Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcgill-vision.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: [longish] Re: ATTIS's force reduction: A Modest Proposal
Message-ID: <146@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 19:15:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.146
Posted: Sat Sep 21 19:15:03 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 07:53:43 EDT
References: <802@homxb.UUCP>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 106

> >    It is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or creed.
> >      These things do not affect the people around you, and as such are
> >     no one's business but your own.  Your habits, however, *do* affect
> >   those around you. If my habits included buggering small children,

[ better example: if my habits included never bathing, though this is too
  mild - it doesn't really hurt anyone.  Smoking, on the other hand, well,
"The Surgeon General has Determined that
 Cigarette Smoking is Harmful to your Health"
  and the guy next to you is forced to either breathe the smoke too or stop
  breathing. ]

> >  would you argue that I should not be discriminated against on these
> >  grounds?
>
> It's hard to compare smoking to sick shit like child abuse. Things
> of that ilk ARE CRIMINAL ACTS, NOT HABITS!!

     Not at  all.  I happen  to be fond of  my lungs and when  some twit
smiles idiotically at me and blows a cloud of junk in my face I  have to
restrain myself to keep from reaching over and putting out the cigarette
(cigar, pipe, whatever) myself.

     What, exactly, is  a "criminal act"?    A criminal act is one which
contravenes  some  law  (they  can  be  habits  too,  especially  minor,
innocuous crimes).  I don't see that there is necessarily any connection
between an act  being criminal and its  being  bad  in  the  sense being
flamed  about here.   There are  a lot of stupid laws still on the books
forbidding completely  personal, harmless acts.   In which category I do
NOT  include smoking in public.  Smoking in private is another story; if
you want to smoke in  your home that is none of  my business.   But in a
restaurant, or in an elevator, or  on  the sidewalk, that's the business
of everyone using that restaurant, elevator, or sidewalk.

> >     Of course, if your smoke bothers me that much, I have the option
> >     to leave.

     You DON'T always have the option  to leave.  Nothing spoils  a nice
walk  in the  park like  suddenly choking  on  a  lungful of tobacco (or
worse) stench.

> >     to leave. In the original posting, I belive that the point was
> >        that non-smokers are forced to assume the
> >   costs of the additional health care costs incurred by smokers, and
> >   that the company is forced to assume the extra costs of things like
> >   changing air filters, emptying ashtrays, repairing holes burnt in
> >   carpets and uphlostery, etc.

     That's  the  company's business,  not yours  or  mine  (unless,  of
course, we are involved one  way or another).  If  they feel the cost is
worth allowing  the smokers  to  indulge, that's  up  to them and  their
(other)  employees.  Let their health insurance take care  of the health
costs; presumably companies will charge higher premiums for  smokers.  I
recall an auto-insurance  company which  wouldn't  insure drinkers; same
story.  I would love to  see  a health insurance company issue  policies
which would not  pay  costs  deriving  from the insured's  smoking.  No,
you'll be second in line, behind  me.  Sorry, *you* probably won't be in
that line at all....

> Great piece of philosophy there folks. So why don't we also get rid
> of the [ junkies, pimps, etc ] because they all cost us money to enforce
> laws, provide food and shelter in prisons or detox wards, etc. Think about
> this, idiot, if there was fair compansation for all of us who have to
> support other's offensive habits (or crimes, from your point of view), we
> would definitely not be enjoying our respective lifestyles in this country
> as we presently do.

     As far as  I can see,  this  "fair  compensation"  merely makes the
"undesirables" assume  the  costs (and other responsibilities) for their
actions.   This  makes life  better  for everyone  else.   I  agree, our
respective lifestyles  would be  very different.  Better, not worse.  Or
are you a junkie / pusher / pimp / other?  Then I concede your lifestyle
will (probably) take a turn for the worse.

> The main point is, I do not consider cigarette/cigar/pipe smoking to
> be: (a) detrimental to one's performance on the job (b) a factor
> in evaluating an individual.

     (a)  Agreed,  at  least  in   most  jobs  (some,  like  gas-station
attendant, excepted [fire hazard]).

     (b) I can use any factor I please in evaluating  an individual.  If
I don't  like people who wear brown hats, that's my business.  A company
is restricted by law from discriminating  based on certain  factors, but
since smoking is not one of them (surely) a company is free to refuse to
employ smokers *if they like*.

> Obviously, someone with a drinking or drug problem, or involved in
> *child buggering* is going to be in heavier shit than just his or
> her job. Your comparison doesn't make sense.

     Nicotine addiction is a  drug problem (or do you not consider  it a
problem?).  And don't tell me  it isn't addictive.  There are a *lot* of
people out there who've tried to stop and haven't been able to.  They'll
tell you how it "isn't addictive".

     Sorry for the length, but in net.flame I don't feel as much need to
restrain myself.
-- 
					der Mouse

{ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse

Hacker: One responsible for destroying /
Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterward