I really, really hate smokers

[Dr Strangelove]

I've lived in my current apartment in Toronto for 2.5 years now, with little issues. In the summer I'd have to frequently close my open windows as some idiot started smoking on their balcony, but that was it.

A few weeks ago, a new neighbour moved in nearby on the floor. He or she is a heavy smoker. I live in a building built in the '60s, and the ventilation pretty much sucks. Whenever they smoke, which is often, it immediately fills up the hallway with the heavy smell and very quickly wafts into my apartment. It's incredibly strong.

I've repositioned my Sharp air purifier near the front of my apartment which has helped a lot, but the smell is still incredibly persistent and incredibly annoying. I've now duct-taped all of the vents shut entering into my apartment but the seal by the door is not very good and the smell still permeates!

I'm seriously infuriated. I ****ing hate smokers, they really have no ****ing idea how much their disgusting habit pisses everyone else off.

Me too. I have to examine them in small confined room.s Some of them really reek, but they haven't a clue. Disrobing makes the smell even worse. I've actually has to give myself nebulizer treatments after treating some heavy smokers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, this was simply not what you stated earlier, so I see a contradiction. The specific incident was a private company, Eckerd Pharmacy (There aren't any state-run pharmacies as far as I know in the U.S.). You adamantly stated it was wrong that the Pharmacy was requiring employees to dispense birth control when it was against their personal morals. Glad to see you've come around at least.

I see it now as more of a business issue. Pharmacies should be able to run as they see fit, in choosing what they wish to stock. If they wish to stock contraception, that is a policy change. In my work the last 4 months, it's a big decision choosing to change over stock, and one of my jobs was to make sure that everything was accounted for in terms of the different brands, etc. Everyone was responsible for ordering, and nothing was ordered without the consultation of both my boss, and the lady who did the ordering for that particular supplier.

The store policy was no contraception or natural equivalents, and it would not simply go into the store without first being discussed by the owner and the staff. The issue with Eckhard is how they conducted their transition. I do not believe it is right for a pharmacy to expect staff which has not ever dispensed contraception to do so without complaint.

Companies have a right to change policies when they like. And employee contracts almost always state that the company has that right, and they are expected to go along with said policy changes. So this would not be applicable to most employers.

Most items don't have conscience issues. Either keep the employee on and have them refer to another who is willing to dispense, and if that isn't possible and you are willing to let the employee go, you have to provide her severance, etc, as it's not termination with cause.

Even a non-coerced contract may not necessarily be valid, however. You can't legally sell yourself into slavery, no matter how much you and the other party may consent. The state has the power to render certain contractual terms invalid, and I suspect you fully agree with that power, yes? So yet again, "anything goes" for employer-employee relationships is not something you really believe in, even if there's an up-front contract.

Government only knows of contracts that they discover. If employee and employer were happy with the contract why should they intervene?

[Boris Godunov]

Couple things here. First off, it depends on whether the pharmacy is state run or privately owned. If the latter, and the owner at the time of hiring makes his position known wrt to the dispensation of contraception and the morning after pill, then yes, I believe the employee has a duty to uphold the contract that they signed.

Ok, this was simply not what you stated earlier, so I see a contradiction. The specific incident was a private company, Eckerd Pharmacy (There aren't any state-run pharmacies as far as I know in the U.S.). You adamantly stated it was wrong that the Pharmacy was requiring employees to dispense birth control when it was against their personal morals. Glad to see you've come around at least.

However, there are certain exceptions. If the employee has worked there and the policy changes, the employee cannot be fired for exercising her conscience rights. If the employer wishes to fire their employee, they have to provide them with the appropriate severance, etc.

As far as I'm aware, all pharmacies have a simple policy--you will dispense any medications we carry as prescribed by a patient's doctor. Therefore the addition of any and all medications is covered. Acquiring new medications to sell, whatever their use, would not constitute a change in policy.

I think it's wrong for them to change policy in midstream.

Companies have a right to change policies when they like. And employee contracts almost always state that the company has that right, and they are expected to go along with said policy changes. So this would not be applicable to most employers.

I don't regard contracts as 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their wishes. If a prospective employee chooses to sign on the dotted line, then the only way for the contract to be valid is if they were capable to consent. If as you argue, they were coerced into signing, then the contract is invalid.

I didn't argue that anyone was coerced into signing anything...where did you get that?

Even a non-coerced contract may not necessarily be valid, however. You can't legally sell yourself into slavery, no matter how much you and the other party may consent. The state has the power to render certain contractual terms invalid, and I suspect you fully agree with that power, yes? So yet again, "anything goes" for employer-employee relationships is not something you really believe in, even if there's an up-front contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why thank you for stating this. I take it, then, that you have reversed course on your previously-held position vis-a-vis pharmacy employees refusing to dispense medications to customers due to personal objections?

Couple things here. First off, it depends on whether the pharmacy is state run or privately owned. If the latter, and the owner at the time of hiring makes his position known wrt to the dispensation of contraception and the morning after pill, then yes, I believe the employee has a duty to uphold the contract that they signed.

However, there are certain exceptions. If the employee has worked there and the policy changes, the employee cannot be fired for exercising her conscience rights. If the employer wishes to fire their employee, they have to provide them with the appropriate severance, etc.

For state run pharmacies, any state dispensation policy here will violate the Charter wrt to section 3 which states that employees ought to be free to practice their religion, and that includes Catholic pharmacists. Whereas the pharmacist should be able to refer to another pharmacist in a state-run system, it would be wrong to deny them employment based on their religion.

Because you argued before that a employer such as Eckerd Pharmacies shouldn't be able to require its pharmacists to dispense legal medications if they had some sort of moral objection to it.

I think it's wrong for them to change policy in midstream. The only case in where it would be applicable is if they informed the employee of their policy prior to hiring. If they failed to do so, you cannot blame the employee for exercising her conscience rights in refusing to dispense contraception or the morning after pill.

I would find it baffling that you could believe both that a bar could have the right to make its employees breathe in carcinogens that might give them health problems but that a pharmacy could not require its employees to dispense their legal products no matter what personal objections they might have about it.

I don't regard contracts as 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their wishes. If a prospective employee chooses to sign on the dotted line, then the only way for the contract to be valid is if they were capable to consent. If as you argue, they were coerced into signing, then the contract is invalid.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm speaking of all of the regulations, not just workplace safety regulations.

Hence you're entirely to blame for a bunch of irrelevant arguing that shouldn't have occured. It was utterly daft of you to state a philosophical opposition to regulation when the issue here was worker safety standards.

I don't believe that a smoke-filled workplace is a significant and serious 'imminent' threat to the health of the worker. Yes, the smoke is carcinogenic, but so is the mercury in CFLs.

Finally, something on-point. If instead of engaging in a discussion about the philosophy of regulations you had actually started with this, it could have saved a lot of time.

So you agree with worker safety regulations, you just don't think second-hand smoke meets the level of a danger for workers. Why on earth couldn't you have said that in the first place?

Asbestos is a construction issue, not a job issue. It's no different then Lead pipes. Get it out of them and replace them with the modern fire retardants. Smoking is a different issue altogether.

How is it a different issue? If a work location is known to have asbestos, the onus is on the employer to fix it, due to regulations. The regulations pertain precisely to workplace safety regulation.

If they are paying you to perform a service, then you should deliver that service regardless of the working conditions.

Why thank you for stating this. I take it, then, that you have reversed course on your previously-held position vis-a-vis pharmacy employees refusing to dispense medications to customers due to personal objections? Because you argued before that a employer such as Eckerd Pharmacies shouldn't be able to require its pharmacists to dispense legal medications if they had some sort of moral objection to it.

I would find it baffling that you could believe both that a bar could have the right to make its employees breathe in carcinogens that might give them health problems but that a pharmacy could not require its employees to dispense their legal products no matter what personal objections they might have about it.

[snoopy369]

if there were no political correctness to this site, wouldn't this topic be called by someone "***(1) hates fags(2)?"

*** (1): derogratory term for homosexuals
*** (2): UK slang for cigarette

Good point.

[Darius871]

I'm going to take an indefinite and perhaps permanent leave of absence from the site.

Don't give the pr*cks the satisfaction!

[notyoueither]

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.

What statistics?

[MattBowron]

if there were no political correctness to this site, wouldn't this topic be called by someone "***(1) hates fags(2)?"

*** (1): derogratory term for homosexuals
*** (2): UK slang for cigarette

[Supr49er]

This thrade makes me sad

Me too.

[Elok]

Methinks this calls for a .

Asher will probably be back (or so I hope) when his anger dies down. It may be a couple weeks before he can come back without sacrificing his pride, but he'll almost certainly be back sucking on the Poly crackpipe sooner or later, so you all might as well stop your ing right now.

Meanwhile, is there some compelling reason why people can't switch to chewing tobacco? Or some other nicotine delivery system which is more elegant and palatable and doesn't indiscriminately release poisons into the atmosphere?

[DaShi]

I just work with what you give me. That's all I've done.

[SlowwHand]

I really doubt that. Don't flatter yourself. No, go ahead. It will be hard for you to find anyone else who will.

[DaShi]

Poor Sloww. Your skin is too thin. How sad is it that you just jump into this thread for the sole purpose to insult me? Not sad for me, it means I'm getting through to you.

[SlowwHand]