My new job...with B&W!

[Warik]

sorry i love that boat...

there are ethics in business though... it depends where you want to draw the line.

In business, I would draw the line at customer deception and force through lack of options. I don't think cigarette companies are doing anything wrong because they clearly state on every package that the shit you are smoking is lethal. They don't force anyone to buy their products - it's completely optional.

Now, if you want to talk poor business ethics, look at the University system. They tell you that the skills you acquire will be vital to you in the real world, when in fact they are not, and you are forced to attend a University due to the potential lack of options toward a beneficial existence should you choose not to attend.

Criminals, I tell you.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

Warik---as far as your argument that no one else is effected by cigarette smokers, that's just your common dose of hyperbole and your usual lack of logic. More sick cancer patients leads to more health insurance disbursements which leads to higher healthcare costs for all of us.

Smoking cigarettes is not an isolated problem---it affects all of us in a place that you probably worry about the most----your pocketbook.

I don't smoke. The reason I pay so little for life insurance and get so much coverage is partly due to the fact that I don't smoke.

If anything, I benefit from so many smokers - it makes my shit be less.

The only damage they cause is when they smoke their filth in public. Fortunately, restaurants have no smoking sections, and holding my breath for 15-30 seconds is usually no problem in public places while I flee to an area with more breathing air.

-Warik

 

[dballer]

Tobacco companies (along with ANY OTHER COMPANY INTERESTED IN MAKING, HMM...A PROFIT?!) market in areas where they believe are untouched, and have potential...plain and simple!

And, no matter how many "Truth" commercials, and anti-smoking campaigns go on...PEOPLE will still fucking smoke!!!

AMEN!!!!

People flip out over cigarettes.... they kick and scream that people give their money to tobacco corps... but how much crying do we hear about kicking some of our hard earned cash to a tribe of savages who endorse terrorist attacks on our country.


Second hand smoke kills people.. but so do drunk drivers.. are we going to ban drinking in public places or in resturants?

 

[Badkins21]

dballer: That's a very good analogy!

Warik, re: RyanH's comments: What he/they don't understand, is that the only thing artifcially driving OUR costs up, is when...SMOKERS CAN'T FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR OWN MEDICAL CARE, AND *WE* HAVE TO!!! That goes for any medical problems, though, even the ones people don't, in fact, bring upon themselves...

'Til the next rebuttal...

 

[Wombat]

Wombat (and anyone else of the same opinion...): I never said I agreed with smoking in public places...

Although, my definition of "public" places are only those paid for by TAXPAYERS...which means city parks, city transportation, etc.

Restaurants, bars, etc., are PRIVATE establishments--just like I believe it is the right of an establishment to REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE THEY CHOOSE, they so have the right to allow/prohibit smoking...

And I agree, second and third hand smoke is deadly...I think smokers who have children, and smoke around said children, are horrible people...

However, everything else I have said, still stands!

And let it be known, I only used "liberals" like RyanH for descriptive purposes...he's one of few liberals on here that I have respect for, since his opinions are always based on facts--even though they're SKEWED SOMETIMES, HAHA...unlike most of the liberals on here that base their arguments on emotion--YOU KNOW who you are!!!

On that note, 'til the next post...B$

private establishments also have to keep a safe environment not only for there workers but there patrons---If they allow smoking in bar...and have waitresses working many hours a night, are they keeping a safe environment for them? Or are they putting them at risk? California says no they are not giving them a safe environment to work. ....There is no hazard pay for bartenders and waitresses etc. The only reason that the whole country has not gone forth with the same action california has is because of the money that big tobacco is dumping into these such states and politicians....Your right a private establishment has the right to refuse anyone of service, however, they do not have the right to be wreckless and endanger peoples lives on any basis. Allowing smoking in any building or in any environment which puts peoples health at risk and is wreckless whether its private or public------More lawsuits will come of this in the future. Its to bad it has to come to lawsuits but if people (companies) would just do the right thing and protect peoples health, there would be a lot more acceptance of smokers....

By the way to put into perspective of how many innocent people in this country die from other peoples 2nd hand smoke each year, it would be the same as the world trade center incident happening 17 times each year in terms of people losing there lives. Thats staggering....

in terms of what you stated about steroid being like tobacco----can you give me any statitics on how many people lose there lives from steroid use....Because I have never seen any evidence of even one person losing there lives from steroid use alone....peace

 

[Badkins21]

Wombat (and, again, ANY others...): You're missing the basic premise of my "argument."

America was, is, and will be BASED on Capitalist principles...therefore , if any employee, of ANY establishment wants to, he/she has the right to...hmmm...FUCKING QUIT?! And don't pull the "What if they are under contract" line, either...anyone can buy themselves out of any contract...but, one would have to have the means--if one did not have the means, they would NOT want to buy themselves out...get it, it's cycical! That is free enterprise...that's a free market!

Unlike under Communist rule, or any totalititarian regime, here in America we work where we want...if it ain't safe, DON'T WORK THERE!! That seems like common sense!

...maybe people in California who work at restaurants and bars don't know about how bad second hand smoke is, though--good thing the government is there to "protect" them, LOL!

 

[Warik]

Warik, re: RyanH's comments: What he/they don't understand, is that the only thing artifcially driving OUR costs up, is when...SMOKERS CAN'T FUCKING PAY FOR THEIR OWN MEDICAL CARE, AND *WE* HAVE TO!!!

Whoops... I was speaking under the assumption that we lived in the United States of America, a free country where citizens' incomes are not forcibly removed from their pockets in order to pay for the healthcare of irresponsible sick people.

My mistake. =)

-Warik

 

[Badkins21]

Sorry, dude, Socialism has been creeping into the Medical Arena longer than in any other institution...

UNFORTUNATELY...!!!

Why do you think you and I pay $8 for a tab of Aspirin in an E.R.???

Because...we're paying for ourselves, and seven other people who can't afford that same tab !!

 

[Wombat]

Wombat (and, again, ANY others...): You're missing the basic premise of my "argument."

America was, is, and will be BASED on Capitalist principles...therefore , if any employee, of ANY establishment wants to, he/she has the right to...hmmm...FUCKING QUIT?! And don't pull the "What if they are under contract" line, either...anyone can buy themselves out of any contract...but, one would have to have the means--if one did not have the means, they would NOT want to buy themselves out...get it, it's cycical! That is free enterprise...that's a free market!

Unlike under Communist rule, or any totalititarian regime, here in America we work where we want...if it ain't safe, DON'T WORK THERE!! That seems like common sense!

...maybe people in California who work at restaurants and bars don't know about how bad second hand smoke is, though--good thing the government is there to "protect" them, LOL!

I get your premise but don't agree with it fully....so in your capitalist world, the way you get around negligence is to say "well such in such a person never should have put themselves in harms way" so therefore how can we be at fault....As long is its "legal", you feel that the companies that are knowingly putting people in harms way can never be at fault even though they are supplying the lethal enviroment...

So in your way of thinking...If I wanted to put a shooting range(which is legal)in lets say a bar...And if a patron was to be killed by a stray bullet, there would be no negligence for the bar owner(me) because the patron never should have put himself in harms way or at best should be smart enough to know that he could be hit with a bullet at any time..the liability should go soley on the patron in your opinion...That makes sense....Things are never black in white like you believe them to be....

by the way you still haven't given me statitics on the number of people that have died soley on steroid use....

 

[Wombat]

Second hand smoke kills people.. but so do drunk drivers.. are we going to ban drinking in public places or in resturants?

drinking in public places doesn't kill people..Smoking in public and private places does kill people...Drinking and Driving over the legal limit is illegal(so there is your ban on drinking and driving)--Smoking in public and private places does kill people(so wheres the ban)