Fired for smoking
I can understand the business owner not wanting to employ any smokers, poor health care services combined with soaring health care costs are arguably the biggest problem in America today.
There is something odd that I've always felt about how subsidized health care works. It seems logical to me that because the goverment pays for health care, they ought to be able to regulate some behavior that is severely detrimental to public health, like not wearing a seat belt or smoking. I am all for people being able to smoke or not wear a seat belt as a matter of personal choice, but I'm not sure the taxpayers should have to pay for the consequences of it.
There is something odd that I've always felt about how subsidized health care works. It seems logical to me that because the goverment pays for health care, they ought to be able to regulate some behavior that is severely detrimental to public health, like not wearing a seat belt or smoking. I am all for people being able to smoke or not wear a seat belt as a matter of personal choice, but I'm not sure the taxpayers should have to pay for the consequences of it.
posted by Hubert at 1/31/2005 09:43:00 AM
1 Comments: Post a Comment
Nice sentiment, but if government allows the cigarettes, the taxpayers will be paying, in more ways than taxes.
If a person is smoking, a person is not working.
Unless, a person is getting paid to smoke.
If not, a person is smoking on a person's own time.
All other laws of coutesy should apply.