Smokers need not apply.

Jodi - posted on 05/12/2012

"No establishment should be allowed to discriminate against anyone."

That's the part that's bullshit.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Jodi---"No establishment should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. The "client" can do so as they deem fit."

Interesting concept. Bullshit. But interesting concept.

LOL.... You can call it as you may. I being the client, do NOT just go and give my money to just any service. If you do, that is your choice.

When it comes to a Daycare, I scope them out and then I choose which one I like best. Yep, I get to discriminate against, what they may do or not do. If I go to a Daycare and I don't want there to be any smokers, guess what? I move on. Why? It IS my choice as the client. There are many more. I can go to an in-home Daycare, where I could get exactly what I am looking for (if you are comfortable with these forms of carers).

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Toni, I posted links too. If you are not going to read mine, I am not going to read yours.

It's simple. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Also, it is not the employers business what anyone does on their break, as long as they are not breaking any laws, such as working while intoxicated. If my employer asked me what I do on my breaks and it was a serious discussion, I'd tell them it was none of their business.

In addition an employer cannot fire a person if they find they have an addiction. They MUST give them support and give them access to rehabilitation avenues. They must do this so many times before they can legally dismiss them. So, if they cannot fire you for an addiction, then they cannot discriminate against you upon highering. Also, if you are incapable of using your head and go and do stupid stuff, then return to work looking like an idiot, yeah, your HR Manager will probably want to talk to you. You are supposed to be a responsible adult, not an idiot.

Also, a person with an addiction can hide it for a 10-60min interview. So, in reality, it really is a void arguement. Since, no one knows what people do on their breaks. Unless, of course, that very person devulges what they do, to others. Or it is apparent, that they are breaking the law by being intoxicated outside of a licensed establishment.

All addictions affect a person differently. It is not hard to smoke, return to work and do a task just as well or better than a non-smoker. It is rather difficult if you are hammered. That to me is just a stupid comparison.

Ask me if I smoke in an interview, I just may be inclined to say no. Then they can prove that I did at the time of highering. I could have quit that day and started again the next or 3 months down the road. Or maybe I just like to lie. Who knows.

Now, I am off for the day. It's gorgeous outside and it is Saturday...Yay!

Jodi - posted on 05/12/2012

"No establishment should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. The "client" can do so as they deem fit."



Interesting concept. Bullshit. But interesting concept.

Toni - posted on 05/12/2012

You tell me where does it say addiction is a disability, this is from the NHS... http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/addiction/Pag...



Oh right it doesn't, it states addictions can be very negative and can be hard to break but nowhere does it say they are a disability!



http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/disabilitya... and here we actually have a description of what is Defined as a disability...with alcohol and nicotine addiction specifically excluded...page 8!



It appears my government agrees with me, that whilst addiction is debilitating it isn't a disability! You seem rather keen for addiction to be a disability, whenevidently it's not!



Actually it is the employers business what they do on breaks/ lunch if it could affect their work...smoking could leave a stench on the person turning customer off purchasing from them, drinking alcohol could cause them to not be in full control (they don't need to be drunk to be impaired), somebody who stuffed their face with cream cakes could make themselves

too full or physically sick impairing their work, if you go for a run through the sprinklers outside on your break and return to work in sopping wet clothes that isn't appropriate...they can't tell you what to do outside of work but they can tell you how they expect you to present yourself within work, which affects

what you do in your own time!



So if they don't want to hire a smelly smoker why should they?



ETA: the first link was wrong, I've changed it!



Also by smelly smokers I mean the ones that actually stink of smoke, not the ones you can't tell smoke!

Stifler's - posted on 05/12/2012

What if smokers claim they need more breaks because they're disabled (who are we to deny the disabled smoke breaks?!). Is it discrimination if employers say no?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

The fact is it is illegal to discriminate against smokers and highering them for two reasons.



1. It is no ones business what they do on their own time (this includes breaks during working hours).



2. Addiction is a disability and smoking is an addiction.



You can find this by putting "is smoking an addiction?" eta: "Is smoking a disability?" into your browser.



Of course you cannot do it WHILE you are working but on your own time, it is no ones business. As long as you follow the laws, you cannot be discriminated against.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Well I suggest you write your Government and all the addiction counselling companies and tell them your definition. Since, whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, addiction IS a disability. ;)

It would be wrong to not hire an alcoholic, however it is also illegal to be drunk in a public place. So, if they showed up drunk, they would be breaking the law. Now wouldn't they?

You still have to obey laws, even with disabilities.

Toni - posted on 05/12/2012

Of course I haven't meme I'm perfect , didn't you know that already? ....you can insert sarcasm here...

Everybody has an addiction to something, mine has nothing to do with you and isn't pertinent to this thread.

If you choose to partake in an activity, whether you become addicted or not, it was your choice to partake or not. You may not have wanted to become addicted but it most certainly was your choice, you choose to smoke, you took the risk and became addicted. It is not a disability and never will.

By your reckoning meme it would be wrong to not employ an alcoholic who may turn up to work drunk, because you'd be discriminating against their disability...one they chose to begin. Addictions may be debilitating but they are not disabilities!

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Then you by definition have a disability. Whether you like it or not!

How about those that drank and drove, had an accident and became disabled? THEY caused it themselves. So, now what? They aren't truly disabled?

How about those that got cancer because they smoked or drank, now what? THEY caused it themselves, so they aren't truly disabled?

Seriously, addiction is a disability.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

http://www.ehlaw.ca/publications/jul00/c...

Stifler's - posted on 05/12/2012

I have a drinking problem. I caused it myself. By drinking.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Obviously, neither of you have been addicted to much. ;) I don't expect anyone to understand that have not had an addiction.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Ah, well I guess I am being offensive to my daughter. Meh...

Take it as you may, by definition addiction IS a disability.

A disability is a large range of disorders. Not everyone becomes addicted to smokes or alcohol or drugs, for that matter. However, those that do, are catergorized as having a disability because it IS an addiction. An addiction is in the brain.

Stifler's - posted on 05/12/2012

I agree with Toni that's offensive to people who were born intellectually impaired and have Down syndrome and other things they had no role in acquiring.

Stifler's - posted on 05/12/2012

So now because Alcoholism is a disability people can claim disability pensions and drink all day... yay for society.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Sorry but I disagree. It is a choice in the beginning but once you are addicted, you just may not be able to quit. It is then a disability. My daughter has a disability, so I know what it means.



I chose to smoke 23 years ago. I am now so addicted, I am not sure I can quit. You do NOT choose to becom addicted to it, Toni. That's just crazy to say. I did not choose to become addicted to it, I only chose to smoke, years and years ago.



Alcoholism IS a disability. It is no different than smoking. That's my opinion and I am sticking to it, whether everyone in this thread wants to disagree or not.



http://www.acbr.com/fas/Supreme_Court_ru...



http://www.slaw.ca/2010/09/23/alcoholism...



http://www.gov.pe.ca/humanrights/index.p...

Toni - posted on 05/12/2012

Smoking is not a disability, it is a poor lifestyle choice! An addiction does not make a disability, it is offensive to everyone with true disabilities to even suggest smoking is a disability, again smoking is a choice, you choose to smoke and become addicted to it, people with disabilities have no choice in the matter.

Toni - posted on 05/12/2012

I never said you used the other terms, that's why there was a ...after the word disability because I was expanding and giving further examples of things that are and are not a choice.

There is a huge difference in discriminating against something that cannot be changed such as a disability or race (just so you don't get confused you didn't mention race I did) and discriminating against something somebody chose to do such as smoking or drinking alcohol. You are not discriminating against the latter because they can choose to not do it, if they choose to continue that is up to them but they have the choice to stop if they want to, whereas disabilities and race cannot be chosen, you cannot choose to not be disabled or to be a certain race!

Everyone has a choice over whether to smoke, or dye their hair, or drink alcohol, or wear high heels, or eat take aways, or only wear green items of clothing etc etc. So everyone is treated equal in regards to the fact they have the initial choice, but once a choice has been made different paths are followed, it isn't always realistic to suggest that two people with different lifestyle choices are treated the same way, it is naive to think they should be, there are different situations which require different things. We start off equal but the choices we make separate us!

Stifler's - posted on 05/12/2012

I have also been told to have good personal hygiene, no nail polish, no jewelery and if you have a wedding band it must be flat no claws and excessive perfume is a no go in any industry.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/12/2012

Actually Toni, I was speaking in the regards that a lot of things in a persons life can dictate how their days go. So, whether it be smoking or something else, they can NOT discriminate against you for it. I am not wrong about that, I am correct in expecting EVERYONE is treated equally. Period! It has nothing to do with choosing or not choosing, it has to do with EQUALITY!



BTW - I also only used the term "disability", not all the others you added thereafter.



ETA: A disability can be so many things. From ADHD to more apparent ones. Smoking is an addiction. Some people just cannot quit! So, discriminating against them is no different. Just because they chose to at some point in their life does not mean they still have control over it, later. Some people struggle their entire life trying to quit. To me it is a disability, since it is an addiction and it can be very debilitating.

Kelly - posted on 05/12/2012

When choosing who works closely with your child, I think there's nothing wrong with discriminating against somebody for whatever reason.
When it comes to hiring somebody to drive a bus, operate a computer, talk on the phone, then I see no reason to discriminate against somebody for smoking. I could easily say that people who eat candy make poor life choices and therefore won't be a good employee.

Toni - posted on 05/12/2012

Ok so yes an employer has the right to dictate whether they hire a person who wears perfumes if they don't like it at the interview they just don't have to hire them, similarly if an employer wants a none smoker they can weed out the smokers at the interview stage but why should an employer have to waste their and the interviewees time (and hopes) if they know they will not get the job if they wear perfume or smoke. They could put it on the job advert to say no smokers or perfume wearers need apply, then if a smoker or perfume wearer really wanted to apply for the job they know they need to ensure they do not smell of smoke or wear perfume, I really do not see what the big deal is.

Employers can dictate what you wear to work, some employers have a strict uniform, some just have guidelines, these uniform regulations could include clauses about not wearing perfume, I don't see an issue with that, at previous jobs I've been told no nail polish, to wear more make up, to only wear shop stock (even though it was three sizes too big for me) and to only wear corporate clothes (suits, blouses etc). If I don't like the uniform regs I'm free to get a new job.

Meme you are wrong to compare this to not hiring someone with a disability...disabilities, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour are all things that cannot be chosen. Smoking, perfume wearing, diet etc are all things that are chosen, it is a choice to smoke addicted or not you chose to do, you have to live with the consequences of your actions (general you).

Jen - posted on 05/11/2012

How do insurance companies determine the premiums for employer provided insurance? If employee claims go up does the policy? If claims go down does the policy cost go down? (LOL at that question) and lastly are the premium cost related in any way to smoking?
---
It depends if the policy if community rated or experience rated. If it is community rated, then the premiums are determined by the overall health of the area. Experience rated is bases it solely on the health & claims of the company. Usually only large companies choose experience rated simply because if a small company has one cancer patient, it destroys everyone's premiums.

Then there are self-funded policies which are a whole other ball of wax.

Janice - posted on 05/11/2012

Jodi I completely get what you are saying about a daycare center boasting about their teachers being smoke free and then needing to hire someone new.

I really don't think it would be an issue though. The owners/ directors of centers can't advertise about employees personal business. They can require that smoking employees change their shirt and wash their hands if they smoked on break and they can advertise the policies they have in place to help reduce the affects of third had smoke.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

A lot of people smoke and by discriminating against them for a job, you would be missing out on some very valuable assets.



I LOVE my sons teachers at his Daycare. They are awesome carers. They treat him sooo good. He absolutely LOVES it there. So, for me, the pros far out weigh the cons. I would not lose such awesome care, just because they may choose to smoke on their own time.



I would much prefer the worker that smokes, to smoke on their break, then to be agitated all day long and perhaps not treat my boy as good as they could because they weren't allowed to have a smoke during their OWN time.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Jodi---They may not be wishy washy if you didn't cherry pick. ;)

The entire statement was this:
If a person has a concern with an employee smoking and caring for their child then, they should be seeking an employee that does NOT smoke. Such as an in-home Daycare OR an establishment that doesn't higher smoker's (which may be hard to do).

So, go find an in-home Daycare or Nanny or try to find one that does not higher smokers. I am sure there are some actual centre's that do practice highering non-smokers, just may be very limited in finding one.

Then this statement was in a general context outside of the Daycare scenario:
It is an issue to turn away a worker just because they smoke. It is no different than turning someone away because they may have a disability or wear scents on their body or pick their ass too much or have the shits all day. Seriously, a lot of things can affect a person's day, not just smoking.

So, in short. If you are concerned about a Daycare provider highering smoker's, than look elsewhere. Don't chance it. Higher a Nanny or an in-home Daycare provider, that you know for sure does NOT smoke. This IS your right as a parent looking for a provider. However, if it is a centre, the manager should NOT be allowed to discriminate a smoker.

No establishment should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. The "client" can do so as they deem fit.

Jodi - posted on 05/11/2012

"I pay them to take care of my child. I can pull them out at any time, for any reason. So, my child may be the client but I AM the employer of who gets to care for MY child."



But that is irrelevant, because we are talking about the organisation that actually physically advertises and employs the individuals who look after your child. So what you have come up with there is totally irrelevant to the debate.



And no, you didn't answer the question MeMe. Not really. Your responses are incredibly wishy washy. For example:



"If a person has a concern with an employee smoking and caring for their child then, they should be seeking an employee that does NOT smoke."



"It is an issue to turn away a worker just because they smoke. It is no different than turning someone away because they may have a disability or wear scents on their body or pick their ass too much or have the shits all day."



Do these two statements not contradict one another?



With respect to the daycare issue, you absolutely are still missing the point. If the child has already been at that centre for a year, and that centre has been chosen because it promotes the fact that it has no employees that smoke, if that centre then needs to hire a new staff member, why would it be wrong for that centre to request non smokers only to apply for a new position. How is it acceptable that the CLIENT be forced to move because the centre is prevented from making that request?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Jodi---Ok, let me get this, you think the employer is the customer? Okay......yeah, whatever. Do you understand the definition of client? It isn't the client that is caring for the child. The CHILD is the client. Where on earth did you get the notion that we look for a client for our child. A client is a USER of a service.



OK, I agree I used the term client, when I should have used the term employee. So, I am the one that sought a Daycare. I am the one that made them prove to ME what services they had and what certifications they had. I met with 6 Daycares, when I was putting myself on the lists. So, the employee IS the Daycare establishment. I pay them to take care of my child. I can pull them out at any time, for any reason. So, my child may be the client but I AM the employer of who gets to care for MY child.



Jodi---Secondly, you entirely missed my point. IF you are already with a daycare centre and they don't hire smokers, where is it wrong, if they have to hire a new employee, for them to request non smokers only? It shouldn't be the customer (i.e. the child) who has to find a new daycare centre.



I didn't miss your point. I answered it, with a fairly lengthy reply, actually. If a person has a concern with an employee smoking and caring for their child then, they should be seeking an employee that does NOT smoke. Such as an in-home Daycare OR an establishment that doesn't higher smoker's (which may be hard to do). I explained why I would not agree with a Daycare being restrictive when hiring. It would cause there to be less workers for an established, regulated Daycare centre and cause many workers to open their own in-home Daycare. I would not support an in-home Daycare.



Also, not all parents care, if a worker smokes. As I said, many parents smoke, so how can they turn around then and say, well I don't want to hire anyone that smokes. That's just stupid. Why all of a sudden does a non-smoker get to dictate how someone lives their life? If you are worried about a worker smoking, than make sure ahead of time they don't or hire a Nanny or in-home Daycare provider.

_____________________________



Back to the general debate:



It is an issue to turn away a worker just because they smoke. It is no different than turning someone away because they may have a disability or wear scents on their body or pick their ass too much or have the shits all day. Seriously, a lot of things can affect a person's day, not just smoking.



There are a lot of smokers that are harder workers than some non-smokers. To turn them away would be causing industries to lose out terribly.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

For me, my daughter does know I smoke. She is old enough to know, she is a smart cookie. However, she bugs me about it all the time. She asks for me to quit constantly.

One thing I am very happy about it how good the teachings are in school, when it comes to smoking, drinking and drug use. The negative aspects are taught from a very early grade. I have also had many talks with my daughter and explained to her that it is a terrible, nasty habit. That it can kill and cause terrible life threatening disease (which is why, I assume, she begs me to quit). I tell her I am addicted and I struggle with quitting. I have quit for 6 months before and 4 months after that. She witnessed me quitting. She has a bit of an uderstanding that it is not something you can just do when you want and stop when you don't want to do it anymore. My daughter is soooo against, smoking, drinking and drugs, I honeslty don't think I need to worry about her smoking.

I do hope that I am no longer smoking when my son is old enough to understand, though.

If she did smoke, well, there isn't a heck of a lot I can do about it. I mean, she'd better hope she can afford it, since she won't be getting money from me for them. I would be very disappointed. I would be sad. I hope she never does.

With that said, I know several people that do smoke and their parents never ever did. So, it can happen to anyone's child, regardless if the parent smokes or not.

Toni - posted on 05/11/2012

I dont think it is ok to discriminate against people for any reason.
I am a smoker, but I am also hard worker when I have a job.
Smoking is my personal choice, and so I do it in my personal time, not when I am at work.
Eg: I was working at a chain fast food resturant for nearly 3 years. Every 4 hours we were allowed a 15 minute break. That is when i went out and had my smoke.
If it was too busy for me to have a break at that time, I kept working untill my next break. And yes, I always washed my hands thoroughly after my breaks.
Just because someone is a smoker does not mean they they cannot be a productive worker. If my doctor was a smoker, I would not have a problem with it, as long as they are hygenic when they are at work.

Jodi - posted on 05/11/2012

"Because the customer in a Daycare setting is really the employer (you have to fire them or not - which is done by moving on). You are the one looking for a client that will care for your child. Now, there is nothing wrong with looking for a client that will not higher a smoker, if you do not want to risk a new higher being a smoker. It's how I see it anyhow. Since, not everyone is as concerned about 3rd hand smoke. A lot of parents smoke themselves. "



Ok, let me get this, you think the employer is the customer? Okay......yeah, whatever. Do you understand the definition of client? It isn't the client that is caring for the child. The CHILD is the client. Where on earth did you get the notion that we look for a client for our child. A client is a USER of a service.



Secondly, you entirely missed my point. IF you are already with a daycare centre and they don't hire smokers, where is it wrong, if they have to hire a new employee, for them to request non smokers only? It shouldn't be the customer (i.e. the child) who has to find a new daycare centre.

Rebecca - posted on 05/11/2012

Just curious, those who are smokers and say they never do it around their kids, would you feel guilty if one of your kids, you found out, was smoking on the down-low? How would you react if you found out they were smoking as well? Would you respect their choice or not?



This is not to challenge you about your smoking...I know no one really wants to smoke cigs, at least not in the long term, it is hella-hard to quit. I totally get that. I'm just curious how you would deal with it and what you would say.



While writing this it came to me that it is totally possible that some of you have already experienced this...I'd love to hear how it was dealt with, if it has already happened too.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Should they be restricting all scents too Jodi? I know many people cannot handle any scents. This would go for babies and toddlers, too.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Because the customer in a Daycare setting is really the employer (you have to fire them or not - which is done by moving on). You are the one looking for a client that will care for your child. Now, there is nothing wrong with looking for a client that will not higher a smoker, if you do not want to risk a new higher being a smoker. It's how I see it anyhow. Since, not everyone is as concerned about 3rd hand smoke. A lot of parents smoke themselves.



I prefer to be able to find a Daycare (not an in-home one). Currently, to get into a Daycare here for infants or toddlers, it is a year waiting list, some of them longer. I had to put my name on a waiting list when I was still pregnant, to have one by the time my son was 10 months old. If they put restrictions on smokers, then there would be less establishments and more would just open an in-home Daycare. Which I would prefer to not have to use.



In addition, as I mentioned previously, they only get two breaks a shift, so I am not too concerned about a smoke twice in 8.5 hours. For those that perhaps are, maybe an in-home Daycare is their best option. Then they could completely restrict a smoker caring for their child. ;)

Jodi - posted on 05/11/2012

"If you find a particular Daycare employs smoker's, than you can move on and go elsewhere."

What if your child has been at that daycare for 12 months already, and has no smokers as employess? Why is it not okay for that daycare centre to ask for non-smoking employees only? Why is it the CUSTOMER who needs to move if they have a problem with a smoker caring for their child?

Isobel - posted on 05/11/2012

which is the hardest part...all nicotine has left your body after three days...all the rest is dealing with your fear of life without your crutch

Isobel - posted on 05/11/2012

The book is based on the idea that it's impossible to deny yourself something you truly want every minute of every day for the rest of your life. But when you really think about it logically...NOBODY WANTS to smoke. Go ahead and find somebody who tells you that they WANT to suffocate themselves with rat poison ten/twenty times a day. I haven't been able to find one. But the book helps you let go of the fear of what life might be like without it.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Shawnn, I used that statement about it being harder than crack cocaine because I too gave that up 15 years ago and I quit cold turkey and never ever looked back!! ;) Yes, smoking is definitely harder than quitting crack, I can honestly say I know! hehehee

Shawnn - posted on 05/11/2012

Isobel,The go...buy...the...book...I only marked funny because you sound so much like me when I'm talking to my kids...



Great inflection! I love it!



May actually pick that up for my hubby...Unfortunately for him, I can put them down and walk away at any time (for the most part, unless i'm totally stressed) and he can't.



And it is funny that you said "If you're still finding it harder than quitting crack cocaine..." Because THAT he quit cold turkey 23 years ago! And he's made the same comparison.



Now you're next post, well, that's funny right thar...

Isobel - posted on 05/11/2012

I'm going to start a new business...I will only hire people who don't have children (because they carry too many germs), who don't drink EVER because I don't want any accidental hangovers coming to the office, who don't smoke (because smokers are made of pure evil) and who don't use fabric softener with fragrance in it, and who abstain from peanut eating (all the time, not just in the office, because the oil travels).



I think I should be very successful, because I am accomodating everybody ;)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Yes, Isobel, I need to do just that. I really should do it now....

Isobel - posted on 05/11/2012

go...buy...the...book.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Well, it would be going a lot better if I wouldn't come home to my husband having bought a pack! Sigh.... I dunno about this! lol

I think perhaps we should've planned the date, rather than just all of a sudden say OK, I'm buying the patch right now...we'll see...it is the weekend now, it is going to be much harder. When I am at work it doesn't bother me as much, since I have lots to do. At home, I have to make things to do, to stay continuosly entertained! LOL

Thanks very much for the support!!

Shawnn - posted on 05/11/2012

MeMe, I'm constantly pointing that out...the difference between a considerate smoker and the rest of the pack.

How's your quitting going? I'm rooting for ya!

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

Exactly Shawnn!



I never ever smoke around my children. We smoked in our garage. We do not smoke in our vehicle, when the kids are in it (it is illegal here anyhow). When I am out and about, I go off and smoke if the kids are with us and I do not smoke around other people's kids, even outside. I also, trail behind friends (including coworkers) if we are out walking and they do not smoke. We often go on team lunches and walk to the place, none of my team members smoke (10 of them), so I walk behind all of them. I do my best to be considerate of others that may not smoke. At work, I would only smoke in designated smoking area's.



I think there is a big difference between conscious, considerate smokers and other ones that just don't give a crap about anyone else, that chooses not to.

Shawnn - posted on 05/11/2012

Oh my...Reading some of these responses...



I'm a smoker, work full time. NO ONE in my office realized I was a smoker until we went for drinks one night.



I do not smoke at work. At home, I try to smoke outdoors, or in my room. I DO NOT smoke around children. Period. They don't need the example, and the parents who DO smoke around their kids, especially the youngest, piss me off.



I do smoke in outdoor venues, provided children are not present. Should one happen upon me while puffing I make sure to comment about how nasty it is, and keep the cigarette out of their reach/line of sight.



However, I DO NOT apologize for exercising my freedom of choice, should another adult begin to berate me for that choice. My choice to smoke is like someone else's choice to drink like a fish. They like alcohol, I enjoy nicotine. Same difference. Both are hazardous to your health. Both can kill.



When asked at job interviews if I do smoke, I smile and say "No". Which is honest, because I do not smoke at work.



(Ok, part of the reason is that I'm the only one in my office area that would. I have plenty of friends in neighboring offices that do, so the social aspect isn't really it. The main reason that I don't is because I don't like taking time away from my day to go smoke, but I don't take breaks other than lunch either, and I really don't like walking down and up 5 flights of stairs more than necessary)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

OMG - that is TERRIBLE, Elfrieda! Just shows you how it used to be.

Toni---I am one that cannot handle scents. Anyone that uses scented deoderant, hair products, perfumes and the alike, it really makes me not feel well. Even when it is a scent free place, it is often not enforced sternly. What about these scents, when someone like me can't handle them? Should these people not be allowed to be hired too?

I also do not like the smell of people that never wash their coats and they smoke. It is disgusting. At least when I smoke, I make a conscious effort to wash my coat frequently, as well as clothes, hands and shower daily (which includes my hair). ;)

Elfrieda - posted on 05/11/2012

Off topic, but "extra breaks for smokers" reminded me of one of my husband's co-workers. He's from Russia, and when he was young he had to be in the army for a year or something like that. So there they all were, digging ditches, when the whistle would blow and their leader would shout out that anyone who smoked could take a 15 minute break. (while the others kept digging!) Guess what? He started, and is still struggling with smoking, 20 years later.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 05/11/2012

What if they show up smelling like fruits and flowers? Then get the job and being smelling like an ashtray?

Just being obtuse but am curious... ;)