It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nerdling
Ban it.
I will not endure the side effects from the habits of others.
Originally posted by The Teller
The only premise to deny them the job is unsuitability
Originally posted by The Teller
Oh right so Neanderthal man went outside his cave at 11am for a cigarette break then did he?
God I need a smoke!!!!!
1000 BC People start using the leaves of the tobacco plant for smoking and chewing. How and why tobacco was first used in the Americas no one knows. The first users are thought to have been the Mayan civilisations of Central America. Its use was gradually adopted throughout the nations of Central and most of North and South America.
6000 BC Tobacco starts growing in the Americas. Tobacco in its original state is native only to the Americas.
Originally posted by kode
1000 BC People start using the leaves of the tobacco plant for smoking and chewing. How and why tobacco was first used in the Americas no one knows. The first users are thought to have been the Mayan civilisations of Central America. Its use was gradually adopted throughout the nations of Central and most of North and South America.
Oh that is right Americans only believe the world began a few centuries ago I forgot. Duh!
And my point about being able to take a potential employer is correct. To state you will not partake in experiments on Rats if you are a scientist is absurd. I forgot that there are a slew of scientists out there so conscientious about rats that they do not further any experiments.
The point is it would be illegal to deny somebody a job at a place of work if they did not smoke. This is LAW. It is not about suitability. You are not suitable to be a brain surgeon if you never took an exam in your life. That is suitability by skill. To be denied employment due to preference is against the law. It is the same as saying black people cannot apply for jobs at right wing clubs. If there went for that job and were told because of race they could not have the job it would be a solid legal case against the said club.
Figure this out. Smoking kills, second hand smoke kills. Smoking causes plenty of different diseases to smokers and non smokers. If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.
Cheers mate, have a ciggy on me.
Originally posted by The Teller
If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.
Originally posted by astrocreep
Originally posted by The Teller
If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.
While I agree that its pretty well founded now that smoking and second hand smoke have negative and deadly effects of the human body, I must still caution your insults to other members not in agreement with you. I realize you kinda danced around directly calling him a fool and mentally weak by sticking in a condition at the beginning but yes, we can all read between the lines.
Originally posted by The Teller
It was to say if you do deny these effects then you could be killing yourself andothers and only a fool would AGREE to this being a fair way to live.
by riley. you probably double your chances of getting cancer just by living in the city.
Originally posted by The Teller
by riley. you probably double your chances of getting cancer just by living in the city.
Yeah you're right. Why do you think that is? Denser population, more smokers, more confined spaces.
I whole heartedly agree about the other points of pollution you mention too. But I think citing driving a car is a bit tenuous though. The FACT is that the PROOF shows smoking kills thousands and thousands of people directly and indirectly. It also causes many more ailments like heart disease etc.
My only concern is that if you want to smoke then go ahead, I agree with your right to choose that option. However I do not agree that it is your right to pass that onto me if I choose not to smoke. To say well there is other pollution too why don't we ban everything is a cynical parrying of the argument that is used by smokers. What next murder is bad too so why don't we ban that...oh yeah we do, because it is not right for people to kill other people with no regard for their victims lives. Please don't address this saying I am spelling out between the lines that smokers are murderers either, I'm not. But if you know your INDIVIDUAL actions will harm or even kill an innocent person, tell me how call that be acceptable in a modern society??????
Originally posted by kode
I do agree with you on one point. Blowing smoke in someone�s face is wrong and not something most smokers would do. Certainly not something i would do.
You have said [The Teller] that second hand smoke or passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers. In part you are right but not as right as you would like to be.