113 replies to this topic

[ATX22]

In most jobs if you suspect the person is not up to par for their work you can let them go.  From what I've seen most places seem to have at will employment, meaning firing someone is at the discretion of the employer

 

After safety incidents you can always hold incident reviews, do root cause analysis and review the specific employees prior work with supervisors to determine whether the person should be let go.

 

And if laws are put in place to protect people who get high on the weekend while also unintentionally protecting those that get high on the job, I can see employers treating it as they do health insurance with smoking.. Use drugs?  Pay a larger portion or all of.. eh, I don't know, something like EPLI.  Claim that you're don't use drugs and it turns out you do.. same old disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

[_incitatus]

Look, you're obviously pro-cannabis and aren't going to budge on this one.  That's fine.

 

However, just to make sure you're aware, there are industries out there, where drug testing not only occurs regularly, it's mandatory due to existing federal regulation.  And even if cannabis is legalized, I just don't see that requirement changing in these industries.  

 

Again, I'm for leaving it up to the employer, which, if an employer includes drug testing and being drug free in your employment contract, you take the test and test clean or face disciplinary action and possibly termination of employment.. otherwise you go find an employer who doesn't care / have these requirements.

 

I am discussing cannabis as a legal substance, which is why it seems discriminatory to treat it any differently than booze (in a recreational sense, obv medicinal should be treated like a prescription medicine...).

 

I am well aware that drug testing occurs regularly and is mandatory.  But WHY is it mandatory to test for cannabis in certain industries due to federal regulation?  It is because it is currently a Schedule I substance.  It should become a non-issue once federally legalized and re-scheduled.  Using pre-employment/random piss tests to check for a LEGAL substance seems asinine.

 

Why should anyone have to risk being fired for doing something that is completely legal on their own free time?  Should employers be able to hire/fire based on your caffeine intake off the clock?

 

Obviously there are some unique challenges ahead and both the employer and employee need to be protected.  We both agree that being impaired on the job is grounds for dismissal.  I don't think we are actually that far off from seeing eye to eye. 

 

My main contention is that as cannabis becomes legal, the policies surrounding it should be addressed.  It should be removed from the standard NIDA5 pre-employment screening.  It should not be tested for in random piss tests (as such tests only show prior use).  If impairment is suspected, then it is on the employer to prove it with accuracy.  I could see some kind of two test system, do a quick saliva test (side note, saliva tests can detect cannabis use for like 7 days) and if that turns up positive then a blood test should be required (even though blood tests can also be unreliable for showing a person is actually impaired, I think it is probably the most accurate means available).  If the employee refuses, then that should be grounds for dismissal.  Treat it just as you would when an employee is suspected of drinking on the job. 

 

The other side of this is, how much impairment does cannabis actually induce?  Nowhere near the effects of alcohol, so why get so hung up on cannabis?  Take driving for example.  Studies show that drivers under the influence of cannabis are no more likely to be culpable in crashes than non-cannabis users.  In fact, drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to adjust their driving habits to be more cautious whereas drunk drivers drive in a more risky manner.  So, while a person may be under the influence of cannabis, how impaired are they? 

 

Cannabis prohibition has caused far more harm than legal cannabis ever could.  Prohibition is ending and it's time to stop discriminating against and punishing people who choose to improve their quality of life with cannabis. 

Edited by _incitatus, 16 November 2016 - 12:51 PM.

[ATX22]

I am discussing cannabis as a legal substance, which is why it seems discriminatory to treat it any differently than booze (in a recreational sense, obv medicinal should be treated like a prescription medicine...).

 

I am well aware that drug testing occurs regularly and is mandatory.  But WHY is it mandatory to test for cannabis in certain industries due to federal regulation?  It is because it is currently a Schedule I substance.  It should become a non-issue once federally legalized and re-scheduled.  Using pre-employment/random piss tests to check for a LEGAL substance seems asinine.

 

Why should anyone have to risk being fired for doing something that is completely legal on their own free time?  Should employers be able to hire/fire based on your caffeine intake off the clock?

 

Obviously there are some unique challenges ahead and both the employer and employee need to be protected.  We both agree that being impaired on the job is grounds for dismissal.  I don't think we are actually that far off from seeing eye to eye. 

 

My main contention is that as cannabis becomes legal, the policies surrounding it should be addressed.  It should be removed from the standard NIDA5 pre-employment screening.  It should not be tested for in random piss tests (as such tests only show prior use).  If impairment is suspected, then it is on the employer to prove it with accuracy.  I could see some kind of two test system, do a quick saliva test (side note, saliva tests can detect cannabis use for like 7 days) and if that turns up positive then a blood test should be required (even though blood tests can also be unreliable for showing a person is actually impaired, I think it is probably the most accurate means available).  If the employee refuses, then that should be grounds for dismissal.  Treat it just as you would when an employee is suspected of drinking on the job. 

 

The other side of this is, how much impairment does cannabis actually induce?  Nowhere near the effects of alcohol, so why get so hung up on cannabis?  Take driving for example.  Studies show that drivers under the influence of cannabis are no more likely to be culpable in crashes than non-cannabis users.  In fact, drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to adjust their driving habits to be more cautious whereas drunk drivers drive in a more risky manner.  So, while a person may be under the influence of cannabis, how impaired are they? 

 

Cannabis prohibition has caused far more harm than legal cannabis ever could.  Prohibition is ending and it's time to stop discriminating against and punishing people who choose to improve their quality of life with cannabis. 

 

This (below) is where you and I don't agree.  I think the "war on drugs" was a huge mistake and has in effect created not only a huge black market but relegated a sizable portion of the USA population to being categorized as criminals (not even touching on how much money has been wasted doing all this).  However, just as I'm of the opinion that the government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't do with your own body, I don't think they should be micro-managing employers.

 

I am well aware that drug testing occurs regularly and is mandatory.  But WHY is it mandatory to test for cannabis in certain industries due to federal regulation?  It is because it is currently a Schedule I substance.  It should become a non-issue once federally legalized and re-scheduled.  Using pre-employment/random piss tests to check for a LEGAL substance seems asinine.

 

Because, while under the affects of it, a person is generally impaired in their ability to work in certain industries, to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others.  Because of this, legal or otherwise, barring some new method of testing, most companies aren't going to want risk having their employees high, drunk or otherwise impaired while on the job.  Remember the Tracy Morgan and that whole Wal-mart truck accident thing a while back?  Did he stop at suing the sleep deprived truck driver?  Or did he go after after someone / something with much deeper pockets than a lowly employee... Now think of what would have happened if the driver was stoned and Wal-mart was refusing to test their employees citing "invasion of privacy".

 

That, and even if legalized, they'll do what.. move cannabis from a CSA schedule I to maybe schedule II, possibly schedule III..

[wischatesjesus]

Because, while under the affects of it, a person is generally impaired in their ability to work in certain industries, to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others.  Because of this, legal or otherwise, barring some new method of testing, most companies aren't going to want risk having their employees high, drunk or otherwise impaired while on the job.  Remember the Tracy Morgan and that whole Wal-mart truck accident thing a while back?  Did he stop at suing the sleep deprived truck driver?  Or did he go after after someone / something with much deeper pockets than a lowly employee... Now think of what would have happened if the driver was stoned and Wal-mart was refusing to test their employees citing "invasion of privacy".

 

That, and even if legalized, they'll do what.. move cannabis from a CSA schedule I to maybe schedule II, possibly schedule III..

 

 

You're missing the point. Cannabis will certainly impair someones ability to work and operate safely, but so will alcohol, sleep deprivation, decapitation, being attacked by a bear, sudden rapture, etc. The only difference between the first and the formers right now is that it is illegal in may states. Incitatus is saying that, should it become legal for recreational use, testing for it would be like doing prior testing for the other things I mentioned above: useless at detecting or preventing actual impairment on the job.

 

Or perhaps it would be reasonable to screen for alcohol and bad sleeping habits during the hiring process as well? I think you could reasonably argue that, but it would probably be considered pretty invasive all around. Are those really different from screening for legal cannabis?

 

Who is liable for an impaired worker is another matter entirely.

[DallasCreeper]

Is there a test for bear attacks?

[_incitatus]

Is there a test for bear attacks?

 

Yes.  It consists of verifying that your head is still attached to your body and that your entrails are still within your torso.

 

Also, that Tracy Morgan Wal-Mart thing.  The way I understand it, that driver had been awake for over 24 hours and was 13 hours into his shift when they let him go on the road.  Wal-Mart should not have let him drive under those conditions and if they were aware of the circumstances they absolutely should have been sued. 

[_incitatus]

You're missing the point. Cannabis will certainly impair someones ability to work and operate safely, but so will alcohol, sleep deprivation, decapitation, being attacked by a bear, sudden rapture, etc. The only difference between the first and the formers right now is that it is illegal in may states. Incitatus is saying that, should it become legal for recreational use, testing for it would be like doing prior testing for the other things I mentioned above: useless at detecting or preventing actual impairment on the job.

 

Or perhaps it would be reasonable to screen for alcohol and bad sleeping habits during the hiring process as well? I think you could reasonably argue that, but it would probably be considered pretty invasive all around. Are those really different from screening for legal cannabis?

 

Who is liable for an impaired worker is another matter entirely.

 

Yes that is the gist of it.  But, I think what he is saying is that employers want to protect themselves from a potential risk which pre-employment screenings are supposed to help "weed" out.  And I think when we are referring to illicit substances, there is some merit to a pre-employment screening. 

 

I am all for testing for impairment on the job, but I still don't think piss tests are the way to do it.  Impairment testing IMO is a far better means because it is measuring for actual impairment (regardless of the cause) and not prior use (which does not indicate impairment at the time of testing).  It is non-invasive and indiscriminate and potentially more effective since it CAN account for things like sleep deprivation and prescription drug abuse.

 

Impairment Testing - Does it Work?

[wischatesjesus]

That link to impairment testing was really interesting. Retrospectively it seems like an obvious solution.

 

Also interesting is that it appears to have almost zero adoption rate. Googling "impairment testing" returns a torrent of accounting articles. The thing is if an employer actually tests for impairment then the liability associated with an impaired worker is tied directly to them, while if they were to just have a rule posted that says "don't show up impaired cuz that would be bad mkay" then they may be able to (or perceive that they are able to) weasel out under the pretext that the employee willfully violated the company's safety rules.

[ATX22]

Yes that is the gist of it.  But, I think what he is saying is that employers want to protect themselves from a potential risk which pre-employment screenings are supposed to help "weed" out.  And I think when we are referring to illicit substances, there is some merit to a pre-employment screening. 

 

I am all for testing for impairment on the job, but I still don't think piss tests are the way to do it.  Impairment testing IMO is a far better means because it is measuring for actual impairment (regardless of the cause) and not prior use (which does not indicate impairment at the time of testing).  It is non-invasive and indiscriminate and potentially more effective since it CAN account for things like sleep deprivation and prescription drug abuse.

 

Impairment Testing - Does it Work?

 

Don't have time to give it a full read right now, but quickly going over part of it, the various methods used for impairment testing were treated as supplementary methods to already existing drug and alcohol testing methods (even when impairment testing is believed to provide superior results, they opt to C.Y.A.)

 

You're missing the point. Cannabis will certainly impair someones ability to work and operate safely, but so will alcohol, sleep deprivation, decapitation, being attacked by a bear, sudden rapture, etc. The only difference between the first and the formers right now is that it is illegal in may states. Incitatus is saying that, should it become legal for recreational use, testing for it would be like doing prior testing for the other things I mentioned above: useless at detecting or preventing actual impairment on the job.

 

Or perhaps it would be reasonable to screen for alcohol and bad sleeping habits during the hiring process as well? I think you could reasonably argue that, but it would probably be considered pretty invasive all around. Are those really different from screening for legal cannabis?

 

Who is liable for an impaired worker is another matter entirely.

 

There's a reason why drug screening and random testing is standard practice in many industries, and I'm doubtful that a bunch of random gamers on a random gaming forum would be able to competently discredit the entire practice.  

 

Within the scope of this discussion,I am trying to avoid looking at this from the point of view of a single-issue individual.  Of the drugs out there, cannabis is one I really don't care if it becomes legalized, there are worse things out there with higher rates of substance dependence, "flashback"-risk, as well as a host of negative psychological / biological effects.  However, you can't just legalize cannabis, slap privacy protections all over it and call it a day.  You can't focus on the group of individuals who use the stuff with complete disregard for everyone else.

 

EDIT: one possible outcome is that pre-employment screening would be retained for cannabis, and treated the same way that smoking is treated when adjusting employer/employee health insurance premiums.  Maybe some form of Employer's Liability Insurance where they make cannabis smokers pay for a larger portion of than those who aren't users.

Edited by ATX22, 18 November 2016 - 10:24 AM.

[_incitatus]

There's a reason why drug screening and random testing is standard practice in many industries, and I'm doubtful that a bunch of random gamers on a random gaming forum would be able to competently discredit the entire practice.  

 

However, you can't just legalize cannabis, slap privacy protections all over it and call it a day.  You can't focus on the group of individuals who use the stuff with complete disregard for everyone else.

 

EDIT: one possible outcome is that pre-employment screening would be retained for cannabis, and treated the same way that smoking is treated when adjusting employer/employee health insurance premiums.  Maybe some form of Employer's Liability Insurance where they make cannabis smokers pay for a larger portion of than those who aren't users.

 

All of us are far more than just random gamers.

 

I'm not advocating for any additional privacy protection beyond what alcohol users enjoy presently.

 

The issue I have with slapping cannabis users with some additional premiums is that we don't do that with people who use alcohol.  Alcohol is far more impairing, addictive, and detrimental to your health - but that's ok?  What is the basis for specifically targeting cannabis users while letting people who use alcohol off the hook?  Are you specifically referring to the potential of a lawsuit due to someone being high on the job?  I just fail to see why cannabis should be treated any more strictly than alcohol.

 

Some findings and studies "fell short of finding an association between marijuana use and involvement of workplace accidents" and show that "marijuana positives turn up no more often in urine samples taken after workplace accidents than they do during random employee screenings".

 

Link to quoted article

 

Link to study abstract 1

 

Link to study abstract 2

[ATX22]

All of us are far more than just random gamers.

 

I'm not advocating for any additional privacy protection beyond what alcohol users enjoy presently.

 

The issue I have with slapping cannabis users with some additional premiums is that we don't do that with people who use alcohol.  Alcohol is far more impairing, addictive, and detrimental to your health - but that's ok?  What is the basis for specifically targeting cannabis users while letting people who use alcohol off the hook?  Are you specifically referring to the potential of a lawsuit due to someone being high on the job?  I just fail to see why cannabis should be treated any more strictly than alcohol.

 

Some findings and studies "fell short of finding an association between marijuana use and involvement of workplace accidents" and show that "marijuana positives turn up no more often in urine samples taken after workplace accidents than they do during random employee screenings".

 

Link to quoted article

 

Link to study abstract 1

 

Link to study abstract 2

 

Random in the sense I don't know you or most of anyone else here from Adam, and that there is nothing any more special about this message board that sets it that far apart from the other larger and smaller message boards out there on the Internet.  Besides, anonymity was one of the things we're supposed to keep here, despite some people posting more info about themselves than they should in certain past threads.

 

If you want to look at another controlled substance where additional premiums are placed on users, look at tobacco.  If you don't use tobacco, (where I work at least), a large amount of the premium from your health insurance provider is covered by your employer.  If you do use tobacco products, far less of that same premium is paid by your employer and you pay for a larger portion of that same premium.  It all boils down to how big of a liability you are going to make yourself.  Which, if you make the decision to use something, be it tobacco, cannabis or something else, you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions, one of which could be making yourself a less desirable employee / higher liability risk.

 

From the abstracts in your 2nd and 3rd links; in the 2nd link they recommend blood testing rather than urinalysis as a method for detecting if someone is actively high, in the 3rd link they're using urinalysis and are tossing out results for anyone who tests positive for more than just cannabis.  Neither is conclusive one way or the other, but in the 2nd link they still come to the conclusion that immediate use / acute symptoms do impair a person's abilities and that heavy long-term use can come with negative health risks.

[hellc9943]

 

If you want to look at another controlled substance where additional premiums are placed on users, look at tobacco.  If you don't use tobacco, (where I work at least), a large amount of the premium from your health insurance provider is covered by your employer.  If you do use tobacco products, far less of that same premium is paid by your employer and you pay for a larger portion of that same premium.  It all boils down to how big of a liability you are going to make yourself.  Which, if you make the decision to use something, be it tobacco, cannabis or something else, you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions, one of which could be making yourself a less desirable employee / higher liability risk.

 

I don't think this goes far enough. There also needs to be known how unhealthy a person eats and what said person does in their freetime. Clearly, a person who likes to go skiing has a higher risk of breaking a leg. Also, people who drive cars are usually at a bigger risk of dying on their way to work and it's unhealthy as well.

All of this should be included and controlled, but, most importantly, sexual behaviour. It is well known that certain practices and behaviour increase the risk of STDs, also, a person with such a behaviour could give in to his sexual needs during work time and risk everyone as well.

Edited by hellc9943, 18 November 2016 - 03:54 PM.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

I don't think this goes far enough. There also needs to be known how unhealthy a person eats and what said person does in their freetime. Clearly, a person who likes to go skiing has a higher risk of breaking a leg. Also, people who drive cars are usually at a bigger risk of dying on their way to work and it's unhealthy as well.

All of this should be included and controlled, but, most importantly, sexual behaviour. It is well known that certain practices and behaviour increase the risk of STDs, also, a person with such a behaviour could give in to his sexual needs during work time and risk everyone as well.

 

But I like to shoot.  Blow things up, too.  If that were known about me, I might be an actuarial risk.  Even if it were virtual, such as in an online video game.  Clearly, even though I never leave my house, have my groceries delivered, don't own a car, and have no girlfriend to break my heart and enrage me, I am an insurance risk.

 

Uh... I honestly do not know what I am arguing anymore.  Can I have double scotch no ice, please?

[DieselCat]

As a non-american, I think eventually we'll all realize the world dodged a bullet. Hillary would've started a world war since she fell in love with the idea of creating a no-fly zone in syria, probably because she's sold out to (endorsed by) some weapon or equipment making company.

 

 

At the end people are overestimating the effect that the US president can have on the shape of the world, things don't just work like that. Obama couldn't do much because the Congress wasn't on his side mainly for example.

 

You are either very naive or just wholly ignorant of what the reality going on here is....Just look at what this idiot has said and done over the last 10 days since the opinions of your post.

 

There are millions of people in this country that are living in fear of what Trump and his cast of bigots, racists and white nationalists of the Alt-Right are promising to do to this country.

 

Dodging a bullet ? ...are you kidding, this is the same as putting a loaded gun to the head of the American people. It just that the idiots that voted for Trump don't even realizing they are about to commit suicide.

 

BTW....Trump didn't win because the majority voted for him. He lost the popular vote by approx 2 million votes. He won the election due to the process of the Electoral College (which is fair) but he did not receive a majority of the votes.

 

Just the conflicts of interest beginning to surface about him with his business ties with other countries involving him and his brood is just the tip of the iceberg. And this is what he was falsely accusing Clinton of during the campaign ? Are you kidding ?

 

The next 4 years are going to be a nightmare for this country and if you still think the POTUS has little effect on the world, you need to wake up.   

[ATX22]

I don't think this goes far enough. There also needs to be known how unhealthy a person eats and what said person does in their freetime. Clearly, a person who likes to go skiing has a higher risk of breaking a leg. Also, people who drive cars are usually at a bigger risk of dying on their way to work and it's unhealthy as well.

All of this should be included and controlled, but, most importantly, sexual behaviour. It is well known that certain practices and behaviour increase the risk of STDs, also, a person with such a behaviour could give in to his sexual needs during work time and risk everyone as well.

 

As hilarious as this sounds, you do know that since ACA was deemed passed, they are actually starting to demand some of this information... 

 

but nice straw man argument all the same. 

Edited by ATX22, 19 November 2016 - 11:58 AM.

[Amidatelion]

As hilarious as this sounds, you do know that since ACA was deemed passed, they are actually starting to demand some of this information...

but nice straw man argument all the same.

Point of order: the exaggerative parody that is being displayed by hellc is not a straw man argument but would more accurately be described as reductio ad absurdum were his intent to be engaging or arguing with you.

Instead, I'm fairly certain this parody of privacy invasion is meant to entertain and elicit a rise out of people who hold passionately to certain positions.

tl;dr you got trolled, son

Edited by Amidatelion, 19 November 2016 - 02:54 PM.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Point of order: the exaggerative parody that is being displayed by hellc is not a straw man argument but would more accurately be described as reductio as absurdum were his intent to be engaging or arguing with you.

Instead, I'm fairly certain this parody of privacy invasion is meant to entertain and elicit a rise out of people who hold passionately to certain positions.

tl;dr you got trolled, son

 

:)  Like.

[ATX22]

Point of order: the exaggerative parody that is being displayed by hellc is not a straw man argument but would more accurately be described as reductio as absurdum were his intent to be engaging or arguing with you.

Instead, I'm fairly certain this parody of privacy invasion is meant to entertain and elicit a rise out of people who hold passionately to certain positions.

tl;dr you got trolled, son

 

Not sure you know what exactly is going on, but whatever.  

 

[wischatesjesus]

Not sure you know what exactly is going on, but whatever.  

 

One of you doesn't...

 

As far as how much power the president matters and how much it matters, I don't think that any of that really justifies electing someone who thinks that climate change isn't real and that he can get Mexico  to pay for a border wall.

Edited by wischatesjesus, 19 November 2016 - 02:40 PM.

[ATX22]

One of you doesn't...

As far as how much power the president matters and how much it matters, I don't think that any of that really justifies electing someone who thinks that climate change isn't real and that he can get Mexico to pay for a border wall.

I didnt bring trump into the discussion. :P

[wischatesjesus]

I didnt bring trump into the discussion. :P

 

...into the discussion about the election of Trump?

[D0nald_Trump]

I didnt bring trump into the discussion. :P

 

...into the discussion about the election of Trump?

 

I brought myself into this discussion.  I do things my way.

[ATX22]

I brought myself into this discussion.  I do things my way.

 

Right, which means I had nothing to do with it. 

 

Oh yeah, why is it that you won't go to France?

Edited by ATX22, 19 November 2016 - 08:52 PM.

[coldform]

Is it bad when the person who got trolleded doesn't even realize they got trolleded?

Cuz that's fuzzing funny...

[DallasCreeper]

Is it bad when the person who got trolleded doesn't even realize they got trolleded?

Cuz that's fuzzing funny...

Is indeed bad. Can confirm from feeding AK and runa so much.

[ATX22]

And like I said, health insurance providers TODAY, can ask you some of these absurd questions. Like, how much sleep you get, how you deal with stress, how much you exercise, how much junk food you eat, and various other lifestyle and mental health questions.

I'm aware of what he was attempting to do with the post, but these exaggerations are already happening, and they'll continue to slowly ease people in to further "invasions of privacy".

Seriously, how many of you here have employer provided or private health insurance (in your name.. Not your parent's)?

[_incitatus]

And like I said, health insurance providers TODAY, can ask you some of these absurd questions. Like, how much sleep you get, how you deal with stress, how much you exercise, how much junk food you eat, and various other lifestyle and mental health questions.

I'm aware of what he was attempting to do with the post, but these exaggerations are already happening, and they'll continue to slowly ease people in to further "invasions of privacy".

Seriously, how many of you here have employer provided or private health insurance (in your name.. Not your parent's)?

 

I have employer provided health insurance (pretty nice too).  (New hires have to do a complete physical - with whiz quiz, lung capacity test, ekg, x-rays, etc...)

[_incitatus]

 

If you want to look at another controlled substance where additional premiums are placed on users, look at tobacco.  If you don't use tobacco, (where I work at least), a large amount of the premium from your health insurance provider is covered by your employer.  If you do use tobacco products, far less of that same premium is paid by your employer and you pay for a larger portion of that same premium.  It all boils down to how big of a liability you are going to make yourself.  Which, if you make the decision to use something, be it tobacco, cannabis or something else, you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions, one of which could be making yourself a less desirable employee / higher liability risk.

 

 

I have no issue with higher health insurance premiums for tobacco users.  It has been proven that smokers consume excess medical care.

 

Tobacco use = health problems, specifically cancer.

Responsible cannabis use != liability on the job. 

 

What is happening now is that employer's rights to fire someone for off the job cannabis use is being upheld by the courts because (and this is the important part) THEY ARE ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, since cannabis is still illegal at the federal level.  They are fired not because the use of the plant is a liability, but because it is illegal. 

[hellc9943]

I have no issue with higher health insurance premiums for tobacco users.  It has been proven that smokers consume excess medical care.

 

Today smokers, tomorrow fat people. But I guess you have no issues with that 'cause you're not fat either, right?

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Today smokers, tomorrow fat people. But I guess you have no issues with that 'cause you're not fat either, right?

 

What if being fit - passing a fitness test, such as annual demonstration of ability to perform 700 Kcal on an ergo/elliptical/bike within 60 minutes, which must complete - were the annual condition of employment?

 

Stated up front?

 

I'd be OK with that.  And let people drink/smoke/eat the other 9 months of the year.

 

(edited the unit of measure)

Edited by Call_Me_Ishmael, 21 November 2016 - 03:14 PM.

[6ixxer]

I need to post the recent dilbert comic about the work weight loss competition.

[_incitatus]

Today smokers, tomorrow fat people. But I guess you have no issues with that 'cause you're not fat either, right?

 

Correct.

[coldform]

side effects: lethargy, increased appetite, an impairment of motor skills and a decrease in social inhibition...

 

sounds like alcohol, but without the whole "pickle your liver" thing...

 

I think I prefer a functioning stoner over a functioning drunk.

Edited by coldform, 22 November 2016 - 06:48 AM.

[ArchMech]

most necro this page for upcoming relevance! long live the rebellion!