PDA

View Full Version : Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban



PoliCon
02-11-2011, 08:37 AM
By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: February 10, 2011

*

Smokers now face another risk from their habit: it could cost them a shot at a job.

.

More hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.

The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts — like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers — have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.

The new rules essentially treat cigarettes like an illegal narcotic. Applications now explicitly warn of “tobacco-free hiring,” job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine and new employees caught smoking face termination.

This shift — from smoke-free to smoker-free workplaces — has prompted sharp debate, even among anti-tobacco groups, over whether the policies establish a troubling precedent of employers intruding into private lives to ban a habit that is legal.

“If enough of these companies adopt theses policies and it really becomes difficult for smokers to find jobs, there are going to be consequences,” said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has written about the trend. “Unemployment is also bad for health.”

Smokers have been turned away from jobs in the past — prompting more than half the states to pass laws rejecting bans on smokers — but the recent growth in the number of companies adopting no-smoker rules has been driven by a surge of interest among health care providers, according to academics, human resources experts and tobacco opponents.

There is no reliable data on how many businesses have adopted such policies. But people tracking the issue say there are enough examples to suggest the policies are becoming more mainstream, and in some states courts have upheld the legality of refusing to employ smokers.

For example, hospitals in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas, among others, stopped hiring smokers in the last year and more are openly considering the option.

“We’ve had a number of inquiries over the last 6 to 12 months about how to do this,” said Paul Terpeluk, a director at the Cleveland Clinic, which stopped hiring smokers in 2007 and has championed the policy. “The trend line is getting pretty steep, and I’d guess that in the next few years you’d see a lot of major hospitals go this way.”

A number of these organizations have justified the new policies as advancing their institutional missions of promoting personal well-being and finding ways to reduce the growth in health care costs.

CONTINUED (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=2)

PoliCon
02-11-2011, 08:38 AM
And yet when Christian and values based organizations make the same choice about another behavioral preference - they're accused of bigotry. :rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
02-11-2011, 08:43 AM
Tift Regional Hospital is pulling this same bullshit.

PoliCon
02-11-2011, 08:45 AM
Tift Regional Hospital is pulling this same bullshit.

Are they banning practicing homosexuals as well? I mean statistically that lifestyle is far more costly and dangerous than that of a smoker. OH WAIT - that would be bigotry of they did that. :rolleyes:

Madisonian
02-11-2011, 09:25 AM
As a smoker, business owner and conservative, I agree with these companies rights to enforce policies like this.
There is a caveat to this however.
As a business owner and conservative, I believe it is my right to hire or fire whomever I choose for whatever reason, or lack thereof, I choose.

If I don't want to hire X because they are white, black, have families, are whatever religion, basically every reason that the government says I can't discriminate in hiring or firing practices, it is my right as the business owner, capital provider and risk taker to run my business as I see fit, not some governmental dweeb or social entity.

Working for someone else is not a right, regardless of what laws politicians pass on a state or federal level. This should not be confused with a right to work. No person legally in this country should have the government tell them they cannot work. But saying that I must hire a person based on any criteria other than what I choose that criteria to be is immoral and that should be illegal.

Novaheart
02-11-2011, 10:24 AM
As a smoker, business owner and conservative, I agree with these companies rights to enforce policies like this.
There is a caveat to this however.
As a business owner and conservative, I believe it is my right to hire or fire whomever I choose for whatever reason, or lack thereof, I choose.
.



If you have fewer than 15 employees you are exempt from most of those oppressive laws. Is your complaint that the law forces you to hire people you don't want to work with, or that if you discriminate that public attention might be drawn to your prejudices?

NJCardFan
02-11-2011, 01:18 PM
If you have fewer than 15 employees you are exempt from most of those oppressive laws. Is your complaint that the law forces you to hire people you don't want to work with, or that if you discriminate that public attention might be drawn to your prejudices?
You are such a complete moron it isn't funny.

Madisonian
02-11-2011, 01:29 PM
If you have fewer than 15 employees you are exempt from most of those oppressive laws. Is your complaint that the law forces you to hire people you don't want to work with, or that if you discriminate that public attention might be drawn to your prejudices?

Nowhere did I say that as a business owner I should be exempt from the consequences of hiring practices, discriminatory or not, but if I want to hire only red headed women with green eyes and freckles, then that should be up to me and only me, not any governmental power or agency.

Yukon
02-11-2011, 01:52 PM
Smokers are mad and obvioulsy suciidal - I pity them for they are addicts.

FBIGuy
02-11-2011, 02:08 PM
If you have fewer than 15 employees you are exempt from most of those oppressive laws. Is your complaint that the law forces you to hire people you don't want to work with, or that if you discriminate that public attention might be drawn to your prejudices?

The freedom of association granted to us by the U.S. Constitution also implies freedom not to associate. You and those like you wish to deny me this freedom.

FBIGuy
02-11-2011, 02:09 PM
Nowhere did I say that as a business owner I should be exempt from the consequences of hiring practices, discriminatory or not, but if I want to hire only red headed women with green eyes and freckles, then that should be up to me and only me, not any governmental power or agency.

Maybe he wants to be a Hooter's girl and they keep rejecting him?

Yukon
02-11-2011, 02:21 PM
The freedom of association granted to us by the U.S. Constitution also implies freedom not to associate. You and those like you wish to deny me this freedom.

No one has the right to kill others with their second-hand smoke.

Madisonian
02-11-2011, 02:27 PM
No one has the right to kill others with their second-hand smoke.
Right? No.
Absolute pleasure in the ability to piss off cigarette Nazis with the flick of an ash and an exhale in their general direction? Priceless.

Novaheart
02-11-2011, 02:52 PM
The freedom of association granted to us by the U.S. Constitution also implies freedom not to associate. You and those like you wish to deny me this freedom.

With whom do wish not to associate and where do you not want to be forced to associate with them? Aren't we all forced to associate with others at one time or another, barring moving to the cabin in Idaho?

Novaheart
02-11-2011, 02:56 PM
Right? No.
Absolute pleasure in the ability to piss off cigarette Nazis with the flick of an ash and an exhale in their general direction? Priceless.

I'm in my second year of smoke freedom and I confess that I can feel the assholism coming on, though because I smoked for so long I have yet to actually be an asshole about others smoking. It really does stink, and it really isn't nice to have to walk through the cloud outside a building especially on a warm humid day. It really is a nasty and stupid habit, and I knew that for most of the years that I smoked, even if I defended my prerogative to do so.

Just give it up, it's time. If the lack of fashion sense doesn't appeal to your better judgement, let me introduce you to my mother's oxygen machine.

djones520
02-11-2011, 03:06 PM
Are they banning practicing homosexuals as well? I mean statistically that lifestyle is far more costly and dangerous than that of a smoker. OH WAIT - that would be bigotry of they did that. :rolleyes:

I'm curious to see your statistical proof of this.

Especially since there are far more smokers (thats not including smokeless tobacco users) then homosexuals. That everyone of those smokers are subject to smoking related illnesses, while not all homosexuals are subject to "related" illnesses due to their ability to practice safe sex, monogamy, etc...

Furthermore the cost of 30 days of medication for Cancer as opposed to HIV is about $500 more. I'm sure I could dig up more, but I've gotta get to work right now.

But I'd be interested in seeing your proof for such a comment.

MrsSmith
02-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Isn't it interesting what can be defined as discrimination, and what seems to be fine? For some things, this type of discrimination makes sense, an employee that takes in a substance that can make their job performance erratic or unsafe...ok. But someone that ingests a perfectly legal substance that causes no issues with job performance or safety? Are they going to turn away the overweight next? Those with high cholesterol or high blood pressure? Diabetics? How many people are healthy enough/have healthy enough life styles to work? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Madisonian
02-11-2011, 05:52 PM
Are they banning practicing homosexuals as well?

No, only professional ones.:p

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 12:46 AM
As a smoker, business owner and conservative, I agree with these companies rights to enforce policies like this.
There is a caveat to this however.
As a business owner and conservative, I believe it is my right to hire or fire whomever I choose for whatever reason, or lack thereof, I choose.

If I don't want to hire X because they are white, black, have families, are whatever religion, basically every reason that the government says I can't discriminate in hiring or firing practices, it is my right as the business owner, capital provider and risk taker to run my business as I see fit, not some governmental dweeb or social entity.

Working for someone else is not a right, regardless of what laws politicians pass on a state or federal level. This should not be confused with a right to work. No person legally in this country should have the government tell them they cannot work. But saying that I must hire a person based on any criteria other than what I choose that criteria to be is immoral and that should be illegal.

I can agree with that. At the same time - I honestly believe that what an employee does off the job really is not the bosses business.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 12:47 AM
No one has the right to kill others with their second-hand smoke.

please produce for me a single death certificate where second hand smoke is listed as cause of death. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 01:06 AM
I'm curious to see your statistical proof of this.

Especially since there are far more smokers (thats not including smokeless tobacco users) then homosexuals. That everyone of those smokers are subject to smoking related illnesses, while not all homosexuals are subject to "related" illnesses due to their ability to practice safe sex, monogamy, etc...

Furthermore the cost of 30 days of medication for Cancer as opposed to HIV is about $500 more. I'm sure I could dig up more, but I've gotta get to work right now.

But I'd be interested in seeing your proof for such a comment.

ya know - I was working on getting those for you - and to be quite honest - I got bored with it. SO you can take it or leave it I care not.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 01:07 AM
No, only professional ones.:p

http://i384.photobucket.com/albums/oo290/mindyobeeznis/rimshot.gif

Calypso Jones
02-12-2011, 08:08 AM
how close are they to denying admittance or care to SMOKers?

MrsSmith
02-12-2011, 08:09 AM
please produce for me a single death certificate where second hand smoke is listed as cause of death. :rolleyes:
For everyone at least 50, we all grew up when people smoked in their homes, their friends' homes, at parties, in restaurants, in bars, in cars, etc.The local Knights of Columbus hall, where my parents went to dances, was very unusual in that they didn't allow smoking inside. It was literally the only place I can recall this rule in all my childhood. Many of us lived with cigarette smoke everywhere. And yet, strangely enough, our country is currently looking at the high costs of all the Boomers retiring because all that overload of second hand smoke just didn't kill enough of us.

Of course, a couple generations before that, many still lived in coal or wood heated homes, with some leakage of smoke all winter long...and likely all year from cooking stoves. Yet many people lived well into their 80's and 90's despite that, and didn't die from lung cancer at all. For all we really know, the high cancer rate today is really due to the chlorine, chloramine, flouride and other things we add to make water "safe." It could have far more to do with the things we use to scent, clean, color, decorate and build our homes than with any later addition of any type of smoke. Every few months, some new study comes out to "prove" that this additive, this food coloring, this type of food, this kind of _____________ is hazardous. They recently decided that SUNSCREEN is hazardous.

The flat fact is that our society really, really wants simple answers, and even our hospitals often fall for the propaganda.

lacarnut
02-12-2011, 01:01 PM
I smoked 3 packs for 30 years and after I quit my ex g.f. continued smoking for 10. With all that smoking, I should be dead by now but am healthier than a horse. I call people croaking from second hand smoke bull shit.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 01:38 PM
For everyone at least 50, we all grew up when people smoked in their homes, their friends' homes, at parties, in restaurants, in bars, in cars, etc.The local Knights of Columbus hall, where my parents went to dances, was very unusual in that they didn't allow smoking inside. It was literally the only place I can recall this rule in all my childhood. Many of us lived with cigarette smoke everywhere. And yet, strangely enough, our country is currently looking at the high costs of all the Boomers retiring because all that overload of second hand smoke just didn't kill enough of us.

Of course, a couple generations before that, many still lived in coal or wood heated homes, with some leakage of smoke all winter long...and likely all year from cooking stoves. Yet many people lived well into their 80's and 90's despite that, and didn't die from lung cancer at all. For all we really know, the high cancer rate today is really due to the chlorine, chloramine, flouride and other things we add to make water "safe." It could have far more to do with the things we use to scent, clean, color, decorate and build our homes than with any later addition of any type of smoke. Every few months, some new study comes out to "prove" that this additive, this food coloring, this type of food, this kind of _____________ is hazardous. They recently decided that SUNSCREEN is hazardous.

The flat fact is that our society really, really wants simple answers, and even our hospitals often fall for the propaganda.

I'm not a big promoter of the "second hand smoke" kills thing; in fact I doubt that it does to any great extent. However, I think commercial cigarettes have taken a huge toll on this country. I don't have stats or studies to back it up nationally, but in my family it appears to be the culprit in taking two generations to an early grave. People in my family for as long as I have records, have been extremely long lived. The last two generations have been cut short.

One of the misconceptions we have about life expectancy is that people in colonial times didn't live very long. The life expectancy of those people was not due to not being long lived, it was due to childhood illnesses and industrial accidents bringing down the average. Most of the people in my family have lived into their 90's except the last two generations. My mom might make it to her 90's, but she comes close to death about once a year and her health problems are unquestionably related to her having smoked from 1950 to 2000.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 01:42 PM
I smoked 3 packs for 30 years and after I quit my ex g.f. continued smoking for 10. With all that smoking, I should be dead by now but am healthier than a horse. I call people croaking from second hand smoke bull shit.

The way it's been explained to me, we should think of smoke as a trigger rather than a cause. Again, this is what I have been told: 6% of people are pretty much certain to get cancer. These would be the "but I never smoked" folks. Another segment is prone to cancer and it can be triggered by second hand smoke.

I don't find that implausible. What I have always found annoying were the people who didn't know the difference between second hand smoke and the odor of cigarettes. Riding in a cab all day with smokers means you are a smoker. Riding in a cab that stinks like cigarettes isn't "inhaling second hand smoke."

The whole issue would be a lot easier to deal with if so many people were not professional pains in the ass.

MrsSmith
02-12-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm not a big promoter of the "second hand smoke" kills thing; in fact I doubt that it does to any great extent. However, I think commercial cigarettes have taken a huge toll on this country. I don't have stats or studies to back it up nationally, but in my family it appears to be the culprit in taking two generations to an early grave. People in my family for as long as I have records, have been extremely long lived. The last two generations have been cut short.

One of the misconceptions we have about life expectancy is that people in colonial times didn't live very long. The life expectancy of those people was not due to not being long lived, it was due to childhood illnesses and industrial accidents bringing down the average. Most of the people in my family have lived into their 90's except the last two generations. My mom might make it to her 90's, but she comes close to death about once a year and her health problems are unquestionably related to her having smoked from 1950 to 2000.

Her problems may be from smoking, but realistically, a thousand other things could have caused it. Asbestos, red food dye, exhaust fumes from vehicles, too much of about a zillion types of dust, flouride in drinking water. There are millions of variables from environmental exposure to genetics that leave everything in some doubt.

My mom had lung cancer when she died. It may be that it was caused by years of smoking cigarettes, but in fact it showed up within 2 years of her requiring treatment for inhalation of smoke during a fire. It seems far more plausible that the smoke that killed her was from the stuff burning in that trailer than from the stuff that hadn't caused any cancer for 60 years...

Lanie
02-12-2011, 06:16 PM
Are they banning practicing homosexuals as well? I mean statistically that lifestyle is far more costly and dangerous than that of a smoker. OH WAIT - that would be bigotry of they did that. :rolleyes:

I've never had to go to the hospital due to second hand homosexuality. However, I have gone into the hospital (and once admitted) partially because of second hand smoke.

While it doesn't seem right to turn away smokers, I'd want to know for certain that the smoker would comply with all hospital and medical area rules regarding smoking. You don't want a really addicted person sneaking in a smoke outside of a place that has oxygen (or better yet, in the bathroom on the same floor as the oxygen).

fettpett
02-12-2011, 06:19 PM
I've never had to go to the hospital due to second hand homosexuality. However, I have gone into the hospital (and once admitted) partially because of second hand smoke.

While it doesn't seem right to turn away smokers, I'd want to know for certain that the smoker would comply with all hospital and medical area rules regarding smoking. You don't want a really addicted person sneaking in a smoke outside of a place that has oxygen (or better yet, in the bathroom on the same floor as the oxygen).

did it trigger an asthma attack?

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 06:21 PM
I've never had to go to the hospital due to second hand homosexuality. However, I have gone into the hospital (and once admitted) partially because of second hand smoke.

While it doesn't seem right to turn away smokers, I'd want to know for certain that the smoker would comply with all hospital and medical area rules regarding smoking. You don't want a really addicted person sneaking in a smoke outside of a place that has oxygen (or better yet, in the bathroom on the same floor as the oxygen).

A lot of wives and babies have died from aids that was contracted from an unfaithful husband that had a homosexual affair and brought the disease home, I would call that second hand.

Madisonian
02-12-2011, 06:50 PM
A lot of wives and babies have died from aids that was contracted from an unfaithful husband that had a homosexual affair and brought the disease home, I would call that second hand.

Like Mary Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fisher_%28activist%29), who while still alive is HIV positive from her bisexual ex-husband (now deceased) Brian Campbell.


Mary Fisher (born April 6, 1948) is an American political activist, artist and author. After contracting HIV from her second husband, she has become an outspoken advocate for AIDS prevention and education and for the compassionate treatment of people with HIV and AIDS. She is particularly noted for two speeches before the Republican Convention in Houston in 1992, and in San Diego in 1996.

lacarnut
02-12-2011, 07:07 PM
I've never had to go to the hospital due to second hand homosexuality. However, I have gone into the hospital (and once admitted) partially because of second hand smoke.

While it doesn't seem right to turn away smokers, I'd want to know for certain that the smoker would comply with all hospital and medical area rules regarding smoking. You don't want a really addicted person sneaking in a smoke outside of a place that has oxygen (or better yet, in the bathroom on the same floor as the oxygen).

The L.O.L.hospital in B.R does not allow their employees to smoke in the parking lot across the street. I would think that you would get booted out of any hospital if a patient was caught smoking in the bathroom.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 08:34 PM
I've never had to go to the hospital due to second hand homosexuality. However, I have gone into the hospital (and once admitted) partially because of second hand smoke.

While it doesn't seem right to turn away smokers, I'd want to know for certain that the smoker would comply with all hospital and medical area rules regarding smoking. You don't want a really addicted person sneaking in a smoke outside of a place that has oxygen (or better yet, in the bathroom on the same floor as the oxygen).

um . . . . you went in because of a breathing issue yes??

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 09:47 PM
A lot of wives and babies have died from aids that was contracted from an unfaithful husband that had a homosexual affair and brought the disease home, I would call that second hand.

Wow, for a second there I thought i was reading something on DU about "European diseases" and "genocide on the Native Americans".

Godspeed and Susan Constant didn't carry European diseases, they carried people. And the men of Jamestown died in great numbers. Some scientists believe that smallpox originated in Africa, and others believe it originated in India. The jury is out on whether syphilis came to the New World or from the New World.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 09:48 PM
Wow, for a second there I thought i was reading something on DU about "European diseases" and "genocide on the Native Americans".

Godspeed and Susan Constant didn't carry European diseases, they carried people. And the men of Jamestown died in great numbers. Some scientists believe that smallpox originated in Africa, and others believe it originated in India. The jury is out on whether syphilis came to the New World or from the New World.

It changes nothing in my post.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 09:53 PM
It changes nothing in my post.

Of course not.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 09:53 PM
Another segment is prone to cancer and it can be triggered by second hand smoke. says who?

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 10:00 PM
A lot of wives and babies have died from aids that was contracted from an unfaithful husband that had a homosexual affair and brought the disease home, I would call that second hand.

Even given that it's a stupid premise, it's still a false equation.

The homosexual equivalent of second hand smoke would be someone being homosexual next to you or in a closed space with you. Someone smoking in the back seat of your car with the windows rolled up is causing you to breathe cigarette smoke. Two lesbians having sex in the back seat while you drive doesn't cause you to be or do homosexual.

It's a fail on so many levels.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 10:05 PM
Even given that it's a stupid premise, it's still a false equation.

The homosexual equivalent of second hand smoke would be someone being homosexual next to you or in a closed space with you. Someone smoking in the back seat of your car with the windows rolled up is causing you to breathe cigarette smoke. Two lesbians having sex in the back seat while you drive doesn't cause you to be or do homosexual.

It's a fail on so many levels.

The next thing you will tell me is that rats didn't spread the bubonic plague.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 10:08 PM
Even given that it's a stupid premise, it's still a false equation.

The homosexual equivalent of second hand smoke would be someone being homosexual next to you or in a closed space with you. Someone smoking in the back seat of your car with the windows rolled up is causing you to breathe cigarette smoke. Two lesbians having sex in the back seat while you drive doesn't cause you to be or do homosexual.

It's a fail on so many levels.

actually - his equation is right on the money. The idea of second hand smoke is that person X engages in a behavior - and person Y experiences damage to their health because of person Xs behavior choice and being exposed to that choice. You're trying to tie both to air - and it doesn't have to be air that is the medium of transference.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 10:20 PM
The next thing you will tell me is that rats didn't spread the bubonic plague.

Exactly. Catching the plague is not because you're a bad person or god doesn't love you, it's because fleas ride rats and rats ride ships.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 10:25 PM
Exactly. Catching the plague is not because you're a bad person or god doesn't love you, it's because fleas ride rats and rats ride ships.

The difference would be that the rats are a part of nature doing nothing that is not instinctual and have no idea they could be carrying a deadly disease. The homosexual husband on the other hand knows that his behavior is risky, lies to his wife, and can potentially kill her as well as a child if she is impregnated.
There are no moral grounds to excuse this type of behavioral risk.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 10:36 PM
The difference would be that the rats are a part of nature doing nothing that is not instinctual and have no idea they could be carrying a deadly disease. The homosexual husband on the other hand knows that his behavior is risky, lies to his wife, and can potentially kill her as well as a child if she is impregnated.
There are no moral grounds to excuse this type of behavioral risk.

lol

There are just so many things wrong with your game here.

• Smokers and homosexuals differ too greatly to be comparable risks to an employer. A smoker is by definition generating a smoker specific risk to his health, whereas a gay person, male or female could represent zero gay specific risk to the company.

• A celibate gay person is still gay. A nonsmoking smoker, is no longer a smoker.

• You're cheating husband could be and is much more likely to be cheating with a female prostitute who is using drugs and/or using drugs with her. He has a good chance of contracting a number of harmful, chronic, or perhaps fatal illnesses.

You really need to stop going for the stupid or extreme, it makes you come off stupid or extreme.

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 10:36 PM
Exactly. Catching the plague is not because you're a bad person or god doesn't love you, it's because fleas ride rats and rats ride ships.

and catching aids and/or spreading aids is because you engage in risky behavior. 75% of the men infected with HIV in America today are practitioners of homosexuality.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 10:40 PM
lol

There are just so many things wrong with your game here.

• Smokers and homosexuals differ too greatly to be comparable risks to an employer. A smoker is by definition generating a smoker specific risk to his health, whereas a gay person, male or female could represent zero gay specific risk to the company.

• A celibate gay person is still gay. A nonsmoking smoker, is no longer a smoker.

• You're cheating husband could be and is much more likely to be cheating with a female prostitute who is using drugs and/or using drugs with her. He has a good chance of contracting a number of harmful, chronic, or perhaps fatal illnesses.

You really need to stop going for the stupid or extreme, it makes you come off stupid or extreme.
Again nothing you say here changes my original premise. He is not fooling with a female prostitute and he is not celibate!

PoliCon
02-12-2011, 10:40 PM
lol

There are just so many things wrong with your game here.

• Smokers and homosexuals differ too greatly to be comparable risks to an employer. A smoker is by definition generating a smoker specific risk to his health, whereas a gay person, male or female could represent zero gay specific risk to the company.You say this because a certain percentage of cancer victims are smokers - what percentage is that? And what percentage of people suffering from HIV/AIDS are practicing homosexuals?


• A celibate gay person is still gay. A nonsmoking smoker, is no longer a smoker. Is he? Does he have to chose to define himself based on his sexual preferences?


• You're cheating husband could be and is much more likely to be cheating with a female prostitute who is using drugs and/or using drugs with her. He has a good chance of contracting a number of harmful, chronic, or perhaps fatal illnesses.

You really need to stop going for the stupid or extreme, it makes you come off stupid or extreme. except there are studies that show that 3/4 of the men infected with HIV/AIDS contracted it through man to man sex.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 10:52 PM
except there are studies that show that 3/4 of the men infected with HIV/AIDS contracted it through man to man sex.

What percentage of the men infected with aids caught it from a lesbian?

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 10:55 PM
What percentage of the men infected with aids caught it from a lesbian?
You have left the building, do you still use poppers?

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 11:01 PM
You have left the building, do you still use poppers?

I haven't used used poppers since somewhere around 1985. I was never a big fan of poppers. I was something of a drug snob.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 11:03 PM
I haven't used used poppers since somewhere around 1985. I was never a big fan of poppers. I was something of a drug snob.

That's good, I'm honestly glad you don't.

lacarnut
02-12-2011, 11:04 PM
What percentage of the men infected with aids caught it from a lesbian?

Let me break it down in simplistic terms so even you can understand it. Fags butt f.....g other fags is a major cause of contracting aids. Even the liberal homo politicians in San Fran thought it was a good idea to shut down the bath houses there.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 11:14 PM
That's good, I'm honestly glad you don't.

I just had to check, Paul Lynde died in 1982. It was widely rumored at the time that he had died from accidentally inhaling liquid (rather than the fumes) poppers. A lot of people stopped using poppers entirely at that time.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 11:15 PM
I just had to check, Paul Lynde died in 1982. It was widely rumored at the time that he had died from accidentally inhaling liquid (rather than the fumes) poppers. A lot of people stopped using poppers entirely at that time.

They are bad for your immune system too.

Novaheart
02-12-2011, 11:21 PM
Let me break it down in simplistic terms so even you can understand it. Fags butt f.....g other fags is a major cause of contracting aids. Even the liberal homo politicians in San Fran thought it was a good idea to shut down the bath houses there.

Discrimination against gay people predates the aids epidemic.

Discrimination against lesbians because of aids is just stupid.

Some idiots go looking for a reason to discriminate, to justify their ignorant religious superstitions.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 11:26 PM
Discrimination against gay people predates the aids epidemic.

Discrimination against lesbians because of aids is just stupid.

Some idiots go looking for a reason to discriminate, to justify their ignorant religious superstitions.

Lesbians were injected into this thread by you to lead us away from the topic and have no bearing on this discussion.

lacarnut
02-13-2011, 12:27 AM
Discrimination against gay people predates the aids epidemic.

Discrimination against lesbians because of aids is just stupid.

Some idiots go looking for a reason to discriminate, to justify their ignorant religious superstitions.

Homos discriminate against each other by their deviant behavior, and in return get aids. Religion and superstition have nothing to do with it. Straw man, straw man. They do it to themselves.