wear dresses, suits at work,,,,what if they then decide for the companies image you have to wear dresses and suits at all times.

With them now in our homes telling us what we can or can't do at home, the list will for sure be endless and will include things that we never in a million years would expect to be on that list.

The only thing that will stop it, will be when employers are out of people to hire, as none of us are perfect, all of us have a life with people in it, and they can find no one to fit into their perfect little world.


----------



## Jenn (Jan 13, 2006)

re: the obesity argument - I'm obese AND pregnant and it does not interfere with my job in any way. I have no problems keeping up with the often 12 hour days and on-the-run nature of the job.

However, I would not hold it against an employer were they to not hire me based on weight. If the job were something physical, certainly, I would expect them to choose someone who is in better shape than I am - that's just part of choosing the best person for the job. Likewise, in a physically stressful job, a non-smoker would be a better choice than a smoker.

Also arguably, were I looking at hiring a person of a certain age (30+), I would wonder what was wrong with them if they didn't already have a spouse and/or children. My job, certainly, is not suited to someone with small children because of the variable hours and unpredictable nature of the position - so my replacement will be someone young and childless - meaning they are suited and a better candidate for the job than someone with kids.

It's all about finding the best person to do the job. If a fatty, smoker or parent doesn't fit the job description, then they shouldn't be hired for the position.


----------



## alphahorses (Jan 13, 2006)

shminifancier said:


> Many more have done this because of the rising cost of health insurance. Can you blame them?? No Way... It is there right to protect their interests productivity, and time lost by workers who smoke, It has been Proved that people who smoke get sick and take time off at a higher rate then a non smoker. So it is the companies rights to protect themselves from productivity lost and their interests, which in this case is there workers Health..


It has also been proven that women and people over 50 are more likely to take sick time.... (I'm a woman and getting to 50 fast, so don't flame me!) .... so do we start firing people when they hit 50 or not hire women?

I hate smoke as much as anyone - nothing sets my asthemas off faster then someone smoking - and they can be 100 feet away! But what someone does LEGALLY in their home is their own business. Someone pointed out that some people sleep around a lot. You really think these people don't have health problems as a result? Obesity (that's my weakness!) certainly comes with health problems.

Do we cut out people who are are genetically predisposed to diabetes? high blood pressure? Heart disease? These people are more likely to cost the company money in the future as well.

I'd like to see the same Congressmen and Senators who pass these laws - or at least who don't oppose them! - pass a law that does not allow anyone to be elected or re-elected to office if they smoke!


----------



## Sandy S. (Jan 13, 2006)

The hospital my husband works for has kinda already started this almost 4 years ago. The round about way they do it is with insurance costs going up they all have to go in for a kinda physical every year. You get so much for:

Not smoking

Not being overweight

Not having high cholesterol

Not having high blood pressure.

Not having high glucose levels.

They also ask if you drink and wear seat belt, family history of cancer, heart attack, Diabetic, etc.

You get x amount of dollars added to your paycheck for each one to go towards your insurance premium. This year they just started a voluntary all of your dependents, so I can see it coming next that dependents will be required to meet being in perfect health or you will pay the higher insurance.

They also made it a rule and I don't know how they could do it, no smoking by employees within 3 miles of the hospital. They will pay of course for anything that will help you quit.


----------



## susanne (Jan 13, 2006)

Remember the old expression, "Your rights end where my nose begins"?

Never was it more true than in this case. What makes smoking different is that it directly affects the health of everyone around, including co-workers. Obesity does not cause heart disease or other problems in others nearby. Second hand smoke is a proven killer.

To begin, I am not in favor of giving employers control over our personal lives other than what directly affects the workplace.

However, the employer has every right (and owes it to the other employees) to say no smoking in the workplace, and no smoke residue/odors brought to work on clothes or breath.

Imagine if someone came to work with extreme body odor...the kind of stench that lingers after the person leaves the room and makes others gag. Would you not want your employer to tell that employee that they need to bathe, change clothing and do whatever to eliminate that odor in order to keep working there?

Not that this person should be fired, so long as they can come to work without creating an unpleasant workplace. It may be that individual's personal problem, but it is unfair to force the majority of workers to put up with this -- it's not as if they can look away or "change channels."

HOWEVER...

...the employee should be free to smoke at home as long as they can rid themselves of any odor before they come to work.

In other words:

Feel free to contaminate your own home, but don't impose it on me or others.


----------



## Miniv (Jan 13, 2006)

I agree with Susanne.

MA


----------



## journey (Jan 14, 2006)

I am going to add my 2 cents worth here.

I have been a 911 dispatcher for 5 years, I have 3 children under the age of 5. With the exception of maturnity leave in 2005, I missed 4 days when my Grandmother passed away and 1 day when my 4 year old was attacked by an animal in our backyard. That is all I missed in 2005.

I am a smoker and it does not affect my job performance, and my whole family is covered under my health insurance at work, which is at no cost to me. If they were to ask me to quit smoking on their property, I would. At home or on my own private time, that is my decision. I do not smoke around non smokers, and I respect their wishes when I am at their house.

As a former manager at a county market, I had more problems getting the single childless employees to work rather than the ones that had children. It didn't matter if they smoked or not. I never had an employee that put their smoking ahead of their job.


----------



## Ashley (Jan 14, 2006)

I dont see people with children less likely to work. Most of them have to work to raise there kids. Now a days very few people can get by on one parent working house holds and have kids.



> Imagine if someone came to work with extreme body odor...the kind of stench that lingers after the person leaves the room and makes others gag. Would you not want your employer to tell that employee that they need to bathe, change clothing and do whatever to eliminate that odor in order to keep working there?



This DOES happen at my work all the time. They dont do anything about it, its against some cultures to ware deoderant so to be fair to them, they dont have to. I would much rather smell smoke on somebody then body stench. Smoke smell goes away pretty fast, bo does not.


----------



## Roxane Martin (Jan 14, 2006)

I, who don't smoke, had this discussion with my pipe-smoking husband at dinner last night. Although I wished he didn't smoke, he does, and in our own home we should have the right to set the rules for our household. I have no problem for the employer setting rules for while you are doing work for them, especially in their facility.

My husband had this thought--if they want to control what behaviors can be done at home then this implies that you are still "working" for this company, so he wanted to know if you'd be paid his wages while at home too. Think that will fly??



:

He also agreed that this is the start of the "foot in the door" for other legal behaviors to be controlled (we aren't talking about illegal ones). Last I heard, it was still legal to eat, or to have children.

There is always the balancing act between individual (states) rights and community(federal) rights. It goes back and forth throughout history, and will continue.


----------



## MBennettp (Jan 14, 2006)

I agree with the ones that said what I do on my own time is my business.

I smoke and I work in a retail store. I haven't missed a single day since I have worked for them except for when we had a mare that was very sick. I didn't get fired for having animals, and no my smoking didn't make the mare sick.

I owned 2 businesses for several years and had a lot of employees. I had more trouble with people not coming to work because their child or spouse was sick than I did from the employee themselves being sick. I also had more problems with the employees that did not smoke taking extra breaks or longer breaks than I did the smokers. The smokers waited until break time and went to the designated area to smoke. I never had an employee light up a cigarette in the building or take a smoke break that wasn't scheduled.

I think that if the smokers would just boycott the companies that are doing this and not buy any of their products, it would let them see that all of the consumers out there are not their idea of perfect.

I personally would never want a job with a company that tries to control what I do on my time. I follow the company rules and do my job while I am on the clock but what I do when I am not at work is nobody's business.

There will never be a time when all businesses do this because there is a large percentage of companies owned by smokers or at least by people that understand that once the employee clocks out, they are free, they are no longer under company rules.

The last I knew, this was a free country. I think the companies that are doing this ARE infringing on their employees rights to an extent but also, the employee has the option of choosing not to work for them.

Something else that bothers me is that non smoking politicians don't seem to realize that smokers vote also.

Mary


----------



## runamuk (Jan 15, 2006)

Frankie said:


> Do not know where the post is, this is a test before I write it again.
> 
> It was on the National News that Scotts (Miracle Grow) will fire any employee who smokes.
> 
> ...


This from a company that produces chemical fertilizers that are polluting our groundwater



:



: kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. They ought to re-read the MSDS on most of their own products first.................


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 15, 2006)

runamuk said:


> ...
> 
> This from a company that produces chemical fertilizers that are polluting our groundwater
> 
> ...


Well Rori I have to disagree as the only ones contaminating the ground water are the users who use the products improperly. Fertilizers applied judiciously and according to the manufacturer's instructions do not. I wont' even go into the ground water contamination done by organics like the nitrates in manure from cattle-related industries.

And for the record I don't hate smokers but I do hate the habit. Try to keep that distinction in mind for the rest of what I'm about to say. People are more than just their habits but what astounds me most is that from those who are saying they don't want some outside influence to tell them what to do sounds more like the addiction talking than anything else.

I was a hard core smoker, one of the absolute worst, so yes I CAN talk and to me there is a whole lot wrong with a cigarette being the poster child for any rights issue.



: Perhaps only those who have kicked it and can look at it from a perspective of how the addiction used to affect every aspect of their lives will be able to understand that statement.

I can't believe what one cowardly person PM'd me about this thread the other day all I can say is that you are truly a pathetic piece of work. This board is about opinions and if you don't like it then leave. If you EVER send me another PM, other than to apologize, I'll be sure to report you to the moderators.


----------



## susanne (Jan 15, 2006)

I've often thought that when one receives a nasty, cowardly PM they should post the entire message, including the name of the sender, on the forum. Out 'em. Bet that would make them think twice.

I can't believe some people are so afraid to stand behind what they have to say.


----------



## runamuk (Jan 15, 2006)

Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too said:


> runamuk said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


OK trig...first I hope you aren't insinuating that I was the PM'ing person.......I take full credit for anything I say even if it leads to athletes mouth at times



:



:

As for Scotts...and fertilizer in general....I do know my "stuff" when it comes to these products and since they are sold to the general population I can say I see more improper use than proper...most users do not even know what a MSDS is let alone that they ought to read it BEFORE using the product.....organics as well can be just as damaging if the person does not also follow proper procedures of dealing with runoff and nitrates.......

so back to smoking and the inability to quit.......or the lack of desire to quit...........I find ex smokers to often be the harshest in their treatment of smokers....not directed at you or anyone else just something I have noticed......I would like to quit to date I haven't found a way to do it....which to even me seems dumb....for gods sake I walked away from cocaine and crack cold turkey many many years ago and never looked back........got pregnant quit drinking...no problemo....but the stupid cigarettes whole other story.....my doctor encouraged me to quit BUT she also said just cutting back to as minimum as possible was better than nothing........the more I stress about quitting the more my smoking will increase....if I tell myself I don't have to quit but need to cut back I can get down to 5-6 cigs a day or less......I smoke the stupid ultra super lights.....following my docs advice I smoke 1/2 a cig........and right now I am smoking under a pack a day and that is only 1/2 of that amount smoked...............so even as a smoker I am a loser cuz I cannot even chainsmoke properly



:



: ........


----------



## Ashley (Jan 15, 2006)

For those of you who want to quit and you if you havent tried this already I strongly recommend trying wellbutrin.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 15, 2006)

> runamuk said:
> 
> 
> > Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too said:
> ...


----------



## runamuk (Jan 15, 2006)

I cannot take wellbutrin and my hubby turned up allergic to it.



: ...... tried gum...made me puke....afraid of the patch if the gum made me hurl..........next is hypnosis...might work and I have a friend who is pretty good......

I tried cold turkey lasted 2 days......and that was the last attempt as I started smoking way more after that quit attempt than I was before.....so back to cutting back for now......


----------



## Minimor (Jan 16, 2006)

One difference between smokers & obese people....obese people do not stink. They in no way cause suffering to their coworkers--they do not trigger allergy attacks in people who are allergic to food!

More and more companies are making it a rule that there is to be no perfume worn in the workplace. As someone who is allergic to strong perfumes/colognes, I'm all for this rule. While it's law here that smoking is not allowed in any provincial government building (in fact in our city smoking is no longer allowed in any public building--bars, restaurants, stores) the perfume ban isn't official. My boss is extremely allergic to perfume, so he's made an official request that our staff not wear strong scents.

I have 2 coworkers that still smoke--they take smoke breaks outside & they smoke at home. They come to work & yes, they smell of smoke. Another coworker who retired several months ago was a heavy smoker at home. He'd also smoke in his car, and he would come into the office absolutely reeking of smoke. His desk was 3 feet away from mine, and the stink on him would make me gag sometimes. So, in an office where smoking is forbidden by law and perfumes are restricted by polite request, pray tell why I and the other non-smokers should have to put up with that sort of stench because this guy wanted to smoke at home, in his car & wherever?

If you want to eat your face off at home & be 100 lbs overweight, that's your problem. If you want to wear perfume in the evening, you can wash it off before you come to work. If you can smoke in your home & come to work & not have any evidence on you that you smoke, then in my mind you don't have a problem. If, however, you come in to work smelling of smoke then yes, I'd have to say your smoking at home is an issue in the workplace. Since I haven't come across too many smokers that can smoke at home & not have some odor of smoke on them...I don't have a problem with the Scott policy.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 16, 2006)

Ok Triggy you want an apology? Here it is, I apologize for not paying closer attention to the private message system and sending the message *to THE WRONG PERSON*. Obviously it was not meant for you but for someone else, you knew that the moment you read it. The message was a personal observation and opinion not an attack.



:

BTW, as soon as I realized what I had done and got finished laughing at myself for such a stupid blunder a moderator was informed, so they've known for days.



:

I also don't think that people should attack others in personal messages and would never do that, but don't want people to be wondering and assuming who it is, and thinking that someone deliberately attacked another in a cowardly fashion.

krisp


----------



## susanne (Jan 16, 2006)

OK, Kris...now you have me "wondering and assuming" who it was supposed to go to!

(Just kidding!)


----------



## KrisP (Jan 16, 2006)

susanne said:


> OK, Kris...now you have me "wondering and assuming" who it was supposed to go to!
> 
> (Just kidding!)



BAD SUSANNE! BAD SUSANNE!!!



:



: :deadhorse2: You quit beating that dead horse! LOL

Ya know I'm kidding





krisp


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Jan 16, 2006)

Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too said:


> Good grief Rori of course I'm not insinuating it was you! You have always been forthright and upfront with everyone and from all my time here I've never heard once a bad thing about you ever.


Oh trig you have never ONCE heard a bad thing.. well can we talk



:

LOL I am kidding Rori of course.. dont come over here all angry and puffing on your cig :bgrin

Ok well you can come over if you want I am quite bored actually


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 16, 2006)

Ah well thanks Kris I guess that is the closest thing to an apology I'll get but sorry I don't buy the mistake part as it's a common tactic (not one I'd personally use) or so I've heard.



: and I do know who it was being sent to and our forum names are not similar enough to "mistakenly" type the wrong one in.



:

In addition I only stated my opinion on the thread and the OP made it PERSONAL, not me. I only replied to the snotty remark directed at me and nothing more. No time did I address anyone specific but in generalities, which is what everyone does. It's only an opinion and I haven't always cared for or agreed with all of yours either but I do let people work their own stuff out and not insert myself into the situation. I'd appreciate the same so let's forget it and move on.

This was a very interesting thread for it's diversity rather than it's sameness. Nothing worse than and entire thread of people just agreeing with each other.



:

Lisa you mean Rori is NOT a perfect angel who only swears like a sailor? :bgrin

ETA Too bad voice inflection and other communication signals were not so hard in text. It would save a lot of hard feelings.


----------



## billiethekid40 (Jan 16, 2006)

umm, triggy, look above your name... there is a PM button, but its not to PM you... look under your post, there's your PM button... perhaps she simply hit the PM button above a persons name, and you happened to be the last person to reply before her? There are more than one way to PM a person, you don't have to type in the name.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Jan 16, 2006)

Well, Triggy. It was a mistake and reported to me immediately. Kris did not put a copy in her sent file so she could not delete it and I could not change it.

And the mistake is common. Some people hit the PM button on the wrong post. I have done it myself and so have others.

Billie you are exactly right. Happens all the time.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 16, 2006)

billiethekid40 said:


> umm, triggy, look above your name... there is a PM button, but its not to PM you... look under your post, there's your PM button... perhaps she simply hit the PM button above a persons name, and you happened to be the last person to reply before her? There are more than one way to PM a person, you don't have to type in the name.



Thanks Billie, this is what happened, glad that SOME can understand



Hey, I came out in the open and admitted to it rather than letting everyone hang in suspense, can we get over it? It was a MISTAKE, some of us just aren't perfect :bgrin As I said it was a PERSONAL opinion and observation meant to be a PERSONAL message to someone else.

krisp


----------



## kaykay (Jan 16, 2006)

krisp im so glad your back :aktion033: off topic i know lol


----------



## Ashley (Jan 16, 2006)

Well I guess everybody should just live in there house and not ever come out for something they should do, something that is there freedom to do might bother somebody else.

So those people that are alcholics, why should we have to smell alcohol on them?

I think there are way to many people on her who put themselves above others for many different reasons. Fact is, were in the same boat. IM sure you all have just as many bad things as the next person. Some of you are the reason many have already left this board.

These are also some of the very reasons I refuse in my lifetime to bring a child into this world.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 17, 2006)

> And for the record (statistically) it's a rare smoker who doesn't cost a company an inordinant amount in both time lost thorough illness and unproductivity. If people want to cripple industry to preserve some percieved right then don't whine when jobs go elsewhere. It's all about the bottom line.


I would love to see these stats in black and white for verification purposes.

I think it is rather sad when a company tells you what you can do and what you can't do now at home!!!! Absolutely insane as far as I am concerned and I wouldn't be surprised if someone or some group decided to take this to court and see what happens. Unless governments outlaw cigarettes then they are very very arrogant and two-faced, but you know they would never do that because they would lose all the revenue they collect on the taxes on cigarettes.

As far as I am concerned this goes way beyond the "smoking" at work, it goes to the core of "freedoms and rights" that each one of you have or think you have. Don't we always say we live in a "free' society" Ya think??? I don't think so one bit. I fully understand the non-smoking policy at work but for either a company to push the boundaries and trying to "control" their employees in such a manner, I wouldn't want to work for a company like that no matter what. I can only imagine the way they treat their employees in the workplace on a daily basis. Good grief. Not much respect there - a one way street.

I have been a smoker and I have been a non-smoker and I believe that most smokers now-a-days are for the most part extremely conscience of not imposing on non-smokers. What I find totally deplorable is the fashion that some non-smokers vehemently and with exageration go the total oppossite of the spectrum. Smokers have more than met non-smokers wishes but trying to control a person's private and off the job time is taking things too far. I guess this company better also, in all fairness than, not allow drinking at all at home of alcoholic beverages, no beer, no wine, etc. Heck, why don't they go and say well you have to be a certain weight to work here because you could have a heartattack or you could have to take time off more than other employees due to health reasons linked to your weight. That would be as fair as what this is company is trying to do with "private" time.

My personal point of view is a smoker should be allowed to smoke when not in the workplace, where allowed, and in his/her own personal environment. If the non-smoker doesn't want to visit the person in their home then so be it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head saying you have to. Smokers are asking for the same rights non-smokers are asking for "freedom" but it seems that some non-smokers are now wanting to take "rights" in the privacy of their own homes - absolutely insane. Also I have found that ex-smokers are usually the ones that are the most extreme in their expression on the subject.

I won't get into the argument about the "smell" of a person who smokes. Guess those people aren't bathing at all if they smell that bad. Heck I don't know how many times I have got on a bus or a crowded elevator and had to endure someone who had obviously consumed a large quantity of garlic and oooouuuueeeeee, it almost made me gag and no the smell is not on their clothes but coming out of the pores of their skin!!!! I know smelling that won't give me cancer and neither smelling smoke on someone's clothing.



:


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 17, 2006)

Danielle_E. said:


> > And for the record (statistically) it's a rare smoker who doesn't cost a company an inordinant amount in both time lost thorough illness and unproductivity. If people want to cripple industry to preserve some percieved right then don't whine when jobs go elsewhere. It's all about the bottom line.
> 
> 
> I would love to see these stats in black and white for verification purposes.


http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2004/chapters.htm

Unlike the majority here I CAN back up what I say. Click on chapter 6 pdf file and on page 626 you'll be able to read about absenteeism. There is plenty of documentation and studies on many legitimate sites such as the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society. Anything to the contrary is most likely put out by with support of tobacco companies. The CDC and Surgeon General's reports are as valid as it gets.

I'm quite done with this thread and LB in general. Those who insist on harming or even killing themselves by smoking, please go for it. I'm sure no one will bother to stop you.


----------



## Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes well be sure to pass that on to everyone else as well.


----------



## susanne (Jan 18, 2006)

Other people smoking doesn't bother me at all -- so long as they don't make me breathe their smoke.

I also refuse to ride with someone who drives recklessly, although they may consider it great fun and their god-given right.

Kill yourself, but don't kill me.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 18, 2006)

Thanks Shirley for the link. I will go and check it out and also try to find stats for Canada. I also though want to find other statistic about absentism in the workplace just to be fair and see what other things contribute, I am sure there are many others. Yes perhaps not as high but I have a funny feeling there are many others as well. I would imagine that colds, flu, etc is high up there and I doubt that any sensible person could say it's because of smoking that you get a cold or flu.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

I just heard on the news last night that ALL work places in the STATE if Iowa be Non Smoking places to work~!!! And that if persons fail to heed to this non smoking areas will be subject to a $25 fine Per Violation under the ""Iowa's Clean Indoor Air Law""


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 18, 2006)

Well I don't see anything wrong with that. What the complaint is for a company to be able to dictate what you do on your time off and at home. We keep saying that we are a "free" society which is not true at all. We go to war saying we want to give other countries "freedom" a "free-society" like we have. That is pretty two-faced when you think about it. As I said earlier, ban cigarettes, end of story. Making them illegal and do the same with alcohol. Governments won't do it though because of the billions of tax $$ they collect. If they banned cigarettes EVERYONES taxes would go up by quite a bit to make up the difference, at least in Canada it would. Same goes for liquor here in Canada - government run LCBOs. They are so hypocritical!

:no:


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

> Well I don't see anything wrong with that


 Well that is true and I feel the same way,,BUT What id now these places of employment go into this NEXT Step and say You stop smoking ALL Together Or go look for another job~! And that one does the same and so on..


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 18, 2006)

I agree with you 100%. I understand a company not wanting smoking in the workplace. I am a smoker and I wouldn't want smoking at my work BUT when I am outside and on breaks who am I harming? Myself, nobody else. Some may say but yes you are polluting the air. Oh please!!! The emissions from cars, trucks, factories, etc are much much more of a danger in the air outside. Now at home nobody should be able to dictate to me about smoking. We are 3 smokers in this house and none of us smoke inside the house. We ALL smoke outside only and anyone visiting us who smokes has to abide by those rules. We have our grandaughter living with us and no way would I subject her to our second hand smoke. If we have her in the car we do not smoke in the car either. Common sense is what is needed by smokers and non-smokers. Mutual respect goes a long way.


----------



## KrisP (Jan 18, 2006)

shminifancier said:


> > Well I don't see anything wrong with that
> 
> 
> Well that is true and I feel the same way,,BUT What id now these places of employment go into this NEXT Step and say You stop smoking ALL Together Or go look for another job~! And that one does the same and so on..



And again, that is stepping into your PERSONAL life and time, giving them a foot in the door for more control of your life. As others have said whats next, you have to quit drinking coffee? No more tea? No more horses because their to dangerous? No more parachuting? No more hang gliding? Sorry, no playing football you might get hurt? No more twinkies? Making you join a gym and work out because your 20 pounds overweight?

I have no problem at all with ANY company banning smoking IN THE WORKPLACE, but I don't want them in my home!

It's the foot in the door I don't like.

Krisp


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 18, 2006)

I also just wanted to say that I respect Shirley's right to feel the way she does. She feels strongly about it and that is her right but I found it over the top when you said you wouldn't visit someone in their home if they smoked, even if they smoked outside. That is too bad because us smokers aren't a bad lot just because we smoke, just teasing you Shirley.

I know when I did quit smoking I could tell who smoked who had just had a cigarette and was coming back inside lets say at work right after. Now the smell didn't linger on them UNLESS they were heavy smokers and it got into their clothes or their coats but the initial smell is there and very detectable and depending on a person's smoking habits it stayed with them or it didn't. I usually smoke 4 or 5 cigarettes during the course of a day but it's the evening that I smoke more but that is at home and outside. I do not wear my "barn" clothes to work, lol, cigarette smell and manure smell" would not be appropriate for the workplace :bgrin , well unless you work at home or constantly in a stable as a living :bgrin


----------



## Sue_C. (Jan 18, 2006)

> wouldn't visit someone in their home if they smoked, even if they smoked outside.





> That is too bad because us smokers aren't a bad lot just because we smoke


Yes, it really is too bad.

Worked with a guy years ago, who said he would never become friends with a smoker...his loss. Some of my best frinds are smokers, I even married one.




: I don't pick and choose my friends...my heart does.


----------



## susanne (Jan 18, 2006)

I have a form of asthma, and I have good friends who smoke. Whenever I visit them, I end up coughing for weeks, unable to complete a sentence without coughing. I don't give up my friends because of smoke, but I pay.

Many smokers are great people -- good people who don't realize what it does to others around them.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

Yes and just a visit with people who smoke in their house your clothes smell just like the smoke from the cigs...I know my Mom always complained after I would visit my Grand Parents many years ago.. for a few days or weeks and then come home AND YES the clothes everything I had would just reek of cigarette smoke~!


----------



## Danielle_E. (Jan 18, 2006)

Can I get some clarification on your post. Do your friends smoke in their home and that is when your asthma starts up? or do they smoke outside of their house and your asthma still starts up when you visit them?????? My son Robert use to use a pump when younger, he is now 25 but his asthma was triggered mainly when he did heavy exercice (hockey) and it was damp and where mould was present. He never had an asthma attack because we were smokers but then again we smoke outside. He hasn't had an attack since he was 10 now, knock on wood.

Suzanne, if you were my friend and you were visiting and I smoked in my home, I wouldn't be offended one bit if you asked me not to smoke around you because of your medical complications of being around smoking. I think you should ask them. As I said most smokers are very conscious of these things these days and I am sure your friendship means more to them than having a cigarette when you are around.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

All this talk about how bad smoke is at other peoples houses and some people don't even want to visit them, I can relate to that for sure, as in the other post.. Now most cars don't even have a thing called ash tray,,,And No Lighter either~!,

So I guess that is why I chew Skoal...I can chew in places that say No Smoking, I can go into Anybodies barn at any time without having first to put out a butt....I don't pollute anybodies air, or home or car etc.

And even in the movie theater I can enjoy a pinch between the lip and gum...And nobody is the wiser :bgrin


----------



## mininik (Jan 18, 2006)

Skoal... doesn't chew rot your mouth out and cause cancer, too?


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

envypoodles said:


> Skoal... doesn't chew rot your mouth out and cause cancer, too?


Ya in some cases yes it does..It is not a safe alternative to smoking at all...But i also don't pollute the air or in some cases even start fires.. I don't cause anybody to be offended by smoke getting in their eyes clothes and skin etc.


----------



## mininik (Jan 18, 2006)

So you know I wasn't trying to be rude, just curious.



I thought chew had some negatives to it and didn't want any kids out there to think it was an "okay" alternative to smoking if it wasn't.



:


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

envypoodles said:


> So you know I wasn't trying to be rude, just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem, that is why I answered as I did.


----------



## Pepipony (Jan 18, 2006)

So, what do you do with your spit? Swallow it or allow everyone around you to hear that disgusting sound? Spitting is a pet peeve of mine. Used to have to clena it up from the idiot yahoos that thought store shelves were their own spitting ground. Stupid cowhorns.


----------



## Ashley (Jan 18, 2006)

I find chewing way more disgusting then smokeing. I got sick of people spitting the the garbage at work, so plain out refused to empty them anymore. THey spit on the floor and anywhere they feel like. NOt to mention cant stand looking at somebodys lip sticking out a good inch from there teeth.

I do beleive Shminis swallows, hence his statment of not haveing worms.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

Hey wait lets hold your horses here...Many people don't always spit when they chew stuff like Skoal, or they just do it for the heck of it~! I do if I chew Chewing tobacco (There is a difference) But then I am outside hunting or walking in the woods something like that..But when I just use Skoal, or Copenhagen, these are snuff not chewing tobacco.. Of course I have also used the TRUE Snuff and Snort it up the nose~!

But 99..999% of the time I use Skoal and then it is more like sucking on a piece of candy, Mouth Candy,,, so I have used Skoal, now for some 30 years and I do not spit~! Enough said... No worms :aktion033: Now the products that you snort up the nose, Now that will give you a rush... I even have a Sterling Silver Snuffbox I use that type of True Snuff, where you sniff it...but have not in years now..


----------



## Pepipony (Jan 18, 2006)

Most of these Yahoos dip Skoal too. They think its 'cool' to have the worn Skoal hole in their jeans pocket. Bet they'd look downright purdy with a Skoal hole in their lip/cheek/esophagus.


----------



## shminifancier (Jan 18, 2006)

I keep mine in my shirt pocket now as to not wear a hole in the hip pocket :bgrin And I do switch from side to side inside the mouth as to not irritate one side too much to get sores...

On a side note:: I have tried to quit several times one for over 2 months..But chewing maybe even harder then smoking to quit because we are getting nicotine Directly into the system, does not have to be filtered through the lungs etc.

 And if there is a Person that should know the dangers and how bad tobacco is it is ME~! I worked at a mink farm years ago, During pelting season we would give the mink an inoculation to kill them the Product was called Black Leaf 40~! Was is that you ask? Straight Nicotine~! that is what we injected into the mink to kill them at pelting time~!


----------



## runamuk (Jan 18, 2006)

susanne said:


> I have a form of asthma, and I have good friends who smoke. Whenever I visit them, I end up coughing for weeks, unable to complete a sentence without coughing. I don't give up my friends because of smoke, but I pay.
> 
> Many smokers are great people -- good people who don't realize what it does to others around them.


My husband and I both smoke...you may find this interesting...we have never smoked in our home......yet his brother and his wife do and every time we go visit them and stay for a few days we all end up coming home coughing and wheezing and with sinus issues




: yet we are smokers so sitting in a house full of secondhand smoke shouldn't bother us ......right?

and I work with guys who chew......spitting in cans etc....and then unloading that gob of gunk into the TOILET where it doesn't flush :new_shocked: :new_shocked: ......... I have a very good friend who has never smoked or drank or tried any "substances" But she still has vices...like being RIGHT and OPINIONATED to the point that I have been asked how the heck I can be friends with someone that scary



:



:


----------



## JO~* (Jan 18, 2006)

The only thing I have to say about smoking and working it that I hate it when I buy something and it smells like smoke. Some people smoke so much that they smell like smoke even when they havenâ€™t had a cigarette in a few hours.Then things that they touch smell of smoke sometimes. One case in point is the newspaper when I pick it up in the morning from the paper box.

Oh and if you work for a company that makes plant food or something like that you might be able to pass on some disease that tobacco can have to plants like tomatoes I THINK.


----------

