Saturday, January 12, 2008

The revenge of the smokers: Three workers fired for not smoking

This is just too good to pass up: According to ABC News, a German company has fired three workers for not smoking. Here's part of the report:
The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.
This is definitely an employer with an attitude:
"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas [the owner] was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."
It is a measure of how totalitarian the anti-smoking movement in America has become that I feel like cheering this guy on. I don't smoke cigarettes, but second-hand smoke neither disturbs me, nor, I believe, seriously threatens my health. I sympathize with those are disturbed by cigarette smoke, but I also think that those who are threatened by second-hand smoke have simply allowed themselves to become prey to the propaganda of those whom P. J. O'Roarke calls "health Nazis."

If you don't like smoking in a private establishment, then don't go there.

This guy is simply doing in Germany what more and more government entities are doing on the nonsmoking side here in the United States: imposing views on smoking on other people. At least this guy has the excuse that he is a private business and should be able to do with it what he wants.

8 comments:

Motheral said...

It is a measure of how totalitarian the anti-smoking movement in America has become that I feel like cheering this guy on.

No, it's just a measure of your own refusal to understand the issues of which you preach.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but second-hand smoke neither disturbs me, nor, I believe, seriously threatens my health. I sympathize with those are disturbed by cigarette smoke, but I also think that those who are threatened by second-hand smoke have simply allowed themselves to become prey to the propaganda of those whom P. J. O'Roarke calls "health Nazis."

Ever heard of these things called "allergies?" Ever heard of "athsma?" Some people have allergic reactions, and others have full-on life-threatening athsma attacks, triggered by cigarrette and/or cigar and/or pipe smoke. Sometimes the effects of such reactions can last for hours, or days, after exposure to the triggering substance. (I know someone who had a minor athsma episode -- her first in YEARS -- after merely spending a night in a hotel room in which someone had smoked. Febreeze didn't help.)

Medical science has not completely agreed on the cause of such conditions, but we're all pretty sure that listening to "health nazis" is not one of them.

If you don't like smoking in a private establishment, then don't go there.

Why do you say that to the non-smokers, and not the smokers? Why not say that if you CHOOSE to smoke, you should do it where it's least likely to disturb or offend others?

I know many smokers whose attitude is more mature than yours: even in the house where some of them lived at the time, they always smoked outdoors, even in February. They were young and immature, but they cared enough about other people to adjust their actions to accomodate legitimate interests.

Your post is the most ignorant, uncaring, shameless and clueless bit of victim-bashing I've read in a long time. You really need to study the issues before you post about them. "Vere Loqui" this ain't.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Considering the views you have expressed concerning science, please don't be offended if I find your personal belief that second hand smoke isn't health threatening to be less than reassuring. Cigarette smoke is undoubtably bad for smokers, asthmatics and people with tobacco allergies, so what is the basis for your belief that toxin filled second hand cigarette smoke isn't bad for the rest of us, especially the employees of bars and restaurant who have to work long hours in smoke filled rooms?

Truly said...

Hey Martin
I've seeing these TV ads about a mini series about what scientists think earth is going to look like after humans are extinct. First of all the scientists are making some serious presuppositions by even doing the series. However i discovered something interesting. evolutionists support the message however evolution theory doesn't support the program at all. Just something to look into.

Truly said...

sorry "I've been" on the first line

Motheral said...

First of all the scientists are making some serious presuppositions by even doing the series.

Um...yeah, they're making certain assumptions in order to speculate on the question "What might the Earth look like if there were no humans?"

However i discovered something interesting. evolutionists support the message however evolution theory doesn't support the program at all.

That's because the program is pure speculation, not actual science; and none of its producers are under any obligation to use "evolution theory" in developing their storyboards. This "insight" of yours is no more interesting that my sudden realization, around the age of twelve, that, while some physicists liked "Star Trek," the show had nothing at all to do with real physics. It's a TV show, not a college science lecture.

Truly said...

Ok

firstly the program is not "What might the Earth look like if there were no humans?" It is what the earth might look like WHEN there are no humans left. Listen to a few ads for the program and you'll see.
On the second point you are assuredly correct that the program is mere speculation the program paints their thesis as truth. For example initially Dan Brown said the Da Vinci Code was fiction like any other book.However the gullible public considered the book truth. Thats my only problem with the program

Truly said...

Sorry im so wretched on the keyboard
"however the program" on the seventh line

Sharon said...

I just read your blog on The revenge of the smokers. I loved it. Being a smoker in the US today is equivalent to having leprosy or some other contagious disease. Thank you for standing up for people's choice. Actually smoking is more than a choice it is an addiction. It is as much of an addiction as alcohol is to an alcoholic, but I don't see the US bringing back prohibition. The only time you hear about alcohol is when a drunk driver kills someone. Alcohol is as much of a killer, if not more so, than cigarettes, but I don't see it being taxed more.