Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Darth Wong]

When you can post evidence of any kind of similar risk with smokers, the analogy would make sense.

You've consciously ignored all of the studies showing increased absenteeism and reduced productivity for smokers? Even if we assume that 100% of the reduced productivity is due to smoke breaks while at work and 0% of it has to do with decreased general health (which is also correlated to productivity), smokers are, as a class, less likely to be ideal employees, especially as they get older and their health starts to fuck up.

So you're conceding that you basically think drug addiction is not a viable criteria to fire someone? You have to wait until they start stealing from work or something?

Whoa, hold on, how did you get from point A to Z? I think you missed some letters there mate. Since when did I even come close to arguing that drug use isn't a valid criteria for termination of employment? I'm arguing that the analogy of a smoker to drug adict is wrong.

By citing correlations between drug use and harmful workplace activity and then acting as though this somehow refutes the analogy, which it does not. Drug use does not always lead to these things.

Rubbish, I am providing symptomes of drug addicts that can identify them as drug addicts even if there is no physical proof (the drugs) there, and mearly pointing out that they also remarkably coincide with behaivour that would lead to termination of employment anyway. I'm showing you that drug use can and does affect the performance of a worker, even if their brains 'aren't fried at work' like you asked me to.

It can, but it does not necessarily do so, therefore your argument is bullshit. There are drug users out there who cover up well and don't create any obvious problems at work, hence they do not fall into your convenient equation. Does this mean that if you discover them in the parking lot after work doing drugs, you should ignore the fact that you're employing a junkie?

Again, I'm doing no such thing. I am showing how drug use manifests itself in the professional output of a worker, even if they're not using it at the time.

No, you are showing how it can do so; you are not showing how it does do so, since it is not always the case. What part of this do you need spelled out for you, for fuck's sake?

What I disagreed with, and what I contiue to disagree with is you equating a smoker's habit to a drug adict.

A smoker's habit is a drug addiction! The only distinction is the kind of drug and the legality, neither of which defeat the analogy. Basically, your argument just boils down to the fact that harder drugs are more potent, hence tend to cause more exaggerated versions of the same problems.

I say it's because of the trust issue. An employee, particularly one in an important position, is someone you entrust with a certain amount of responsibility. SO WHY THE HOLY LIVING FUCK SHOULD YOU NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH HIS COMPLETE LACK OF SELF-CONTROL?

The fact that they aren't using, or smoking, while at work is self control, isn't it?

And it's up to you, rather than the employer, to decide that this proves it is enough self-control? Why?

You've made this blanket statement, smokers=drug adicts, and you've never justified it (well at least to me, if you've done so earlier, then I apologise)

That's a fucking retarded retort; smokers are drug addicts by definition. The only distinction is the strength of the drug.

[Mange]

I must admit, I don't know that very much about the laws on employment in the U.S., but this sounds rather extreme. For the record, I'm not a smoker myself. There are some generalizations here about smokers, but one must recognize that there's a difference in level, some smokers smoke heavily and other smokes the occasional cigarette. I find it strange that smokers alone are singled out in this fashion, you could say the exact same thing about people who drink alcohol. Heavy drinkers risks cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, etc. While I understand that a company that promotes health issues have this kind of policy, not all positions in such a company are external.

[jcow79]

I must admit, I don't know that very much about the laws on employment in the U.S., but this sounds rather extreme. For the record, I'm not a smoker myself. There are some generalizations here about smokers, but one must recognize that there's a difference in level, some smokers smoke heavily and other smokes the occasional cigarette. I find it strange that smokers alone are singled out in this fashion, you could say the exact same thing about people who drink alcohol. Heavy drinkers risks cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, etc. While I understand that a company that promotes health issues have this kind of policy, not all positions in such a company are external.

Health care premiums don't make these distinctions. If you are a smoker as far as they care you are a carton a day smoker and a potential liability. It's not really practical to try and categorize them as heavy or light.
As far as alcohol consumption goes I don't know they consider this simply because the AHA recommends moderate drinking to promote a healthy heart. Now everyone knows that heavy drinking leads to all sorts of other health problems but again it's not practical to try and differentiate between the heavy drinkers vs. the moderate drinkers.
They could fire every fat person on the staff however that would be treading a fine line because a clever enough lawyer might be able to make a case that obesity has genetic factors and classify it as a handicap which would entitle fat people protection under the ADA. Out of curiosity has anyone heard of any cases that might support or refute this assumption?

[Batman]

I must admit, I don't know that very much about the laws on employment in the U.S., but this sounds rather extreme. For the record, I'm not a smoker myself. There are some generalizations here about smokers, but one must recognize that there's a difference in level, some smokers smoke heavily and other smokes the occasional cigarette.

Indeed. How does this change that
a) smokers, no matter their nicotine intake, are potentially damaging to the image of what pretends to be a health care company, and
b) smoking regardless of the intake IS detrimental to your health?
NTM that smoking does have a recorded tendency of increasing intake, which DOES effect job efficiency eventually.

I find it strange that smokers alone are singled out in this fashion, you could say the exact same thing about people who drink alcohol.

Why don't you try to find a case where moderate on-my-own-time drinkers underwent the same and see if Mike reacts any different. Personally, I doubt it.

Heavy drinkers risks cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, etc.

While smoking carries no risks whatsoever.
While I understand that a company that promotes health issues have this kind of policy, not all positions in such a company are external.[/quote]
Err-what?

[Batman]

*Sigh* If some bored Mod could be bothered to fix the quote tags in my previous posts and delete this, pretty please?

[jcow79]

BTW...when did the argument of this thread change to firing because the company promotes a healthy lifestyle as opposed to the actual reason listed in the article which is:

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

If were simply speaking in analogy forgive me. I do just want to make sure we're still clear on the known facts.

[Mange]

I must admit, I don't know that very much about the laws on employment in the U.S., but this sounds rather extreme. For the record, I'm not a smoker myself. There are some generalizations here about smokers, but one must recognize that there's a difference in level, some smokers smoke heavily and other smokes the occasional cigarette.

Indeed. How does this change that
a) smokers, no matter their nicotine intake, are potentially damaging to the image of what pretends to be a health care company, and
b) smoking regardless of the intake IS detrimental to your health?
NTM that smoking does have a recorded tendency of increasing intake, which DOES effect job efficiency eventually.

I find it strange that smokers alone are singled out in this fashion, you could say the exact same thing about people who drink alcohol.

Why don't you try to find a case where moderate on-my-own-time drinkers underwent the same and see if Mike reacts any different. Personally, I doubt it.

Heavy drinkers risks cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, etc.

While smoking carries no risks whatsoever.
While I understand that a company that promotes health issues have this kind of policy, not all positions in such a company are external.

Err-what?[/quote]

To clarify, I didn't say that smoking doesn't increase the risk of serious health problems, everyone must be aware of this, but this isn't to say that it's always the case.

What I meant by my last statement is that how far should a company go? Should the janitor be fired because he smokes in his own fucking time? If a company told me what I can and can't do in my own time, I would say "FUCK YOU". When I'm reading this kind of idiotic shit, for once I'm glad that I live in Sweden where the working life policies doesn't allow this kind of dictorial influence over the employed. It's one thing to have a non-smoking working place, it's a totally different thing to dictate what you can and cannot do in your own time.

[Darth Wong]

It's one thing to have a non-smoking working place, it's a totally different thing to dictate what you can and cannot do in your own time.

The health effects of being a smoker disappear the moment you step into the office? That's an interesting (and completely idiotic) view of medical science.

[Mange]

It's one thing to have a non-smoking working place, it's a totally different thing to dictate what you can and cannot do in your own time.

The health effects of being a smoker disappear the moment you step into the office? That's an interesting (and completely idiotic) view of medical science.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, how the hell did you come to that conclusion? I do find it a bit strange that people working for a company that promotes health issues would smoke, but that's not saying that employees should be reduced to serfs that are dictated by company policy, again, in their own free time. People doesn't exist for the benefit of the company you work for. As long as a person smokes with moderation, the effects doesn't have to be severe. If health issues arises because of the smoking, then fine, fire away, but again, where do you draw the line?

[Darth Wong]

It's one thing to have a non-smoking working place, it's a totally different thing to dictate what you can and cannot do in your own time.

The health effects of being a smoker disappear the moment you step into the office? That's an interesting (and completely idiotic) view of medical science.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying,

Yes it is, you just won't admit it. You're arguing that something someone voluntarily does away from work should have no effect on how he is perceived at work even if it has been shown to correlate with absenteeism, elevated health-care costs, etc.

how the hell did you come to that conclusion? I do find it a bit strange that people working for a company that promotes health issues would smoke, but that's not saying that employees should be reduced to serfs that are dictated by company policy, again, in their own free time.

Serfs? Don't be a fucking moron. I know that will be a tall order for you, but try. The company is not being "dictatorial"; they are simply placing conditions on what they will pay money for.

People doesn't exist for the benefit of the company you work for.

No, they offer the company a service. The company is not obligated to purchase that service, you idiot.

As long as a person smokes with moderation, the effects doesn't have to be severe. If health issues arises because of the smoking, then fine, fire away, but again, where do you draw the line?

That's the company's decision, not yours. Unless you can show some reason why some blanket prohibition should be placed on this type of discrimination (and no one has been able to do so), then they can draw that line wherever they want. And I'm particularly tired of the "it's a legal drug" argument, since the only reason it isn't banned is the fact that such a ban, like Prohibition, would never actually work.

[Justforfun000]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, how the hell did you come to that conclusion? I do find it a bit strange that people working for a company that promotes health issues would smoke, but that's not saying that employees should be reduced to serfs that are dictated by company policy, again, in their own free time. People doesn't exist for the benefit of the company you work for. As long as a person smokes with moderation, the effects doesn't have to be severe. If health issues arises because of the smoking, then fine, fire away, but again, where do you draw the line?

This is what's still bothering me about this issue.

What's the difference between the smoking issue and them demanding you take a cholesterol test and if this is unacceptable. You must agree to no fried foods, especially take out? Can they fire you if they catch you at McDonalds? This is really the exact same thing, and I don't see how to reconcile the two. If the company's position is that they promote healthy lifestyles, and they also do not wish to pay for the statistically probable higher health costs for smokers, then they can use the same argument with diet. Actually an even stronger one could be made as it's a far more important risk factor then smoking. The biggest killer is still heart disease to my knowledge, and diet is the number one determining factor for it.

Smoking is undoubtedly stupid, and I can't defend the practice itself, but how do you justify this one particular health-related lifestyle choice being singled out as reason for potential dismissal? I'm really curious how the company would respond to other analogies.

[Mange]

The health effects of being a smoker disappear the moment you step into the office? That's an interesting (and completely idiotic) view of medical science.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying,

Yes it is, you just won't admit it. You're arguing that something someone voluntarily does away from work should have no effect on how he is perceived at work even if it has been shown to correlate with absenteeism, elevated health-care costs, etc.

how the hell did you come to that conclusion? I do find it a bit strange that people working for a company that promotes health issues would smoke, but that's not saying that employees should be reduced to serfs that are dictated by company policy, again, in their own free time.

Serfs? Don't be a fucking moron. I know that will be a tall order for you, but try. The company is not being "dictatorial"; they are simply placing conditions on what they will pay money for.

People doesn't exist for the benefit of the company you work for.

No, they offer the company a service. The company is not obligated to purchase that service, you idiot.

As long as a person smokes with moderation, the effects doesn't have to be severe. If health issues arises because of the smoking, then fine, fire away, but again, where do you draw the line?

That's the company's decision, not yours. Unless you can show some reason why some blanket prohibition should be placed on this type of discrimination (and no one has been able to do so), then they can draw that line wherever they want. And I'm particularly tired of the "it's a legal drug" argument, since the only reason it isn't banned is the fact that such a ban, like Prohibition, would never actually work.

I see your points, Mike, and I admit I was wrong. But if such rules are to be the introduced at a workplace, at least I think it's important that they are consistent and equally applied.

[Mange]

I'm sorry for the double-post, but that was also what I was fishing for, Justforfun000.

[Darth Wong]

What's the difference between the smoking issue and them demanding you take a cholesterol test and if this is unacceptable. You must agree to no fried foods, especially take out?

A health-club that fired an obese receptionist (and no, you would hardly need a blood test to determine obesity) would be perfectly normal, and quite reasonable IMO. If I walked into a health club and saw a grossly overweight receptionist, that's the wrong impression.

Can they fire you if they catch you at McDonalds? This is really the exact same thing, and I don't see how to reconcile the two.

No, it's not the same thing, because even junk food technically contains nutrients and someone can eat it in moderation without any health consequences whatsoever, whereas there is nothing positive whatsoever about smoking, and smoking "in moderation" is still harmful.

[Mange]

Don't be a fucking moron. I know that will be a tall order for you, but try.

Mike, that was a real lowpoint. [/quote]

[Darth Wong]

Don't be a fucking moron. I know that will be a tall order for you, but try.

Mike, that was a real lowpoint.

No, you trying to equate this to feudalism was a low point. I was simply calling you on your bullshit.

[Mange]

Don't be a fucking moron. I know that will be a tall order for you, but try.

Mike, that was a real lowpoint.

No, you trying to equate this to feudalism was a low point. I was simply calling you on your bullshit.

Ok, I was exaggerating.

[Justforfun000]

A health-club that fired an obese receptionist (and no, you would hardly need a blood test to determine obesity) would be perfectly normal, and quite reasonable IMO. If I walked into a health club and saw a grossly overweight receptionist, that's the wrong impression.

Oh sure. I agree with that. But what about office workers not seen by the general public? Or as someone mentioned earlier, the janitor? If you work in a position where you deal with the public directly, I totally understand their right to pick the ideal representative.

I wish they would be more discerning here in Canada sometimes when they put people in positions like reception when they speak broken English, and have a harder time understanding it completely. That's where affirmative action is taken too far.

No, it's not the same thing, because even junk food technically contains nutrients and someone can eat it in moderation without any health consequences whatsoever, whereas there is nothing positive whatsoever about smoking, and smoking "in moderation" is still harmful.

hmmmm. That's a good point...Wow. You're a pretty hard guy to beat in a debate. You come out of left field with things I never even thought of. lol.
Ok. Based on that distinction between the two, it would make it easier for them to justify it.

A nitpick though...They don't REALLY know if smoking in moderation is harmful. As in 2 to 3 cigarettes a day, or a week in some social smokers. They simply would not fund the studies to show that very low levels of smoke is negligible.
Anyone in the medical field would likely if pressed, admit that the lungs in a normal healthy state would eliminate the toxins in a few cigarettes here and there with no problems or lasting effects. Pretty well the same way that the liver can detoxify a small amount of alcohol with ease. It's when you start overloading your body systems that the problem starts.

[Darth Wong]

A nitpick though...They don't REALLY know if smoking in moderation is harmful. As in 2 to 3 cigarettes a day, or a week in some social smokers. They simply would not fund the studies to show that very low levels of smoke is negligible.

That's the exact same thing they said about secondhand smoke, until the recent EPA study showing that secondhand smoke in a smoky workplace such as a bar actually violated EPA guidelines for pollutant levels on an open-air highway. And that's the exact same thing they used to say 30 years ago about direct cigarette smoke, until medical studies showed the many overwhelmingly powerful correlations between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (far too great to chalk up to other factors).

Cigarette smoke contains numerous chemicals which are actually controlled WHMIS substances, so I'd say that it is a specious rebuttal to appeal to the lack of long-term studies for each and every new iteration of smoking-related health claim in turn.

Anyone in the medical field would likely if pressed, admit that the lungs in a normal healthy state would eliminate the toxins in a few cigarettes here and there with no problems or lasting effects. Pretty well the same way that the liver can detoxify a small amount of alcohol with ease. It's when you start overloading your body systems that the problem starts.

You could say the same about any number of WHMIS-controlled substances, yet they remain WHMIS controlled substances. There is an irony in the fact that a company is not permitted to expose its workers to certain chemicals that are routinely found in cigarette smoke.

[Justforfun000]

True. It was only a nitpick.

In any case, the simple distinction you made showing no actual BENEFIT involved in smoking, (not to mention the risk-ratio harm), that pretty well changes the analogy of my other examples. Conceded again.

[Crown]

When you can post evidence of any kind of similar risk with smokers, the analogy would make sense.

You've consciously ignored all of the studies showing increased absenteeism and reduced productivity for smokers? Even if we assume that 100% of the reduced productivity is due to smoke breaks while at work and 0% of it has to do with decreased general health (which is also correlated to productivity), smokers are, as a class, less likely to be ideal employees, especially as they get older and their health starts to fuck up.

No I haven't ignored any such studies, all my contention is there are reasons for firing drug users other than legality, and I posted them. They go beyond 'increased absenteeism and reduced productivity', they go into theft and indangerment of life. Not to mention serious lack of interpersonal skills, things which smoking itself doesn't cause, unlike hard drugs.

Whoa, hold on, how did you get from point A to Z? I think you missed some letters there mate. Since when did I even come close to arguing that drug use isn't a valid criteria for termination of employment? I'm arguing that the analogy of a smoker to drug adict is wrong.

By citing correlations between drug use and harmful workplace activity and then acting as though this somehow refutes the analogy, which it does not. Drug use does not always lead to these things.

It does not need to always lead to these things, we are discussing other reasons besides legality to fire a drug adict, all that matters is that the same reasons do not apply to smoking to show your analogy to be wrong on a footing other than legality.

Rubbish, I am providing symptomes of drug addicts that can identify them as drug addicts even if there is no physical proof (the drugs) there, and mearly pointing out that they also remarkably coincide with behaivour that would lead to termination of employment anyway. I'm showing you that drug use can and does affect the performance of a worker, even if their brains 'aren't fried at work' like you asked me to.

It can, but it does not necessarily do so, therefore your argument is bullshit. There are drug users out there who cover up well and don't create any obvious problems at work, hence they do not fall into your convenient equation. Does this mean that if you discover them in the parking lot after work doing drugs, you should ignore the fact that you're employing a junkie?

No. I haven't denied the company the right to fire employee's who don't uphold the company image Mike. I think it is a sucky thing to do, if their work performance hasn't suffered from it (we're not discussing legality here, and we are assuming that they are actually not suffering from any of the side affects associated with whatever substance they are abusing, and aren't a risk in any way).

But what troubles me is the term you used 'cover up well'. Do you mean they cover up well that they are using drugs? Or, cover up well that they are actually suffering from the symptoms I posted (which are reasons for dismissal in and of themselves)? I suspect the former, since the later is a no brainer.

Again, I'm doing no such thing. I am showing how drug use manifests itself in the professional output of a worker, even if they're not using it at the time.

No, you are showing how it can do so; you are not showing how it does do so, since it is not always the case. What part of this do you need spelled out for you, for fuck's sake?

That's all I need to do! I need to show how your analogy is wrong other than legality. It doesn't matter that some people don't go on and develope these symptoms. All I need to show is that these things wouldn't happen with smoker's because they smoke, unlike drug adicts.

What I disagreed with, and what I contiue to disagree with is you equating a smoker's habit to a drug adict.

A smoker's habit is a drug addiction! The only distinction is the kind of drug and the legality, neither of which defeat the analogy. Basically, your argument just boils down to the fact that harder drugs are more potent, hence tend to cause more exaggerated versions of the same problems.

Is this false? Are harder drugs less potent? Do they not cause symptoms in the employee that go far and above those exibited by a smoker?

The fact that they aren't using, or smoking, while at work is self control, isn't it?

And it's up to you, rather than the employer, to decide that this proves it is enough self-control? Why?

Never argued it wasn't. Look at the post directly below to the one you quoted and responded to.

I'm fine with employers firing employees who don't uphold the company image, that's something that the employee would know about before hand, or with enough time to rectify whatever reconciliable difference their private social life has with the employer, I think it stinks, but as someone who has been employed I know that the employer usually ADVERTISES to the employee loud and clear how they expect him/her to act as a representative of their company, when have I disagreed?

You've made this blanket statement, smokers=drug adicts, and you've never justified it (well at least to me, if you've done so earlier, then I apologise)

That's a fucking retarded retort; smokers are drug addicts by definition. The only distinction is the strength of the drug.

Which produces measurable distinctions in work performace, mental health, interpersonal skill, and poses a significant safety risk to the employee, the employer and to those around them. Things which smoking doesn't do (well not on anywhere near the same level).

For your analogy to work we have to discount the following factors; legality, potency of the drug in question, totally pretend that they're not any kind of seriously dangerous side affects (paranoia, schizophrenia, delusions, loss of motor function, or suicidal or homicidal tendencies). Hey you know what, I think I found out what our hypothetical drug adict is adicted to in this scenario; nicotine.

The point is that to make the analogy of smokers=drug adicts we have to ignore other factors besides legality which is why the analogy doesn't work. If you argue 'not all drug use leads to A', then isn't it just as fair as to say 'not all smoking leads to B'? If we go around and around this as long as we want which will either lead to two scenarios; we make a list of all the negative possibilities of hirining a smoker, and a similar list for hiring a drug adict, I guarantee you that the drug adict list will be a hell of a lot longer than the smoker's.

All the points which a drug adict has that a smoker hasn't is an arguement for the fallecious analogy.

Or the other option, we play petulant cat-and-mouse games; 'X doesn't always lead to Y', and we return to an employer firing an employee who doesn't represent the company image, which is usually a requirement in the contract. Which I think you'll find I have already agreed with you now at least twice.

Like I said, had you chosen something like sex adict, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but hard substance abusers develope symptoms that are orders of magnitude more destructive than a smokers. To themselves, to the workplace and to just about anyone around them. It doesn't matter that it doesn't always happen, all that matters is that it won't happen to someone who smokes, just by smoking. Ergo; even disregarding legality, the analogy doesn't work.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, sincerely I'm not. But give me a sign that you can even see my arguement here.

[Darth Wong]

No I haven't ignored any such studies, all my contention is there are reasons for firing drug users other than legality, and I posted them.

None of which do not also apply to tobacco users, albeit at lower levels. The only difference is a matter of degree, not logic.

They go beyond 'increased absenteeism and reduced productivity', they go into theft and indangerment of life. Not to mention serious lack of interpersonal skills, things which smoking itself doesn't cause, unlike hard drugs.

You have a seriously skewed idea of how the average drug user in a corporate environment behaves. Do you seriously think that all drug users are like the strung-out junkies you see lying on the street in movies? Do you know how many professionals like lawyers and doctors (prescription drug abuse being a serious problem in the medical profession) are out there, covering up well and functioning in social environments without a problem? Rush fucking Limbaugh ran one of the most successful radio talk shows in the world for years while strung out on Vicodin, which is basically pharmaceutical-grade heroin for fuck's sake. And nobody ever noticed.

It does not need to always lead to these things, we are discussing other reasons besides legality to fire a drug adict, all that matters is that the same reasons do not apply to smoking to show your analogy to be wrong on a footing other than legality.

Actually, tobacco addicts can and do regularly break the law in pursuit of their habit. I even posted an article here once about the jump in convenience store robberies in Canada after cigarette prices taxes went up. Once again, at the risk of beating a dead horse, you have been unable to identify a difference in logic; only one of degree, and one which you have massively exaggerated.

That's all I need to do! I need to show how your analogy is wrong other than legality.

Showing that the problems can be much worse in extreme cases does not do jack shit to prove the analogy wrong, since a person exhibiting such extreme behaviour would be fired anyway, regardless of whether he was a drug user. What do you not understand about this?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, sincerely I'm not. But give me a sign that you can even see my arguement here.

You don't have an argument. You're generalizing about all drug users being strung-out junkies who can't even function on a social level in order to pretend that they have all kinds of problems that tobacco users don't have, in order to pretend that the analogy doesn't work. You're ignoring the fact that it is unnecessary to fire people for drug use in the extreme cases you mention since they're already hopelessly non-functional in the work environment, and you are pretending that drug users who can function simply do not exist, thus allowing you to ignore that whole class of people which was the subject of my fucking analogy in the first place, moron.

[Crown]

Mike, take the time to read the post in it's entirety before you respond, especially the last part. This is becoming unyieldly and if I am opperating on a false assumption (my entire arguement is based on risk analysis, which is why I feel a matter of degree is important to the arguement), save yourself the trouble (and me a headache) and point out that we are arguing on different things. My entire post is basically repeating the same point, so ...

No I haven't ignored any such studies, all my contention is there are reasons for firing drug users other than legality, and I posted them.

None of which do not also apply to tobacco users, albeit at lower levels. The only difference is a matter of degree, not logic.

When the 'matter of degree' becomes so astoundingly lopsided, it is illogical to equate the two, that's the point! And 'none of which do not also apply to tobacco users', yeah right, schizophrenial delusions, suicide, homicidal killing sprees, all induced by tobacco ...

You have a seriously skewed idea of how the average drug user in a corporate environment behaves. Do you seriously think that all drug users are like the strung-out junkies you see lying on the street in movies? Do you know how many professionals like lawyers and doctors (prescription drug abuse being a serious problem in the medical profession) are out there, covering up well and functioning in social environments without a problem? Rush fucking Limbaugh ran one of the most successful radio talk shows in the world for years while strung out on Vicodin, which is basically pharmaceutical-grade heroin for fuck's sake. And nobody ever noticed.

You think using Rush Limbaugh as an example helps your arguement? The guy was popular cause he functioned as an asshole, he isn't any more representative of what a typical office worker would have to function like in this arguement than me pointing out that Einstein smoked, blowing your precious 'smokers are morons' mantra up shit creek without a paddle.

This is an arguement of degree Mike. Do a risk assesment analysis of smoker vs drug adict, and tell me I'm wrong.

Actually, tobacco addicts can and do regularly break the law in pursuit of their habit. I even posted an article here once about the jump in convenience store robberies in Canada after cigarette prices taxes went up. Once again, at the risk of beating a dead horse, you have been unable to identify a difference in logic; only one of degree, and one which you have massively exaggerated.

Rubbish, there are 1 billion smokers worldwide, do the math and tell me which group is more likely to do harm to themselves and others, smokers or drug adicts. If you show me that I am 'massively exaggerating' anything, I'll conceed.

Showing that the problems can be much worse in extreme cases does not do jack shit to prove the analogy wrong, since a person exhibiting such extreme behaviour would be fired anyway, regardless of whether he was a drug user. What do you not understand about this?

That it is the extreme case which we all think of when discussing drug adicts, not the 'he does it, but doesn't let it affect his work'. That's the point, you're linking smokers with drug adicts which automatically links the extreme cases, when they do not match. It is a misrepresentation of the analogy, especially when the 'extreme case' for one side massively exceeds that of the other, and is more likely to occur and is a far more emotive arguement.

If we don't go with the whole range of possibilities, we might as well add to the analogy women, as they are likely to get pregnant and that leads in a decrease in work output. Get it?

You don't have an argument. You're generalizing about all drug users being strung-out junkies who can't even function on a social level in order to pretend that they have all kinds of problems that tobacco users don't have, in order to pretend that the analogy doesn't work.

When does an analogy stop being an analogy? How many false constraints do we have to stick onto the end of 'drug adict' (legality, extreme social behaivoural inability, etc), before you end up having an analogy only for the shock value? I don't need the extreme case of drug adicts being the norm, all I need is that smokers do not have anywhere near the same aptitude for the same end to show that the analogy is patently false. It's a question of risk assesement.

You're ignoring the fact that it is unnecessary to fire people for drug use in the extreme cases you mention since they're already hopelessly non-functional in the work environment, and you are pretending that drug users who can function simply do not exist, thus allowing you to ignore that whole class of people which was the subject of my fucking analogy in the first place, moron.

Do a fucking realistic risk analysis of smoker vs drug adict and get back to me, I'm sick of you continuously trying to minimise the 'extreme case' as being un-important to the analogy, when it is that actual case that people automatically associate with drug adicts. Which is the actual reason of my disagreement with your analogy, it is emotive more than rational. It is designed to get a rise out of people, but only if we ignore too many factors of what 'drug adict' entails, when the same factors are completely absent with a smoker.

An example of this would be; legality. We have both agreed that this is a piss poor arguement, so we move on to find other reasons, I've posted them, screaming 'it's a question of degree' doesn't mitigate the fact that the one is orders of magnitude worse than the other. Put it like this; when we reach a point where the analogy to work as follows;

• Normal case smoker = Best case drug adict, or
• Worst case smoker = normal case drug adict, and finally
• ??? = worst case drug adict

Clearly the analogy isn't only flawed but skewed. When the analogy to work has to be so narrowly constrained it doesn't match, it is a forced arguement.

You think that I'm not being logical about this? The only way for me to buy this analogy is if both sides exhibit the same risk analysis, which is why had you picked a sex adict or adrenaline junkie I wouldn't be arguing against you, but a drug adict? I can't buy that when the worst case scenario of one is order's of magnitude greater than the other, because that's where the analogy breaks down.

And I really don't want to repeat myself here, because I know that will just piss you off, but this whole exchange was started with this post;

Why not? We ditch drug addicts, don't we? And before someone pipes up with the "that's totally different because hard drugs are illegal" idiot retort, consider the fact that the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with the employer's decision to fire the junkie employee in the first place, so this distinction is irrelevant to the analogy. Do you really think that employers who fire drug-addict employees are doing so in order to self-righteously uphold the law? They're doing it because they don't want a fucking junkie on staff. If it was speeding or some other illegal act which they didn't care about, they wouldn't fire the person.

I've given you my reason; risk assesment. Any company would fire a junkie over a simple risk assesment analysis, but the same doesn't hold true for a smoker; because it is a matter of degree. It doesn't matter that 'A doesn't always lead to B', the fact that 'B' exists in a junkie's risk assesment column (turning up to work trashed of their minds and holding a chainsaw), and at the same time 'B' doesn't exist in the smokers column shows that the analogy doesn't fit.

I agree with you; 'the fact that the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with the employer's decision to fire the junkie employee in the first place, so this distinction is irrelevant to the analogy'. So all that we are left with is an employers morality (what they deem appropriate or inappropriate) or a risk analysis of the two candidates.

Since I have also agreed with you on the 'employer's right to set his/hers own standards of morality, or company image or whatever', we are left with risk analysis.

This is where the analogy falls apart, and this is where I deem it to be a false analogy.

I really, really, really am not trying to piss you off, but you said earlier I don't have an arguement, because it is based on 'degree' and not 'logic', but colour me green and call me Gumby, but since when was degree also not valid for the analogy? Pointing out that there is a huge difference in degree between the two isn't 'illogical', it is inconvenient to your analogy. I'm sorry about that, but it is convenient to me showing your analogy not being to hold up on a matter other than legality.

The only way I am wrong about this, is if the above quote from your earlier post wasn't refering to risk assesment either, but something else, something which you've either already posted (which I did not read), which means that I'm on the wrong tangent, and I apologise. Or something you posted to me and I was too stupid to notice, in which case I apologise even more for my own stupidity and dragging this out more than it had to and wasting your time, or something that you haven't made clear yet, in which case if you post it, I'm sure I'll be more than happy to conceed. But I know I'm right about risk assesment, because it depends greatly on degree.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, take the time to read the post in it's entirety before you respond, especially the last part. This is becoming unyieldly and if I am opperating on a false assumption (my entire arguement is based on risk analysis, which is why I feel a matter of degree is important to the arguement), save yourself the trouble (and me a headache) and point out that we are arguing on different things. My entire post is basically repeating the same point, so ...

Crown, don't be a fucking moron. You have not provided a shred of evidence that any individual drug user can be assumed to have "orders of magnitude" more risk factor than a smoker for absenteeism or criminal activity etc., because you are lumping all kinds of drug users together. You are simply making up this "enormous" disparity in order to support your point.

When the 'matter of degree' becomes so astoundingly lopsided, it is illogical to equate the two, that's the point! And 'none of which do not also apply to tobacco users', yeah right, schizophrenial delusions, suicide, homicidal killing sprees, all induced by tobacco ...

See above, moron.

You think using Rush Limbaugh as an example helps your arguement? The guy was popular cause he functioned as an asshole,

Totally irrelevant to the fact that it kills your "all drug users are like the strung-out junkies I see on TV" assumption.

he isn't any more representative of what a typical office worker would have to function like in this arguement than me pointing out that Einstein smoked, blowing your precious 'smokers are morons' mantra up shit creek without a paddle.

Einstein did not have the past 5 decades of health research upon which to base his decision, you idiot. Try again.

This is an arguement of degree Mike. Do a risk assesment analysis of smoker vs drug adict, and tell me I'm wrong.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk assessment, since you seem to assume that lumping gigantic categories together into one group for the purposes of such assessment actually makes sense.

Let me explain this for you one more time, you idiot: IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY COVERED UP HIS DRUG USE UNTIL YOU CATCH HIM, HE DOES NOT FALL INTO YOUR EXTREMIST STEREOTYPE OF DRUG USERS, SO THE BEHAVIOUR OF THAT STEREOTYPE IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SO-CALLED "RISK ASSESSMENT". WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND? AND WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE EXAMPLE OF DOCTORS ABUSING SELF-PRESCRIBED DRUGS? HOW ABOUT POT SMOKERS? ARE THEY ALL STRUNG-OUT JUNKIES LAYING IN THE GUTTER TOO?

[Crown]

Crown, don't be a fucking moron. You have not provided a shred of evidence that any individual drug user can be assumed to have "orders of magnitude" more risk factor than a smoker for absenteeism or criminal activity etc., because you are lumping all kinds of drug users together. You are simply making up this "enormous" disparity in order to support your point.

Oh jumpin' Jesus humping Mary on a pogo stick. Yes! Of course I am! It falls under the term 'drug adict', we haven't defined X drug with Y usage, this is why I'm arguing against the analogy. It is too broad, it falls apart, which is why I keep coming back to you with sex adict or adrenaline junkie. I can just as rightly accuse you of doing the exact same thing; ignoring the potential dangers of drug abuse (which aren't there for a smoker) in order to support your point.

An analogy is a generalisation, that's what makes it so fucking stupid. I don't need to show the 'individual', I need to show the 'group'.

And I resent the 'making up' part, I'm making up nothing; drug adicts have been known to do the things I've listed (they've been known to do more) due to their addiction. Was there other factos at play? Sure, but have smokers haven't been known to lose all sense of reality due to their habit? All I can be accused of is stubbornly not letting you get away with denying it.

Einstein did not have the past 5 decades of health research upon which to base his decision, you idiot. Try again.

You are right of course, but Einstein did end his life shorter than necessary by choosing to not undergo life saving surgery, he certainly had a fatalistic attitude somewhere, although don't take that as an attempt at rebuttle, just an observation. He was also known for being a shitty father and husband, the point would actually be that life style choice isn't a corellation with intelligence (which we are defining here as their ability to do their work).

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk assessment, since you seem to assume that lumping gigantic categories together into one group for the purposes of such assessment actually makes sense.

Oh bite me, it is a risk with a drug adict that isn't apparent in a smoker due to their addiction, you hand waving that isn't going to change it. Are all drug users the same? No. Do all drug users go to the extreme? No. Do all drugs have the same affects? No. Is a person who is hooked on cold and flu tablets under the same risk as someone hooked on LSD? No. Does a genuine risk assesment take in other more complicated factors than just drug use alone, like; social economic background, family life, personality traits, etc? Yes.

But guess what? We are discussing the general term 'drug user' with a smoker! Ergo, we get a collection of the greatest hits and play.

If you need differentiate between the different types of drug adicts in order to make your analogy work, guess what? The analogy is too broad!

Let me explain this for you one more time, you idiot: IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY COVERED UP HIS DRUG USE UNTIL YOU CATCH HIM, HE DOES NOT FALL INTO YOUR EXTREMIST STEREOTYPE OF DRUG USERS, SO THE BEHAVIOUR OF THAT STEREOTYPE IS FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SO-CALLED "RISK ASSESSMENT". WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND?

Was this an edit? Cause I didn't see this part when I first read your post and pressed reply, and only got to it after I already typed a response to the stuff above it so ...

The part where this is yet another arbitrary constraint that you put there for your analogy to work! For fuck's sake! It doesn't matter that they haven't gone to the extreme yet. It matters that their life style choice can lead to it, while a smoker's won't.


However if we are going to arbitrarily now confine the employee as to only be falling to 'this' level, and nowhere worse then congratulations, you've constrained 'drug adict' to mean 'someone adicted to nicotine, or cold and flu tablets, but not, you know the other stuff', I conceed.




Now excuse me while I go watch Unbreakable.