PDA

View Full Version : Who has the right to tell me...



WackAMole
10-04-2006, 05:08 AM
Now first of all, I'd like to mention that I'm an EX smoker. Just want to clarify this so no one thinks im a smoker po'd by the new laws in washington state..but I really am curious if I'm the only American in existence who feels this way..here is the new law...

In Washington state this year a new law was passed in which smoking was banned from all business, restaurants and public areas within 20 feet of any door, window or ventilation system. Now this new law spurred on a few handfuls of business owners who decided they had the right to tell an employee either quit or be fired. The reason? Smokers cost them money and are too big a health risk and they shouldn't have to pay for their benefits...

NOW..first of it sounds reasonable to an older non smoking tax person (who isnt thinking OUTSIDE the box for what this really could translate to mean for our country.)

By the way these employers won their battle and allegedly breathalyzed employees during which one employee who continued to smoke at home during his off hours, was fired for being "positive" and refusing to quit.

Smoking is bad, unhealthy etc etc I know all that and so does every bloody smoker in the world...

What people who support this rule are not thinking about is the long term ramifications of a law like this passing against say...overwieght people...is being obese not also one of the LARGEST causes of early death in Americans today? Oh yes and lets not forget the most recent law they are attempting to pass in New York banning trans fat.

When is social drinking going to be banned? And what happens when they can definitively prove with DNA testing at some point exactly WHAT is going to kill u? That may be a long way off, but what gives any person the right to tell another what to do in their off time? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for banning it from restaurants..fine..but why bars? And WHY god WHY are we allowing people to dictate what we do in our off time ESPECIALLY considering the fact that its NOT illegal to smoke...yet.

Thoughts?

icerose
10-04-2006, 05:17 AM
The biggest reason why smoking is banned from indoor smoking is because of all the second hand smokers who were getting sick. As for the employees, they must have had serious problems with their own employees smoking too close to the building or inside when they thought no one was looking.

But this is also coming from a person who thinks smoking should be illegal due to the health defects it causes as well as things like trans fatty acids should also be banned and healthier alternatives in their place.

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 05:19 AM
The biggest reason why smoking is banned from indoor smoking is because of all the second hand smokers who were getting sick. As for the employees, they must have had serious problems with their own employees smoking too close to the building or inside when they thought no one was looking.

But this is also coming from a person who thinks smoking should be illegal due to the health defects it causes as well as things like trans fatty acids should also be banned and healthier alternatives in their place.

It's not that I dont somewhat agree with you, but this has put a lot of small business owners out of business..the issue I have is not so much with laws banning smoking in public places...its with employers as a result of this being able to tell their employees what they can and cannot do when they are home OFF work time. And no the employees did not smoke on work property or during work hours...they were tested at work randomly...Now mind you this is what im being told..but im sorry if you have to breathalyze someone to confirm that they are smoking...something is just wrong with that...

Its the big picture that concerns me...OBESITY...what is the difference in telling a person they are a health risk..take out what it is that puts them in that risk category and just say...we fired them because they are a health risk. Then look at it from that perspective

OH AND no trans fat means

NO KRISPY KREMES!!!! OMG..that just CANT happen

Unique
10-04-2006, 05:22 AM
What people who support this rule are not thinking about is the long term ramifications of a law like this passing against say...overwieght people...is being obese not also one of the LARGEST causes of early death in Americans today? Oh yes and lets not forget the most recent law they are attempting to pass in New York banning trans fat.



I agree with you.

First they came for the XYZ's but I wasn't an XYZ so I didn't do anything. (nasty smoking XYZ'z anyway....) Then they came for the PDQ's but I wasn't a PDQ so I didn't do anything. Then they came for the ABC's and I wasn't an ABC so I didn't do anything.

Finally - they came for me. But there was no one left to stand up for me so they took me away too ...

Sound far fetched? HA. Mark my words. It's been predicted.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming .... YMMV

BradyH1861
10-04-2006, 05:53 AM
I'm a smoker, but I can smoke at home or in the car, so I really don't care if I can't smoke anywhere else. In fact, I can't smoke in my work vehicle or anytime when the public might see me (while in uniform). So if I go to a resteraunt to eat lunch, I have to sit in the non-smoking section anyway.

At one time it would have bothered me, but not anymore.

Brady

BradyH1861
10-04-2006, 05:55 AM
But this is also coming from a person who thinks smoking should be illegal due to the health defects it causes as well as things like trans fatty acids should also be banned and healthier alternatives in their place.

Just out of curiousity, I must ask you this. In my opinion, alcohol is the big social evil which also, of course, has negative health consequences. Do you think it should be banned as well?

Brady

Cath
10-04-2006, 05:57 AM
The difference with smoking to obesity or alcohol or drugs or any of the other big killers, is that cigarette smoking directly affects the health of those who choose not to smoke as well as those who do.

I'm asthmatic, and exposure to cigarette smoke brings on an attack. Asthma attacks can be fatal. I think it's unfair that my health and possibly my life should be in jeopardy because of other people's choices.

I'm completely in favor of the idea. I wish it were more widespread.

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 05:58 AM
I turned down an interview this week at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale because of their smoking ban. I didn't feel as thought it were possible for me to go all day without a smoke. I know they really wanted me to interview for the role, but it was my decision not to pursue the job.

Can I continue doing this forever? No, I must either quit smoking someday of face the real possibility that I won't find suitable employment because of my habit.

Now, I can go to work drunk and not have any problems...:D

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:02 AM
Unique, you are one very correct pussycat.

What people do on their own time--
if it's legal--is nobody elses damn bidness. For the life of me, I cannot understand how some courts have upheld these ridiculous employer policies.

Git me a gun so I can take pot shots at Big Brother. :e2teeth:

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:04 AM
lol you guys are missing the point, but I think its because im not telling the story correctly ok let me start this way

1. I think smoking in public places being outlawed is ok..i dont like to smell smoke when im at a restaurant trying to eat nor do i like to come home reaking of smoke.

The issue is...people are being told that they CANNOT SMOKE AT ALL not at home..not on their own time ...no smoking PERIOD. And they are being fired if they continue to do so ON THEIR OWN TIME.

That is the issue I really have a problem with. It is ABSOLUTELY none of anyones business what another person does in his/her own home on his/her own time. I think allowing this to go on is really frightening. It defies every single principle that our country fought for in the first place.

Do i think people should smoke IN their homes if they have kids? No..do I have a right to tell someone that? No...No more than I have a right to tell a mother that she is feeding her kids to death.. Do you guys have any idea of the drastically rising rate of diabetes in children? I guarantee you its killing them faster than smoke.

10 years ago I was working on the Oncology (Cancer for the layman) Floor at Fitzsimmons and we smoked at the desk ffs! Did we suddenly have a huge rash of people dying from second hand smoke? No, its been going on for years. I would be more concerned about the rate of obesity and diabetes increases than I would smoking. As people become more informed and educated, less and less ppl smoke. But obesity is a real serious problem and you mark my words...smokers who smoke at home in their own time are targets now...but trust me..obesity will soon follow..and I wont be surprised when I see someone post that they were fired because they could not meet their employers "health criteria" due to wieght issues.

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:07 AM
I'll say it again - smoking affects the health of people other than the smoker. Obesity doesn't affect the health of anyone other than the obese person.

Whackamole - if employers are firing people for smoking on their own time, it sounds like they're mis-interpreting the law. Expect law-suits.

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:09 AM
I'll say it again - smoking effects people other than the smoker.

Whackamole - if employers are firing people for smoking on their own time, it sounds like they're mis-interpreting the law. Expect law-suits.

The result of the lawsuit was that the employee was fired and the employer was justified in his actions because the employee was a "health risk" ..i believe u can google this and read about it...

And Cath I do agree with you..no one should EVER have to tolerate being around smoke..especially given the rising health care problems like asthma etc..I totally agree with you..I SWEAR...u guys seem to be missing what im saying LOL I GIVE UP!!

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:11 AM
Ah good, you've explained the real issue.


The issue is...people are being told that they CANNOT SMOKE AT ALL not at home..not on their own time ...no smoking PERIOD. And they are being fired if they continue to do so ON THEIR OWN TIME.
What ever gave you the idea that what you do in the privacy of your own home was protected. See, that's your first mistake. Dwell a little into the mind of George Bush. You have no right to privacy because you are a potential terrorist. Oh, and if you're gay with an attitude watch out because you'll be on the next bus to Gitmo.

Privacy in the bone (home) is a fallacy created by the ultra-right Democrats during the civil rights movement. Then they had the balls to off MLK and say it was in the best interest of the country. So, as it stands, if you're Arabic, black, an Hispanic rowdy, or someone who smokes then you have no right to privacy.

Geee...didn't they teach that in civics 101.4 at college?

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:11 AM
Oh, don't give up. You're making a valid point.

I'd be interested to see the extent of the law. It does sound like the company is taking it too far. Even I wouldn't stop people smoking in their own homes at the moment (although I'd like to see it banned altogether).

Btw - I wonder whether the mods would like to move this to the TIO thread - it might be easier to debate over there.

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:12 AM
I'll say it again - smoking affects the health of people other than the smoker. Obesity doesn't affect the health of anyone other than the obese person.Huh? Ever try having sex with someone who is 500 lbs? Tell me obesity doesn't kill.

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:13 AM
I'm hoping you have a choice about that one, Spooky... :eek:

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:13 AM
Oh, don't give up. You're making a valid point.

I'd be interested to see the extent of the law. It does sound like the company is taking it too far. Even I wouldn't stop people smoking in their own homes at the moment (although I'd like to see it banned altogether).

Btw - I wonder whether the mods would like to move this to the TIO thread - it might be easier to debate over there.

What is the TIO thread? LOL

I really could give a rats butt about smoking and smokers..im an ex smoker..i dont really care what happens either way..but this guy was fired for continuing to smoke on his own time..it was bizarre and everyone was truly shocked the employer was successful..and because of that lawsuit a handful of different employers are now imposing that same policy..i think it just stinks of communism..its not right somehow..i just see a bigger picture and it looks really ugly.

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:16 AM
Here is an excerpt from one case though this is not the washington state case:

"They said, 'Because you have nicotine in your system, you're fired"'" Kelly said.

"I said, 'Well, I'm going to try and call corporate and see what I can do about it.' And they said, 'Well, actually, you are terminated. There's nothing you can do about it," Rodrigues said.
Last month, Rodrigues was still considered a new employee by the company, Scotts Lawn Service in Sagamore Beach. He had a uniform and earned a paycheck. Then, the results of his drug test showed that he's a smoker.
"They were trying to have a smoke-free company, but no one explained to me that they'd be drug testing for nicotine," he said.
That means employees cannot smoke at work or in their private life. Scotts said it is paying to help current employees quit. Rodrigues' boss showed him the door.
"They're legal, and if we can smoke cigarettes legally, I don't think they should be able to say, 'We don't want people smoking, so we're going to give you a drug test now, and if you have nicotine in your system, you're done,'" Rodrigues said.
According to the company, it's an economic issue. The company said it is trying to reduce escalating health care rates, and it claims each smoker could cost the company an additional $4,000 a year. That raises insurance premiums. Representatives said, "It's unfair for us to ask our employees to pay for the cost of smoking."
"The question isn't just smoking off the premises. The question is, can an employer regulate an employee's behavior when the employee is not on the job?" Boston University health law professor Leonard Glantz said.
Glantz called it bigotry. First, it's the smokers; next, it could be people who are obese, skiers or people who ride motorcycles. Don't they present health risks, he asked?
"Can an employer say, 'If you have a bumper sticker on your car for a Democrat, that I am going to fire you because I think Republicans are better for my business'? Those arguments are exactly the same as the argument for restricting smokers," Glantz said.
At least 28 states have laws against firing smokers. Some of them restrict employers from banning any legal activity a worker does during off hours. Massachusetts is not one of them, which means the chance of Rodrigues getting his job back has all but burned out.

end-

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:18 AM
I'm hoping you have a choice about that one, Spooky... :eek:I don't discriminate based on weight just so long as they provide a breathing tube. :D

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:20 AM
I don't discriminate based on weight just so long as they provide a breathing tube. :D
I'm lost for words...

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:21 AM
I'll say it again - smoking effects the health of people other than the smoker. Obesity doesn't effect the health of anyone other than the obese person.

Whackamole - if employers are firing people for smoking on their own time, it sounds like they're mis-interpreting the law. Expect law-suits.

Cath, you're right. Smoking does affect many non smokers adversly. And I have no problem with the on-the-job, or public faclity restrictions. But the reason employers are trying to stop employees from smoking OFF THE JOB is to keep their health care insurance rates down. They could do the same thing for folks who don't meet a certain weight criteria.

There are now urine screens available that have an 80 hour detection window for showing alcohol USE (not abuse, but use). You sure you want that glass of Chianti with your lasagna? Or maybe you ought to forget that Nyquil tonight.

In Michigan, where I live, employers have instituted the 24/7 non smoking policy and have been upheld in court. This for a LEGAL activity. What has happened to my country?

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:23 AM
I don't discriminate based on weight just so long as they provide a breathing tube. :D

LOL gawd!!!

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:25 AM
i just see a bigger picture and it looks really ugly.Me too.

http://cancer.ucsd.edu/prevention/prev/squamous/cwdata/squamous%20on%20lip%202.jpg

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:25 AM
Fewer than 25 posts and we're heading off the rails already. :D

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:26 AM
Fewer than 25 posts and we're heading off the rails already. :D

Become a dog and everything is forgiven. :D

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 06:26 AM
Me too.

http://cancer.ucsd.edu/prevention/prev/squamous/cwdata/squamous%20on%20lip%202.jpg

LOL i coulda done without that ALL night u know!!!

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:28 AM
Become a dog and everything is forgiven. :D
:eek:

(You do know a dog isn't a good thing to call a British woman, don'tcha?)

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:33 AM
:eek:

(You do know a dog isn't a good thing to call a British woman, don'tcha?)Try Lolly, they like a lorrey ride as much as the next woman. ;)

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:33 AM
Oh, damn. There's that British thing going on again.

Cath
10-04-2006, 06:34 AM
:D

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:36 AM
Oh, damn. There's that British thing going on again.Try keeping a stiff upper lip mate. I know it's a dog's world, but never sniff the butt of a strange pooch unless you're prepared for the outcome.

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:38 AM
Try keeping a stiff upper lip mate. I know it's a dog's world, but never sniff the butt of a strange pooch unless you're prepared for the outcome.

At my age Spooky, about the only thing I can keep stiff is my upper lip.

icerose
10-04-2006, 06:39 AM
Just out of curiousity, I must ask you this. In my opinion, alcohol is the big social evil which also, of course, has negative health consequences. Do you think it should be banned as well?

Brady

Hi Brady,

I have had six dear and close friends killed by drunk drivers, three of which were not even in vehicles but walking on the sidewalk, in broad daylight, two were walking home from school, the third was walking down her neighborhood street, she was eight months pregnant after trying for fifteen years to get pregnant. She suffered for over 30 hours before dying, her baby died in her arms shortly before she did.

The other three were driving but were not in the vehicle with the drunk driver, nor had they been drinking, two of which were killed in broad daylight.

I bet you can guess my answer to that question.


(Oh and whackamole, you can still have crispycremes, they just have to use a different oil that is already on the market and tastes better and is better for you. Banning trans fatty acids leaves nothing to lose and everything to gain.)

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:39 AM
At my age Spooky, about the only thing I can keep stiff is my upper lip.Old age oral sex? Cool. I can't wait until I hit 90.

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:42 AM
Old age oral sex? Cool. I can't wait until I hit 90.

I'll be waiting for you. Or not.

SpookyWriter
10-04-2006, 06:46 AM
I'll be waiting for you. Or not.Do I need protection? Besides, what would our employer think? Old people having sex. God forebid! Lock'em up and throw away the keys.

Lyra Jean
10-04-2006, 06:49 AM
This smells like Gattaca to me. If you seen the movie you'll know what I mean. If it's legal you shouldn't get fired for it.

Haggis
10-04-2006, 06:54 AM
Do I need protection? Besides, what would our employer think? Old people having sex. God forebid! Lock'em up and throw away the keys.

I dunno, Spook. I think even in today's environment my employer might give me a little slack if I were working on a certain old person (http://www.gabby.com/truepix/sophia%20loren.jpg).

Haggis
10-04-2006, 07:03 AM
Sorry. I'm such a thread stealer. I'll shut up now. :Ssh:

The topic is serious, so please continue...

BradyH1861
10-04-2006, 07:22 AM
I bet you can guess my answer to that question.


Indeed. The same answer that I would give if I were asked the same question, no doubt. I have a different reasoning, but my answer would still be the same.


Brady

KTC
10-04-2006, 02:25 PM
I would support such a law. I think smoking should be banned. (There. I said it.)

kikazaru
10-04-2006, 05:02 PM
Here is an excerpt from one case though this is not the washington state case:
According to the company, it's an economic issue. The company said it is trying to reduce escalating health care rates, and it claims each smoker could cost the company an additional $4,000 a year. That raises insurance premiums. Representatives said, "It's unfair for us to ask our employees to pay for the cost of smoking.

I'm with you KTC, however until the government decides to quit cold turkey the huge revenues that smoking generates for them in taxes, it's not going to happen.

I think that the above quote says it all. My husband smokes, his insurance premiums are much larger than if he was a non smoker. In the case of employers, even though the employees are indulging in a legal activity, the very fact that smokers cost them more money to employ directly affects their bottom line - and that is their #1 concern. Drinking, while it can cause serious health and social problems if it is abused, it does not cause chronic conditions in a social drinker and in some instances (such as drinking a glass of red wine) can have some positive health benefits.

TsukiRyoko
10-04-2006, 05:15 PM
You know the funny thing- smoking is becoming illegalized while marijuana is being descriminalized. Hmm.

WackAMole
10-04-2006, 05:33 PM
I'm with you KTC, however until the government decides to quit cold turkey the huge revenues that smoking generates for them in taxes, it's not going to happen.

I think that the above quote says it all. My husband smokes, his insurance premiums are much larger than if he was a non smoker. In the case of employers, even though the employees are indulging in a legal activity, the very fact that smokers cost them more money to employ directly affects their bottom line - and that is their #1 concern. Drinking, while it can cause serious health and social problems if it is abused, it does not cause chronic conditions in a social drinker and in some instances (such as drinking a glass of red wine) can have some positive health benefits.

Yes..but I dont think you even have any idea what u are in essence really saying when u buy into this...let me make a list of high risk areas for u

smoking
obesity
diabetes
any long term chronic illness ( that doesnt involve smoking)
sports-including snow skiing, hiking, rock climbing, basically any activity that can cause u physical harm
Anxiety
Depression

Now granted there really is some significance to the fact that smoking causes health problems but in all reality..other than a few exceptions...much of this doesnt occur until later in life...how many YOUNG smokers do u really know who are actively effected by: emphysema...lung cancer...not many id wager..most of the long term effects of smoking occur long after an employee is gone..

Now before you say it...YES smokers do have more instances of bronchitis, pneumonia etc...but so do asthmatics...two different things.. AGREED! One is a choice the other is not HOWEVER when it comes to someone being able to determine whether or not you being a HEALTH RISK make u employable or not...the smoker will always be able to quit...but the asthmatic will be screwed...

We are crossing a VERY dangerous line when we begin to allow ppl to make decisions like this. And it all starts like this....subtle..quiet and usually with a subject most of us are in total agreement with. SMOKING.

Everyone that doesnt smoke, despises a smoker...but stop looking at it like this..SMOKER and look at it like this...HEALTH RISK..take out the smoker..and use that word and suddenly it becomes very clear that ultimately this could be a very bad thing for ANYONE who falls into any risk category that is totally out of their control.

Rising insurance costs are costing us...and what is subtley starting with smokers is soon going to encompass any person that is considered a health risk...how long before an employer can base his decision to hire you on how many docs appointments you have had in the last year...
How long before an employer can dictate to you how many times you go?
How many of you have this lovely HSC insurance now that supposedly puts the employee in charge of their own health insurance? I do..and let me tell you it sucks..its basically a high deductible insurance policy..mine 2000 for one person..once u use that up...u can go regence 20/80. great, lovely..so in one year i have to use 2000 dollars before I can even use my card...but its great for employers because they get kickbacks from the government for using this plan. Keep in mind we do get a small Health Account that the employer matches funds in..but at 100 dollars a pop for a visit it doesnt go far and it gets very expensive for the employee..

See the big picture..
Why are people so damn concerned with smokers when we have drunk drivers that are killing people. Drunk drivers that have been convicted 6 times before they kill someone no less.
I work in Hospice and as i said i no longer smoke...yes we do see a lot of lung Ca but we also see a whole lot of other disease and you know to be honest..when u get older you are going to die of something

I just implore you to think about what you say when you choose to allow someone, especially an EMPLOYER to take away our right to make a choice about anything all for the sake of determining what constitutes a health risk and what does not..a decision that involves peoples livelihood and ability to financially take care of themselves and their families..and this decision is not being made by a licensed physician..but an EMPLOYER

The smoking ban is just a toe in the water...remember..its not about the smoking..its about an employer having the right to determine who is a HEALTH RISK and who is not.

icerose
10-04-2006, 06:15 PM
The thing is I don't believe it will escalate that far. Smoking is a choice, it's an added health risk that the individual has chosen to indulge in. We also have non-descrimination laws for those unchosen health risks that you cannot slight against people who have chronic diseases which they did not bring on themselves.

I highly doubt that non-descrimination law could be overturned without millions of angry backlash, not to mention if they are unemployable, they would be considered disabled and would thus become a government burden in which the government would foot the bill, you can bet when it comes down to money out of their pockets they will protect that law with life and limb.

Especially given the current SS situtation and how it probably won't even support the baby boomers, most of whom did not plan for retirement as they planned on others taking care of them.

kikazaru
10-04-2006, 06:23 PM
I understand what you are saying - where does it end and it is indeed that oft quoted "slippery slope" however, I would also bet that insurance cos have exact figures on how much money people with various conditions such as depression and diabetes cost them, as well as the liklihood of accidents. They are factored into how much everyone pays and except for most cases of obesity (but everyone has to eat and I doubt they have a test for twinkie breath yet) they are largely unavoidable conditions. Smoking is a deliberate activity with known health consequences - like taking drugs for which they also test.

In addition, the number one concern of employers is money. They set the rules and they do not have to employ anyone who doesn't meet their criteria. If the insurance company has said "smokers, miss more days of work, they have more health problems, therefore we are charging YOU more money for your premiums when you wish to insure smokers," they are under no obligation to continue to employ people who do not adhere to their company regulations and not only that but actively negatively impacting their bottom line. Smoking is an activity which while legal, is not necessary and contravenes this particular company's rules.

While imo, the fair option should be for the employee to purchase additional insurance at his own expense, I don't think that employers should be under any obligation to continue to employ people who don't follow the conditions of employment.

ChaosTitan
10-04-2006, 06:45 PM
This smells like Gattaca to me. If you seen the movie you'll know what I mean. If it's legal you shouldn't get fired for it.

Drinking alcohol is legal, but you can get fired for going to work drunk.

Profanity is legal, but you can get fired for cussing at your boss.

Bermuda shorts and flip-flops are legal, but you can get fired for going to work out of dress code.

Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean your employer doesn't have the right to create a set of rules that apply to the work environment.

I do not agree with the outcome of the lawsuit. If those folks want to smoke in the privacy of their home, go right ahead. But I am all for a public ban on smoking (jumps into KTC's corner). I hate going out to bars because I come home reaking of second hand smoke, and who really wants to take a shower at 2am so their bedsheets don't get all stinky?

Know what annoys me? Companies that allow smoking employees to take ten minute smoke breaks. Hello??? Where are the ten minute non-smoke breaks for the rest of us? And unless they are smoking in a wind storm, the stink sticks to their clothes and hair, and it comes back into the building with them.

As long as cigarettes are legal, people will have the right to suck chemicals into their bodies. But whenever I see someone with a burning stick in their mouth, I think of my uncle. Sixty-two, rail thin, permanently attached to an oxygen tank, dying of lung cancer that is slowly making him crazy. And not the ha-ha-funny kind of crazy. The Jack Torrance threatening-my-own-brother-with-a-knife kind of crazy.

icerose
10-04-2006, 07:08 PM
And adding onto that, Utah is already a right to work state. They can fire you with 0 notice for any reason what so ever, they don't even have to give a reason. Now if the reason is discrimination, you can of course sue, but you have to prove discrimination, so firings for people smoking at home and having it still in their blood isn't that out there. They cannot fire/not hire someone purely for health reasons outside of self inflicted, as that is discrimatory, but still, right to work. Most employers around here look to hire at least one semi-disabled to disabled person because it boosts their consumer image, thus they don't even have to be asked to take on people with undesirable health conditions.

robeiae
10-04-2006, 07:31 PM
Mandated benefits are no longer benefits. They are costs.

Lyra Jean
10-04-2006, 07:41 PM
Drinking alcohol is legal, but you can get fired for going to work drunk.

Profanity is legal, but you can get fired for cussing at your boss.

Bermuda shorts and flip-flops are legal, but you can get fired for going to work out of dress code.

Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean your employer doesn't have the right to create a set of rules that apply to the work environment.

I do not agree with the outcome of the lawsuit. If those folks want to smoke in the privacy of their home, go right ahead. But I am all for a public ban on smoking (jumps into KTC's corner). I hate going out to bars because I come home reaking of second hand smoke, and who really wants to take a shower at 2am so their bedsheets don't get all stinky?

Know what annoys me? Companies that allow smoking employees to take ten minute smoke breaks. Hello??? Where are the ten minute non-smoke breaks for the rest of us? And unless they are smoking in a wind storm, the stink sticks to their clothes and hair, and it comes back into the building with them.

As long as cigarettes are legal, people will have the right to suck chemicals into their bodies. But whenever I see someone with a burning stick in their mouth, I think of my uncle. Sixty-two, rail thin, permanently attached to an oxygen tank, dying of lung cancer that is slowly making him crazy. And not the ha-ha-funny kind of crazy. The Jack Torrance threatening-my-own-brother-with-a-knife kind of crazy.

Nah. Sorry I should have been more specific. If you are at home and you smoke a cigarrette you shouldn't be fired for it. You don't get fired for wearing bermuda shorts at home and you don't get fired for drinking at home.

Now if you drink on the job or don't follow dress code or there is no smoking on the job site and you do any of those things then yes punishment is deserved whether written up or fired or what have you.

KTC
10-04-2006, 07:45 PM
When you wear burmuda shorts at home you are not potentially costing your company thousands of dollars in future medical expenses and missed time.

robeiae
10-04-2006, 07:51 PM
Depends on whether or not your webcam is turned on...

KTC
10-04-2006, 07:56 PM
Shut up, Lorne.

TrainofThought
10-04-2006, 08:07 PM
I didn't realize this was moved, but will post anyways.


Now this new law spurred on a few handfuls of business owners who decided they had the right to tell an employee either quit or be fired. The reason? Smokers cost them money and are too big a health risk and they shouldn't have to pay for their benefits... To me this violates freedom of choice. It sounds like business owners used the new law to their advantage. Smoking is an addiction. There are several addictions (food) or health problems (depression) that cause harm to others either directly or indirectly and cost businesses money. It is one thing for an employer to say you canít smoke at work, inside or out, and another to tell them to quit or they lose their job.


Smoking is bad, unhealthy etc etc I know all that and so does every bloody smoker in the world... Of course it is but so is obesity. Though obesity may not directly affect my health, it does indirectly affect my monies. As our Country grows in size, so does the scale. This is a leading preventative cause of death. Obesity causes diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease among other things, which indirectly causes insurance premiums to go up. This doesnít directly affect me, but as gas and other prices increase so do premiums depleting my paycheck and indirectly causing harm. Smoking does the same, but the smoking industry doesnít bring in as much money as the fast food industries so that market gets taxed and ridiculed. Over the past few years, people have quit smoking, but that was their choice. Whether smoking is unhealthy or not, it is wrong to tell someone what to do in their own homes.


When is social drinking going to be banned? That may be a long way off, but what gives any person the right to tell another what to do in their off time? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for banning it from restaurants..fine..but why bars? Drinking will not be banned because alcohol is a huge economic market. Prohibition didnít work. I agree that smoking should be banned from indoor areas, but it is wrong to ban smoking from walking down the street, riding in a car or in your own home.


Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean your employer doesn't have the right to create a set of rules that apply to the work environment. Youíre right, but these employers are setting rules outside the work environment.


I hate going out to bars... I hope youíre not driving.


Know what annoys me? Companies that allow smoking employees to take ten minute smoke breaks. Hello??? Where are the ten minute non-smoke breaks for the rest of us? And unless they are smoking in a wind storm, the stink sticks to their clothes and hair, and it comes back into the building with them. I can argue why some companies provide additional time off to employees who have children. There is nothing stopping an employee from taking a ten minute break. Non-smokers assume they canít take ten minute breaks, but I see enough of them running errands outside their lunch hour and taking walks. Some perfumes and colognes are nasty. Whatís the difference between smelling a horrible perfume and smelling like smoke? If itís nasty, it is nasty, the source doesnít matter.

sassandgroove
10-04-2006, 08:09 PM
Icerose and others need to open their eyes. It can and will escalate.
Rob is right, a mandatory benefit is no longer a benefit, it is a cost. I think waht happened is that companies started supplying health insurance becuase they could get group rates and it was cheaper for employees to get it through work than on their own. But now there is little competition, and insurance companies presume to dole out what drugs or procedures we need, rather than what a doctor prescirbes,and denyclaims to keep the bototm line, and rates are going up. We need to put health care decisions back into the hands of doctors and consumers, and we need affordable health insurance that individuals can buy so we don't have to get it through work, then who cares if an employee smokes at home.

Because what is next? No wine with dinner, no cake for dessert or a birthday, no stairs becuase we could fall, no driving becuase we could crash, no cell phone becuase we'll get weird brain disorders? No tv because we are fat couch potatoes? No books because of eye strain? etc.

sassandgroove
10-04-2006, 08:16 PM
Also, IF this is allowed, Potential employees need to be told before applying. The one case wackamole referenced, the poor guy was already hired (and fired) before he found out their policy. Hardly fair. Not that I think they should be able to mandate what one does while not at work on their own time, but he should have at least been told.

PattiTheWicked
10-04-2006, 08:36 PM
As a former smoker, albeit not one of those militant scary ones that thinks NO ONE should smoke, I like that I have a choice about where I go to do business. Because of city laws around here, I can go to restaurants and stores and yes, even bars, that are smoke free. That's my choice as a consumer. However, I also think that business owners should have a choice as to whether or not their establishment is smoke-free.

As to what employees do on their own time -- certainly, that should not be mandated by the employer. BUT -- and a might big but this is -- what do you do when you have an employee who smokes and you can smell it on them? There's a restaurant that I love to go to, which is smoke free, and they have one particular employee that usually ends up serving our section. This lady is very nice... and REEKS of ashtray. It's so bad, I literally have to hold my breath when she's near me.

Can an employer fire an employee for simply SMELLING obnoxious? And of course, if this is the case, what about employees who don't smoke, but douse themselves in eye-watering levels of perfume or cologne?

I think it's ludicrous for an employer to make rules about what employees do on their free time, particularly when the activity is -- at least for now -- still legal. However, I do think the insurance companies should have the option of charging a higher premium for coverage of employees who smoke.

Just my nickel's worth, and a coupla ponderings.

icerose
10-04-2006, 09:03 PM
I think the escalation hinted at is idiotic, but that's just my opinion. As for the obesity problem I already stated they should ban Trans fatty acids, an easily replacable substance in all foods that have devastating effects that the government has know about for DECADES yet has done nothing to protect us consumers.

Certain industries certainly can fire an employee for smelling bad, just as they can fire them for poor hygene, as well as bad dress code. I do agree that the breathalizer is going to the extreme, and you shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot do in their households that is legal.

Prohibition did quite well actually, it lowered the average ammount of drinking people a great deal. The problem was the corrupted officals who were endorsing/covering up bootlegging for money and booze. I think it is a vial substance and very rarely has anything good to offer if ever. Those same good benefits that glass of red wine gives you, can be found in red grapes, with no harmful side effects. And how many drinkers really stick to a single glass of red wine??

But I also believe that the FDA should do their job and ban harmful substances from food ESPECIALLY when there are perfectly healthy alternatives. That's their job! But they neglect it in favor of commerce. In fact one substance they tried to ban, estivia, is perfectly healthy, in fact has many benefits as a sugar substance and is 100% natural, why did they try to ban it? Because it would hurt the artifical sweetener markets. Well too bad, they need to get their eyes back on the consumers rather than the companies. Trans fatty acids should have been banned decades ago, the obesity problem wouldn't be nearly what it is, and I think we are all going to see a change in the obesity problem as the government finally makes food companies responsible for putting out harmful products and making them safe. Why, as consumers, should we not have a layer of protection from the food markets, the leading cause of preventable death as mentioned, when we have a layer of protection from every other substance that does the same?

Shadow_Ferret
10-04-2006, 09:30 PM
I think the escalation hinted at is idiotic, but that's just my opinion.

The escalation isn't idiotic and it's already happening. They aren't firing people for being overweight, but there are insurance companies that have "levels" of health care offered and if you're in perfect health and don't have a dangerous lifestyle you get one set of care at a cheaper premium than someone who is obese, who smokes, who rides a motorcycle.

Conform, icerose. Come conform.

ChaosTitan
10-04-2006, 09:41 PM
Nah. Sorry I should have been more specific. If you are at home and you smoke a cigarrette you shouldn't be fired for it. You don't get fired for wearing bermuda shorts at home and you don't get fired for drinking at home.


I didn't disagree with any of that. Perhaps it got lost in the rest of my post, but here it was:


I do not agree with the outcome of the lawsuit. If those folks want to smoke in the privacy of their home, go right ahead.

Let me reword it: The workers who sued should have won. If you want to smoke at home, go right ahead. They are your lungs.

sassandgroove
10-04-2006, 09:44 PM
But where does it stop, Icerose? It's all fine and good when it is things you don't like, but what happens when it escalates into things you do like? You can make a choice not to eat trans fatty acids, but what right does anyone have, including you or the govt, to tell the rest of us not to?

ChaosTitan
10-04-2006, 09:48 PM
Youíre right, but these employers are setting rules outside the work environment.

Again, I do disagree with that. If my boss ever told me I could no longer go home after a hard day and have a beer, I'd sue them, too.


I hope youíre not driving.

Only when I'm not drinking. ;) We do the whole designated driver thing that a lot of people still haven't figured out.


Some perfumes and colognes are nasty. Whatís the difference between smelling a horrible perfume and smelling like smoke? If itís nasty, it is nasty, the source doesnít matter.

Oh for that perfect world where the customer with severe B.O. maintains a five foot distance when asking a question.

But this is only my nose I'm talking about, and if it was choice between smoke or Dead Flowers Perfume, I'll take the perfume.

ChaosTitan
10-04-2006, 10:04 PM
Trans fatty acids should have been banned decades ago, the obesity problem wouldn't be nearly what it is, and I think we are all going to see a change in the obesity problem as the government finally makes food companies responsible for putting out harmful products and making them safe.

Nutritious diets and daily exercise wouldn't hurt, either.

I don't mean for that to sound like a glib response, but the majority of trans fats are found in deep fried fast food, packaged and frozen food, and junk food. And these days people would rather spend an hour watching Oprah than twenty minutes walking on a treadmill (or around the block).

And for anyone who doesn't know a trans acid from TransAtlantic, here you go: http://www.healthcastle.com/trans.shtml

icerose
10-04-2006, 10:39 PM
But where does it stop, Icerose? It's all fine and good when it is things you don't like, but what happens when it escalates into things you do like? You can make a choice not to eat trans fatty acids, but what right does anyone have, including you or the govt, to tell the rest of us not to?

But see right now you don't have the choice to not eat trans fatty acids if you want to eat out.

Thus the reason for the ban. Restaurants are NOT making the move on their own to eliminate these which is as simple as changing the oil and shortning.

It's highly dangerous and highly unneccessary. And I did say the breathalizer is going too far.

(However I do believe that ANY driver that is pulled over drunk should have a breathalizer installed (it is the law but rarely enforced) in their car as a mandatory preventative measure, where they cannot start their car without first passing the alcohol breathing test. Heck, have it mandatory in every single car ever built from here on out for all of us to take, it would prevent drunk driving accidents all together.)

sassandgroove
10-04-2006, 10:42 PM
Again, I ask you, where does it stop?

Shadow_Ferret
10-04-2006, 10:47 PM
But see right now you don't have the choice to not eat trans fatty acids if you want to eat out.

Thus the reason for the ban. Restaurants are NOT making the move on their own to eliminate these which is as simple as changing the oil and shortning.

It's highly dangerous and highly unneccessary. And I did say the breathalizer is going too far.



YOu do have a choice. Maybe they should try eating at home once in a while. I don't elect my representatives to be my nanny and tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.

icerose
10-04-2006, 10:48 PM
Since I can't look into the future I couldn't tell you.

However, on a side note, I strongly believe they should put insurance premium caps. Everyone is regulating everything else, but the insurance, someone should wrangle them down for everyone's sakes.

icerose
10-04-2006, 10:49 PM
YOu do have a choice. Maybe they should try eating at home once in a while. I don't elect my representatives to be my nanny and tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.

For the most part I do eat at home, home cooked meals, with healthy fats, lots of vegetables and fruits, and whole grains.

HOWEVER, that does not mean I want to always eat at home. I would like to on occation eat out and have something that although isn't inherently healthy, isn't inherently very bad for me either. Would it really kill them to change the type of oils they fry french fries in?

Shadow_Ferret
10-04-2006, 10:51 PM
However, on a side note, I strongly believe they should put insurance premium caps. Everyone is regulating everything else, but the insurance, someone should wrangle them down for everyone's sakes.

Just eat healthy, lose weight, don't smoke, have regular checkups, don't ride a motorcycle or engage in any other dangerous activity and you can have cheaper premiums.

Shadow_Ferret
10-04-2006, 10:54 PM
HOWEVER, that does not mean I want to always eat at home. I would like to on occation eat out and have something that although isn't inherently healthy, isn't inherently very bad for me either. Would it really kill them to change the type of oils they fry french fries in?

Oh, c'mon. Eating out once in a while isn't going to kill you. Indulging on occasion on something unhealthy isn't harmful. It only becomes harmful if its done to the excess.

And if it affects the taste of the fries, then don't change the oil. I love McDonald's fries. I used to love Burger King's fries, but they changed the oil and now they suck. So I don't eat their's anymore.

RG570
10-04-2006, 10:56 PM
Are you serious? Ban the trans fats? Now you want the the government in the kitchen, wagging its finger and making me eat what they say.

I think you've fallen victim to a media frenzy. "Trans fats" is now just a meaningless rallying call to bored people who want to ***** about other people's choices.

It's bad if you eat too much of it. Where did the concept of moderation go? Now it's all, "BAN CIGARETTES! BAN ALCOHOL!". It's stupid and very dangerous.

The people who are getting ill from, or sorry, the "victims" of these horrible substances, are hardly people who take care of themselves. They are people who do not exercise and gorge on crap food. They would most certainly die of something else if you took their fried food away from them.

So then what? Force them into an institution to make them lose weight and be healthy? At gunpoint, say. Why not? At least it's "healthy".

Why should I suffer because others can't control themselves?

If you want to ban everything "bad", then you'll have to ban most prescription medications, and a host of other things.

It's scary to think that there are so many people out there who would make it illegal for me to smoke a few butts in the evening. You don't like it, don't smoke. Leave me out of it and find a different, less rights-infringing crusade to go on.

icerose
10-04-2006, 10:58 PM
It's funny, I don't remember this kind of backlash when a particular artificial sweetener was found to be extremely harmful, but not nearly as harmful as trans fatty acids, and was banned. It was removed from every product.

I don't remember protesters saying the FDA didn't have a right to keep something harmful from us.

Furthermore studies have shown that certain oils that do not contain trans fatty acids, not only are healthier, but actually make the food taste BETTER.

I think you would be interested to know that Denmark has already banned Trans fatty acids and McDonalds made the transition there just fine, but have not yet made it here because they haven't been forced. There are the options, there are the alternatives, companies just aren't willing to do it without a shove.

ETA: Many of the food companies have been found to add in substances that make the human body crave more food and feel less full. If that isn't a direct contributor to obesity I don't know what is. And you are standing against having regulations on companies knowingly doing this??

Shadow_Ferret
10-04-2006, 11:06 PM
It's funny, I don't remember this kind of backlash when a particular artificial sweetener was found to be extremely harmful, but not nearly as harmful as trans fatty acids, and was banned. It was removed from every product.



Are you talking about cyclamates or sacarrine? Either way, it was overblown way out of proportion and once again a decent product was removed because of shrill media screeching that it's bad for us.

As far as companies adding things to make us desire fat, I don't believe that for a minute.

sassandgroove
10-04-2006, 11:12 PM
YOu do have a choice. Maybe they should try eating at home once in a while. I don't elect my representatives to be my nanny and tell me what I can and cannot put into my body.Thank you!

Haggis
10-04-2006, 11:14 PM
Furthermore studies have shown that certain oils that do not contain trans fatty acids, not only are healthier, but actually make the food taste BETTER.


Taste is subjective. What's better to you isn't necessarily better to me. But by all means, eat as healthy as you want to. But if you want my butter, you'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

eta: Unless I'm on a smoke break, in which case, I suppose, you can just take it.

ChaosTitan
10-04-2006, 11:17 PM
but have not yet made it here because they haven't been forced. There are the options, there are the alternatives, companies just aren't willing to do it without a shove.


Major changes are not cost effective, so until those trans fats are banned, I don't see fast food chains lining up to change without that shove you mentioned.

The partially hydrogenated oils last longer, so they don't have to change the oil out of the deep fryers as often. Thereby cutting down the amount of oil bought, and making your Biggie fries that much cheaper. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's In-N-Out, Carl's Jr, and Dairy Queen are all out there with one purpose in mind, and it's not to make us fat (we do that by consuming their products with gusto and not getting enough exercise). They are out there to make money.

blacbird
10-04-2006, 11:18 PM
Just out of curiousity, I must ask you this. In my opinion, alcohol is the big social evil which also, of course, has negative health consequences. Do you think it should be banned as well?

Brady

Alcohol consumption is banned in a lot of situations. You can smoke in your car while you drive, but you can't drink there. You can smoke outside in a public park or walking along a sidewalk, but in most such places you can't legally drink. Virtually all businesses ban drinking on the premises, even those which permit smoking. And there are good reasons for all those things, just like there are good reasons for forbidding smoking in certain areas, the principal one being the second-hand smoke menace.

caw

icerose
10-05-2006, 12:03 AM
But here's the thing. The ban on trans fatty acids isn't telling you what you can and cannot eat, it isn't even touching grocery stores. It is putting a collar on big businesses who are using a bad product in their food and refusing to make it safe. You don't believe me on the negative impact, that's fine. There are decades of studies on that.

I will try to find the article on the other part.

And I know obesity is in part because people aren't taking care of themselves, but that doesn't mean we can't help companies to not make it so difficult for them to change their behaviors.

I understand the lower shelf life and the higher costs, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

sassandgroove
10-05-2006, 01:02 AM
Fine, just don't complain when they charge you more for your food, and don't compain when they come to take away something you like/don't percieve as bad*.

*I know Trans fatty acids are bad. BUt if you start policing things like that, I ask you, where does it stop?

KTC
10-05-2006, 01:06 AM
That's it, Sass. I'm tellin' Mom!

sassandgroove
10-05-2006, 01:25 AM
Too late, she already knows, and she said she wants to talk to YOU.

*Sass ducks*

English Dave
10-05-2006, 01:50 AM
Fine, just don't complain when they charge you more for your food, and don't compain when they come to take away something you like/don't percieve as bad*.

*I know Trans fatty acids are bad. BUt if you start policing things like that, I ask you, where does it stop?


Those health warnings on my horse baggees made me quit.

ChaosTitan
10-05-2006, 01:53 AM
I understand the lower shelf life and the higher costs, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

Figure out a way to help companies finance this change, and I'll agree with you.

I can see it now. "I'm sorry, ma'am, but your 'fast' food french fries will be another ten minutes. It's time to change out our brand new, all natural oil vats." :e2thud:

blacbird
10-05-2006, 01:59 AM
Those health warnings on my horse baggees made me quit.

Reminiscent of Scottish comedian Billy Connolly's line: "If ye want to lose weight, never eat anything that comes in a bucket."

caw.

icerose
10-05-2006, 02:11 AM
Fine, just don't complain when they charge you more for your food, and don't compain when they come to take away something you like/don't percieve as bad*.

*I know Trans fatty acids are bad. BUt if you start policing things like that, I ask you, where does it stop?

The problem is they have been policing for years. Seriously. The FDA has been around for ages started out keeping out harmful substances such as excess mercury and such. Only in the last while has it been more focussed on businesses and less on consumers.

English Dave
10-05-2006, 02:14 AM
The problem is they have been policing for years. Seriously. The FDA has been around for ages started out keeping out harmful substances such as excess mercury and such. Only in the last while has it been more focussed on businesses and less on consumers.
You jest? So the Mad Hatter was just a loon? :)

BradyH1861
10-05-2006, 02:46 AM
Alcohol consumption is banned in a lot of situations. You can smoke in your car while you drive, but you can't drink there. You can smoke outside in a public park or walking along a sidewalk, but in most such places you can't legally drink. Virtually all businesses ban drinking on the premises, even those which permit smoking. And there are good reasons for all those things, just like there are good reasons for forbidding smoking in certain areas, the principal one being the second-hand smoke menace.

caw

I am well aware of this. I write citations for these type things every day. Smoking can be forbidden in certain areas and a person will not inhale second hand smoke. However, a person can go to a place which allows consumption of alcohol and then kill or injure an innocent person on their way home. The consumption of the alcohol is perfectly legal. The act that follows is not.

And that act is immediate. The effects of second hand smoke do not instantly kill anyone. Furthermore, I live in an area that is heavily populated by chemical plants. The crap I breathe in each day is bad enough. Of course, the anti-smoking outcry is louder than the outcry over environmental pollutants. That makes no sense to me.

I could go on at length about the evils of alcohol, but I'll leave it alone. I will say this though. In all my years of public safety, I have never seen an instance of a person who comes home after smoking and beats his wife and kids. I can't say the same for alcohol.

B.

BradyH1861
10-05-2006, 03:16 AM
I should add that though I am a smoker, if they ban smoking in public I would NOT have a problem with it. Just don't tell me I can't smoke at home. My employer already tells me when I can and can't smoke at work.

B.

Peggy
10-05-2006, 04:32 AM
I am going to make a confession. When I go out to eat, I want to order food that tastes really good and is different from what I prepare at home. I want to be able to order tasty fries and rich chocolate cake if that's what I'm in the mood for. It makes no sense to me to ban a food item that isn't a problem when eaten in moderation. People should be allowed to be responsible for their own health*! Most of the food containing partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil is bad for you anyway - reformulating cookie, pie crust and french fry recipes is only going to make them marginally healthier. High fructose corn syrup is also bad for you - should that also be banned?

If I ran the world, or at least the FDA, I would require food manufacturers and restaurants to have the ingredient information available to anyone who asks. That way I can choose to decline to order a piece of pie if the crust was made with shortening - or not. Meals in schools should be made as healthy as possible while still being tasty, but we should be able to order what we please in restaurants.

* While I think smoking is awful and smelly and unhealthy, I don't think cigarettes should be banned. That isn't to say that places where smoking is allowed shouldn't be limited. It always surprises and annoys me to find myself in a business or restaurant or bar that actually allows smoking. Savages!

BradyH1861
10-05-2006, 04:47 AM
I am going to make a confession. When I go out to eat, I want to order food that tastes really good and is different from what I prepare at home. I want to be able to order tasty fries and rich chocolate cake if that's what I'm in the mood for.

You HEATHEN! I am contacting the Health Food Gestapo at once!

:D


Brady

Peggy
10-05-2006, 05:10 AM
You HEATHEN! I am contacting the Health Food Gestapo at once! Just don't tell my insurance company . . .

blacbird
10-05-2006, 07:50 AM
When I go out to eat, I want to order food that tastes really good and is different from what I prepare at home.

Which does make you wonder about the appeal of restaurants that advertise "home cooking", doesn't it?

caw.

MacAllister
10-05-2006, 08:09 AM
Heh--you chicken-fry an old boot and cover it in country gravy, and it's suddenly not just edible, but delicious.

Peggy
10-05-2006, 08:20 AM
Which does make you wonder about the appeal of restaurants that advertise "home cooking", doesn't it? Well I'm sure there are homes out there somewhere where people make fried chicken and biscuits with pie for dessert. Just not in MY home.

blacbird
10-06-2006, 01:13 AM
I go out to eat to get away from home cooking.

caw.