http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/14/BAGNHPQEEJ1.DTL<b>4-year-old in fatal shooting 'little sweetheart'</b>

The family of a 4-year-old boy who police say fatally shot his father in their Vallejo home Saturday declined to speak publicly today, but a neighbor called him a sweetheart.

No one answered the door of the neat gray bungalow where the victim, 32-year-old Brian Sparks, and his wife, Carol Sparks, lived with their son. An American flag hung in the front window, and yellow police tape could be seen in a trash can at the curb in front of the home.

The Vallejo Times-Herald described Brian Sparks as an electrician on disability leave because of a work-related injury. Both that paper and KTVU news quoted a neighbor saying that Brian Sparks collected guns.

Carol Sparks reported the shooting at 4:35 p.m. Saturday, calling it accidental and identifying the boy as responsible, police said.

Neighbor Bruce Branco said he met the boy's mother when the two worked together at a hardware store. "To me, they were nice people," he said. "I didn't see anything wrong. This is kind of tragic." "I'm still wondering why that baby went after that gun. A 4-year-old doesn't have much of a mind yet. How does he learn to use a gun like that?"Another reason for gun control: hundreds of people in the United States die every year from accidental gunfire.

Dunno, seems like Darwinism striking where needed. Always a good idea to keep a loaded gun and ready to fire around a house with children.... or in general.

Tragic,

but its pretty damn stupid to have loaded guns (or guns in reach) of children. Not terribly hard to keep guns locked up, and unloaded

Dunno, seems like Darwinism striking where needed.Not really, Darwinism would require a shot where the kid dies, and collector's balls are blown off.Always a good idea to keep a loaded gun and ready to fire around a house with children.... or in general.All the more reason guns should be more heavily regulated.

The gun didn't kill the father. The lack of a child safety trigger lock killed the father.

All my guns have trigger locks on them. Not only because it means only I can use my guns, but that if anyone I know were to take my guns without my knowledge, and use my guns in a commission of a crime, and I didn't have trigger safety locks on them, some personal injury lawyer might mistakely think me to be a meal ticket.

For the same reason (uncontrolled, rampant lawsuits), you should only sell guns you no longer want to family, or someone you trust implicitly never to commit crimes with them. Otherwise, it has been known to happen that stupid, frivolous civil lawsuits filed by personal injury lawyers find their way back through the ownership chain to someone with money, regardless of how innocent the original owner is of the crime committed with the firearm.

Generally, that is how it works from my observations anyways. If the criminal doesn't have any money, but they find that you sold the individual that commited the crime the gun he used in the crime, you get sued in a civil lawsuit as well. They never win, but even bringing me within 100 yards of a courtroom would be unacceptable.

Thus, I don't sell guns to strangers, and I use trigger safety locks to guard against aquaintances, or friends of a friend rummaging through my room and finding my guns.

Trigger safety locks prevent frivolous lawsuits. And 4 year olds half-orphaning themselves.

The gun didn't kill the father.
Well, it would have been really hard without the gun. *rolling eyes*

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/14/BAGNHPQEEJ1.DTLAnother reason for gun control: hundreds of people in the United States die every year from accidental gunfire.

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/05/11/news/5_accident_070511.txt

Let's outlaw bicycles. Or cars.

Accidents happen, that is why they are not called 'on purposes'.

I worked with this guy. Great guy, great nurse.
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/05/03/funerals/2_obit_patterson_070503.txt

Let's outlaw motorcycles, and trucks, and cattle trailers.

Hundreds of people in the United States die every year from accidents.
Let's just outlaw accidents, and get it done with, Tudamorf.

Or almost as good, outlaw ALL risky behavior.

Or almost as good, outlaw ALL risky behavior.Don't twist my words. I said the risk of accidental gunfire is another reason for gun control.

There are few "other reasons" in the case of bicycles, not to mention those devices have far more productive use.

Bicycles have no productive use.

Just the idea that I have one keeps bad guys out of my house. That is pretty damn productive. It works even when I am not using it.

It would be like a shovel that digs holes by itself when you are sleeping.

It is almost magical, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, even.



I ride my mountain bike for the excitement of 'man vs mountain'. If you don't believe me, I will take you personally to Rockville(which is close to you) or we can do the Clementine Loop in Auburn, for a really rocking ride.

I guess Lance Armstrong would disagree with me, of course. But he gets paid to ride his bike on the road. I don't get paid for that. Well, unless some bike rider comes into my ICU with a head injury, then I will get paid, um duh.

No, the inevitable goal of all you safety nazis and doo gooders is to eventually outlaw ALL risky behavior. Why don't you just come out and admit, it's not like it's not obvious or anything?

Bicycles have no productive use.What are you talking about? They get people from place to place without using oil, and they get people to exercise.No, the inevitable goal of all you safety nazis and doo gooders is to eventually outlaw ALL risky behavior. Why don't you just come out and admit, it's not like it's not obvious or anything?You can engage in all the risky behavior you want, for all I care. As long as you don't put anyone else at risk, and you pay for all the resources you use up in the risky activity.

My views on risky behavior are almost . . . libertarian.

What are you talking about? They get people from place to place without using oil, and they get people to exercise.
What are you talking about?

You could walk. Or run. And not use oil, and get exercise.

What are you, daft? No one NEEDs bicycles, what an absurd thought.

You can engage in all the risky behavior you want, for all I care. As long as you don't put anyone else at risk, and you pay for all the resources you use up in the risky activity.
Driving is risky behavior. I get behind the wheel of a moving piece of metal, that weighs 3500 pounds. And travel towards you at effective speeds of 130 miles an hour, just a few feet from you, and the only thing between us is air.

My views on risky behavior are almost . . . libertarian.
I will believe it when I read it(or see it).

No one NEEDs bicycles, what an absurd thought.I didn't say anyone "NEEDs" them, I said they have a productive use.

They allow you to travel long distances far more easily than walking or running would.

They are extremely practical, and put to frequent use in San Francisco.Driving is risky behavior.Undoubtedly. And that's why we require drivers to get insurance to pay for the damage they cause.

Of course, they also cause injury that can't be compensated for, but since they are essential to the function of our society, as it exists today, we can't simply remove them.I will believe it when I read it(or see it).I am just asking that you put back in what you forcibly take out. That is very libertarian.

If your smoking causes society to spend an average of $10 per pack on you when you smoke, you should be forced to pay those $10 before smoking it. So long as you smoke in an isolated area and aren't hurting anyone, you should be free to continue killing yourself.

My views are unlike those of most liberals, who think that killing one's self is an inherently bad thing. I think it's an integral part of the right to life, and that the decision should be left to the individual.

I didn't say anyone "NEEDs" them, I said they have a productive use.
What do they produce?

They allow you to travel long distances far more easily than walking or running would.
Well, then that is just convenience then. Not production or productivity.

They are extremely practical, and put to frequent use in San Francisco.
I frequently use the Power Exchange when I am in SF. Never rode a bicycle there.

Undoubtedly. And that's why we require drivers to get insurance to pay for the damage they cause.
It makes better sense that people insure themselves for their own loses. People should be responsible for their own ****. I should not have to pay more because you happen to be a mindless consumer and buy an 80 thousand Hummer, as opposed to an 8 thousand dollar Jeep. The decision to buy and risk that amount of money is your decision, and you should cover the extra luxurious expense.

Of course, they also cause injury that can't be compensated for, but since they are essential to the function of our society, as it exists today, we can't simply remove them.
My guns are an essential part of my life and lifestyle. They provide me fun, peace of mind, and enjoyment.


I am just asking that you put back in what you forcibly take out. That is very libertarian.
Ya, people should pay for their own ticket to see the movie. No doubt.

If your smoking causes society to spend an average of $10 per pack on you when you smoke, you should be forced to pay those $10 before smoking it.
1) BS.
2) Most of my customers are in the Hospital because of obesity, than any other etiology. Our most common surgery is a cholecystectomy(gall bladder removal). All of those costs get passed on to you.
3) Are you willing to dis-amortize all healthcare costs to their root risk factors and players? Or just smoking?
4) How about Diabetics?(for example) Do you want to charge Diabetics more for reproducing children with Diabetes? Or having a bad diet, or not controlling their blood sugar? You pay for this risky behavior(that is, it is not contained), do you want them to pay more, as you expect smokers to pay more? I assure you, that the total cost of Diabetes management is way more than smoking.

So long as you smoke in an isolated area and aren't hurting anyone, you should be free to continue killing yourself.
Fist/Nose. Works for me.

My views are unlike those of most liberals, who think that killing one's self is an inherently bad thing. I think it's an integral part of the right to life, and that the decision should be left to the individual.
That sounds Libertarian to me. Good.

Well, then that is just convenience then. Not production or productivity.Call them a catalyst to productivity. Whatever. They are a way to get people from place A to place B so they can produce stuff at place B.It makes better sense that people insure themselves for their own loses. People should be responsible for their own.Why should third parties have to bear the cost of your recklessness? The people causing the trouble in the first place (drivers, smokers, Krispy Kreme regulars, etc.) should have the primary responsibility.BShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Effect_on_healthcare_costsData on both positions is limited, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published research in 2002 claiming that the cost of each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States was more than $7 in medical care and lost productivity.Are you willing to dis-amortize all healthcare costs to their root risk factors and players? Or just smoking?I would certainly apply the rule to non-essentials like smoking or Krispy Kreme doughnuts.

Now, if we're talking about immutable characteristics, genetic conditions, or essentials, I would probably draw the line before them.

Now, if we're talking about immutable characteristics, genetic conditions, or essentials, I would probably draw the line before them.

Why?

If a Diabetic mom has a Diabetic kid, why does she or he get a pass in your system?

You afraid someone will liken that to Eugenics, call you a NAZI, hurt your feelings?

I call you a NAZI every single day. Or are you worried your Liberal friends will call you a NAZI?



Here you have a known biological fact. Diabetic moms make Diabetic kids. Not every smoker develops health issues, or costs anything to you, just look at George Burns. Just look at me, because I am alive, I don't cost you a dime.

This is what happens in Japan, where no one owns guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3BRUav-JVM





Gun ownership is essential to keep these people away when I am sleeping.

This is what happens in Japan, where no one owns guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3BRUav-JVMNice try, but Tokyo is one of the safest large cities in the world. Even a relatively safe American city is South Central by comparison.Gun ownership is essential to keep these people away when I am sleeping.You need a gun to scare away pranksters?

Why?Because it's unfair to penalize individuals for situations that are outside their control.

Of course, comprehending this requires some notion of morality, so I'll put it to you in selfish terms: if a situation out of your control happens to you, you'd want the society you've paid for to come to your aid.You afraid someone will liken that to Eugenics, call you a NAZI, hurt your feelings?I don't care what people call me. I have many unpopular opinions.Here you have a known biological fact. Diabetic moms make Diabetic kids.We both know the #1 risk factor for the Type 2 Diabetes that's clogging up our health care system is fat, lazy people with a ****ty diet.

That's why the Type 2 Diabetes epidemic is spiraling out of control in America, whereas it's practically non-existent in third world countries.

Perhaps there are people with superior (or inferior, depending on your view) genes who can better tolerate being fat and lazy and eating a ****ty diet, but that does not mean the condition is genetic.Not every smoker develops health issues, or costs anything to you, just look at George Burns.So? Are we playing the N=1 game again?Just look at me, because I am alive, I don't cost you a dime.Do you go through an entire shift at work without feeding your tobacco addiction? "Smoke breaks" are a drain on employee productivity, which means the rest of society has to make up the difference. And this is even before your 50s and 60s, when you're likely to develop your lung cancer and emphysema, which I'm going to have to pay for.

Nice try, but Tokyo is one of the safest large cities in the world. Even a relatively safe American city is South Central by comparison.
It is also homogeneous. Probably the most homogeneous largest cities in the world.

And they don't have a culture like those in South Central.


You need a gun to scare away pranksters?
No, I need to buy you a sense of humor.

It is also homogeneous. Probably the most homogeneous largest cities in the world.There are many large cities that are culturally and racially homogeneous yet have enormous crime rates.

Perhaps there are people with superior (or inferior, depending on your view) genes who can better tolerate being fat and lazy and eating a ****ty diet, but that does not mean the condition is genetic.

Of course it is mostly genetic.

What a silly idea. Whether it is insulin dependent or not, your chance of developing DM is genetic.

The number two risk factor for a Heart Attack is genetics, right after being in the group of already having a Heart Attack(which came from genetics, of course).

Talk about 'giving' disease to somebody else, like your SHS lie campaigns are trying to do. How about actually giving disease to babies, and knowingly doing it? Actually, as in really really, honest and for trues giving disease to other people.

Compared to those, smoking is not even close, like your Truth campaign lies to you about.

If your morality condones and supports people actually giving disease to babies, it is you who needs a new morality.

Hell, I could shoot a dose of heroin into a neonate, and do far less damage than what you are supporting. You would think me a monster for doing that, so then what are you?

There are many large cities that are culturally and racially homogeneous yet have enormous crime rates.

Where?

Where?Mexico City?

Originally Posted by Tudamorf
There are many large cities that are culturally and racially homogeneous yet have enormous crime rates.

Closest I can find is Detroit (88% African American) has a pretty hefty crime rate

However,

Seattle Washington (77%) White, had a whopping 40 murders in 2005, and has a requires giving out concealed permits to anyone 21+ without a criminal record

Someplace in the United States Tuda, or at least in a country thats OECD and High Income

Someplace in the United States TudaI thought we were talking about Japan, which is not in the United States.

Yes but its (Japan) develolped similiarly.

Mexico is a developing country with chronic poverty.

Christ might as well pick a city in africa, i'm sure theirs plenty that has massive crime despite being ethnically similiar (although on second thought that whole tribe thing might **** that idea up)

Moscow?

This game is rather silly.

Moscow?

Well 85% Russian, but again, Russia has some serious problems with poverty at the moment....

Find a US city! (actually i gave you one)

Even still though, Moscow has 10 million people, 15% non russian would be 1.5 million.

How many non Japanese are their in Tokyo?

Find a US city! (actually i gave you one)Why does it have to be a U.S. city? The point is, racial and cultural homogeneity cannot even begin to explain Tokyo's astoundingly low crime rate.

Finding homogeneous U.S. cities is difficult, since the country was founded as a land of immigrants.

Having a culturally/ethnically cohesive city + low amounts of poor sure makes sense for me.

+ low amounts of poorWell, that is a function of their superior society, which, in turn, is a function of the societal elements Fyyr et al. call "fascist," such as gun control.

So it's a circular argument.

lack of gun control is a major determinent to poverty?

lack of gun control is a major determinent to poverty?Gun control is one aspect of the superior society which, in turn, allows for lower levels of poverty. So indirectly, yes. (Clarification: I'm not saying one causes the other, but rather both are symptoms of the same phenomenon.)

thats not a circular arguement then, its like a vastly interconnected web arguement.

Mexico City?

You don't know very many Mexicans Tuda, do ya.

Mexicans are anything but homogeneous.

They are very racist and class conscious. Their pejorative(well one of them) for someone stupid, or 'white trash' is indios.

Gun control is one aspect of the superior society which, in turn, allows for lower levels of poverty. So indirectly, yes. (Clarification: I'm not saying one causes the other, but rather both are symptoms of the same phenomenon.)

Crime causes poverty.

Not the other way around.


Guns contain and prevent crime. Therefore having guns prevents poverty.

Crime causes poverty.

Not the other way around.

For a minute ignoring that that's the dumbest thing I've read here in a while, even if it's true, it is a pointless statement. What does that tell us in order to become better crime PREVENTORS? Nothing.

So it's an incorrect AND pointless statement.

You've decided that you don't want to do anything about crime prevention, we get it.

Crime causes poverty.

Not the other way around.

Guns contain and prevent crime. Therefore having guns prevents poverty.Did you really say what I think you've said? You're even farther off your rocker than usual.

This kid in the story below the potential to Darwinize his dad before he attains the ripe old age of 4.

Little kids and shotguns don't mix well. (http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=190945&fr=)
_____

Baby 'Bubba' gets a gun permit (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/baby.gun.ap/index.html)
POSTED: 10:24 p.m. EDT, May 15, 2007

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- "Bubba" Ludwig can't walk, talk or open the refrigerator door -- but he does have his very own Illinois gun permit.

The 10-month-old, whose given name is Howard David Ludwig, was issued a firearm owner's identification card after his father, Howard Ludwig, paid the $5 fee and filled out the application, not expecting to actually get one.

The card lists the baby's height (2 feet, 3 inches), weight (20 pounds) and has a scribble where the signature should be.

With some exceptions, the cards are required of any Illinois residents purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition within the state. There are no age restrictions on the cards, an official said.

Illinois State Police oversee the application process. Their purpose, said Lt. Scott Compton, is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, those under an order of protection and those convicted of domestic violence.

"Does a 10-month-old need a FOID card? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," he said.

Ludwig, 30, of Chicago, applied for the card after his own father bought Bubba a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun as a gift. The weapon will probably be kept at Ludwig's father's house until the boy is at least 14.

Except you aren't eligible for a Darwin award after procreation are you?

Except you aren't eligible for a Darwin award after procreation are you?
With a 12 gauge, the kid stands a decent chance of doing himself in with the recoil. :)

Clearly Tudamorf is right, its not Guns that are dangerous, its bullets

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/whacking.bullets.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us

No, no... it's not the bullets. Bullets are just inert metal. You can't blame inert metal. It's the gun powder!! (They still use gun powder, don't they?)

This kid in the story below the potential to Darwinize his dad before he attains the ripe old age of 4.Well at least we're not handing out guns to just anyone. You still need to be human, have a pulse.

Well at least we're not handing out guns to just anyone. You still need to be human, have a pulse.

Probably not. I'm sure criminals have bought guns using the ID of the deceased or missing persons.

Did you really say what I think you've said? You're even farther off your rocker than usual.

Yes, because it is absolutely true.

Take any formerly good part of town, which is deteriorating, it is because women folk are afraid to go there(and shop). Because it is not safe.

That crime drives out dollars, stores and businesses close, and people who can not take part of 'white flight' are trapped where there are no jobs. And it just spirals down.

Everyone was poor during the Depression, there was no notable(statistically significant) increase in crime during that time.

The notion that poverty causes crime only comes from looking at the poor areas AFTER they have been already made poor by crime. Of course you look at it the other way around.

But look at a section of your city on the way to BECOMING poor, you will notice that it is crime(or lack of safety) which is the driving force.

If your women folk are not going to go there after dark, you will see that area decline to Harlem or Watts status. The money will just dry up, and those who did not get out in time, are then trapped, with the poverty and the crime.

Yes, because it is absolutely true.Reality check, it's the poor people that commit the crimes, not the rich people -- at least the crimes that strike panic in the "women folk." If they were rich, they wouldn't need to commit the crimes, because they could buy their stuff, and their sex.

The only possible exceptions are organized crime and the occasional psycho, but those are rare, and not the sort of thing the women folk and everyone other than gun-toting libertarians fear.But look at a section of your city on the way to BECOMING poor, you will notice that it is crime(or lack of safety) which is the driving force.I suppose you have some hard evidence that poverty lags an increase in crime rate.

The gun didn't kill the father. The lack of a child safety trigger lock killed the father.

All my guns have trigger locks on them. Not only because it means only I can use my guns, but that if anyone I know were to take my guns without my knowledge, and use my guns in a commission of a crime, and I didn't have trigger safety locks on them, some personal injury lawyer might mistakely think me to be a meal ticket.

For the same reason (uncontrolled, rampant lawsuits), you should only sell guns you no longer want to family, or someone you trust implicitly never to commit crimes with them. Otherwise, it has been known to happen that stupid, frivolous civil lawsuits filed by personal injury lawyers find their way back through the ownership chain to someone with money, regardless of how innocent the original owner is of the crime committed with the firearm.

Generally, that is how it works from my observations anyways. If the criminal doesn't have any money, but they find that you sold the individual that commited the crime the gun he used in the crime, you get sued in a civil lawsuit as well. They never win, but even bringing me within 100 yards of a courtroom would be unacceptable.

Thus, I don't sell guns to strangers, and I use trigger safety locks to guard against aquaintances, or friends of a friend rummaging through my room and finding my guns.

Trigger safety locks prevent frivolous lawsuits. And 4 year olds half-orphaning themselves.


Make believe bull**** like this is why I don't like the NRA.

They need to stick to ****ing gun rights and stop polluting their members minds with invented hysteria.

"Smoke breaks" are a drain on employee productivity, which means the rest of society has to make up the difference. And this is even before your 50s and 60s, when you're likely to develop your lung cancer and emphysema, which I'm going to have to pay for.

Wow, you dont' even work do you?

Because, you know, I've noticed that non-smokers take breaks too!..yes, that's right! They just stop working and stand around bull****ting with each other.

Of course, Americans work the longest hours per week of any industrialized nation, with the least days off per year of any industrialized nation...so I'm not too worried about our production.

****ing tool.

Because, you know, I've noticed that non-smokers take breaks too!..yes, that's right! They just stop working and stand around bull****ting with each other.So do tobacco addicts. Except the addicts need additional regular breaks to feed their addiction. While you addicts sit huddled in the smoking zone in the cold pouring rain, cradling your precious drug, everyone else is inside being productive.

Employers are noticing, too. They should start docking pay for smoking, by several thousands dollar per year, per the CDC study. (And you addicts who cheat by smoking in restricted zones should be summarily fired.)

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=209# Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke cost $92 billion in productivity losses annually, according to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.

# Smokers, on average, miss 6.16 days of work per year due to sickness (including smoking related acute and chronic conditions), compared to nonsmokers, who miss 3.86 days of work per year.

# A national study based on American Productivity Audit data of the U.S. workforce found that tobacco use was one of the greatest variables observed when determining worker lost production time (LPT)-greater than alcohol consumption, family emergencies, age, or education. The study reported that LPT increased in relation to the amount smoked; LPT estimates for workers who reported smoking one pack of cigarettes per day or more was 75% higher than that observed for nonsmoking and ex-smoking workers. In addition, employees who smoked had approximately two times more lost production time per week than workers who never smoked, a cost equivalent of roughly $27 billion in productivity losses for employers.

# The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) puts a $3,391 price tag on each employee who smokes: $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. In addition, estimated costs associated with secondhand smoke's effects on nonsmokers can add up to $490 per smoker per year.

Of course you're assuming a fixed schedule. Some people work until the work gets done, however long that takes.

I'm also not convinced that all smoke breaks are above and beyond normal breaks.

(Note: I am a nonsmoker and would be thrilled if everyone stopped smoking. Productivity just doesn't seem like a strong reason for it.)

Of course you're assuming a fixed schedule.Most workers have one.Some people work until the work gets done, however long that takes.And unless they're in an executive, administrative, or professional position, I could end up having to pay them overtime for those hours. At a minimum, longer hours may mean keeping my staff at work longer, using more energy, and so on, which all ends up costing money.

I'd think long and hard before hiring a smoker. They'd have to be exceptional to overcome that huge negative.

So do tobacco addicts. Except the addicts need additional regular breaks to feed their addiction. While you addicts sit huddled in the smoking zone in the cold pouring rain, cradling your precious drug, everyone else is inside being productive.

Outside of lunch and quick runs to the bathroom - how much time of your work day are you not working?

So do tobacco addicts. Except the addicts need additional regular breaks to feed their addiction. While you addicts sit huddled in the smoking zone in the cold pouring rain, cradling your precious drug, everyone else is inside being productive.

Employers are noticing, too. They should start docking pay for smoking, by several thousands dollar per year, per the CDC study. (And you addicts who cheat by smoking in restricted zones should be summarily fired.)

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=209


You're full of **** that smells so bad, I'm surprised you even believe it.

In California, every 8 hour employee is required to have a half hour lunch(before the 5th hour), and a 15 minute break before lunch, and a 15 minute break after lunch.

The fine is 2500 bucks per occurance, if the employer does not provide these.



Tudamorf made up the extra breaks ****.

Federal labor laws (possibly for just Federal employees, unsure on private enforcement) mandate that after every 4 hours you work, you get a 15 minute break (on the clock), and for every 6 hours you work, you get a 30 minute lunch break (off the clock).

So in an 8 hour day, you get two 15 minute breaks, and a 30 minute off the clock lunch break. Usually broken up where there is near equal spacing between breaks and lunches. (2-2.5 hours between each)

Smokers either smoke during those 2 breaks and 1 lunch, or they don't smoke at all. No exceptions (unless you're a supervisor or management, then the rules don't apply. No big surprise there.)

No extra time lost. No mythical smoking productivity penalty. I don't smoke, but why fabricate things out of whole cloth?

I used to take ciggie breaks when I was a smoker. My employers never complained about their smoker employees doing that (at least not to our faces). After I quit I used to grouse about people doing that. :p

Nowadays employers don't let smokers smoke anywhere on the grounds, inside or outside, so it must be pretty tough to get a fix except on your lunch break. (My employer anyway, but I think lots do the same).

And nowadays everyone is a salaried exempt employee anyway, so the break rules don't really apply anyway.

I'd say that Internet surfing is probably far more of a productivity hit than cigarette smoking ever was.

Quitting smoking was one of the smarter things I've done. Taking it up in the first place... one of the dumber things.

WTF? This thread is about a 4 year old killing his dad with a shotgun?!?

In California, every 8 hour employee is required to have a half hour lunch(before the 5th hour), and a 15 minute break before lunch, and a 15 minute break after lunch.

The fine is 2500 bucks per occurance, if the employer does not provide these.Not quite right, and also limited to certain employees. But also irrelevant, since tobacco addicts have to eat, piss, etc. too, on top of the addiction.

Perhaps in your industry it's different, but in office settings the addict employees often sneak out to get their tobacco high. Also, the non-addicts often waive their rest periods and eat lunch at their desks, while continuing to work, whereas the addicts are forced to leave.

The lost productivity is real, I have seen it with my own eyes.

Not to mention, the tobacco addicts frequently smell like **** when they return, leaving a lingering trail of stench in the hallways.

You're full of **** that smells so bad, I'm surprised you even believe it.I guess the CDC is full of ****, too, eh Aidon?

And employers believe it. They see it going on. Feeding your addiction at work is going to become harder and harder and employers are going to put more and more pressure on you to quit, both because of the lost productivity and the higher health care costs.

Outside of lunch and quick runs to the bathroom - how much time of your work day are you not working?

You forgot to answer this, Tuda.

I'm so vastly talented even when I'm not working, I'm working. ;)

Outside of lunch and quick runs to the bathroom - how much time of your work day are you not working?Lots, but then again, I'm not an employee, and don't have a fixed work day.

Even with respect to employees, I don't see how it's relevant. Let's say they waste time goofing off on the Internet (for those employers stupid enough to allow employees unrestricted Internet access on the job). Well, so do the addicts; they just need additional time to support their habit.

A common sentiment among ex-tobacco addicts is how much extra free time they have, now that they don't have to sit outside for 10-15 minutes every couple of hours to feed their addiction.

Also, the non-addicts often waive their rest periods and eat lunch at their desks, while continuing to work, whereas the addicts are forced to leave.

Which is illegal for a company to make happen or to let happen.

Which is illegal for a company to make happen or to let happen.No, it isn't. Just because you have to offered two 10 minute rest periods doesn't mean you have to take them.

No, it isn't. Just because you have to offered two 10 minute rest periods doesn't mean you have to take them.

Ya, you do. Legally only, of course.

Any employee who does not take them is not doing his employer a favor, what he or she is doing is jeopardizing a large fine for the employer.

Just because no one knows that it is a crime and thus commits it, and thus is not punished, say in your company I suppose, does not mean that it is not a crime.

A company large like Wal Mart has been prosecuted for this kinda sh!t up the wazzoo(they will fire you for not taking breaks and lunches). Just because the company you may work for is a small little house, does not mean that it is not breaking the law; it just has not gotten caught yet.

Now exempt employees(or subcontractors) are different of course, but if you punch a clock, the laws apply to you and your status as an employee.

Now also say that you got an 8 to 5 job.

And you do take your half hour lunch.

And you don't take your two 15 minute breaks.

And you are leaving at 5, instead of 4:30. You are going to open up your employer to a world of hurt.

For you are working off the clock, and are on mandatory overtime, to boot.

If the State finds out that that is what you or other employees are doing at your company, your employer is going to have to buy a truckload of KY.

And if I were you, I would start polishing up my resume and CV.

Ya, you do. Legally only, of course.No, you don't. Read the California IWC Wage Orders (http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/WageOrderIndustries.htm), there are different ones for each industry.

You just have to ALLOW the employees to take a break. They do not HAVE to, that is patently absurd. They also do not HAVE to leave work to eat, they can agree to eat at their desk (in office jobs, I haven't read all of the wage orders for other industries).

Now, if you're a giant industry with a massive payroll (read: jackpot) that wants to protect itself from greedy employment litigation attorneys, you might go further and REQUIRE the rest periods to fend off any possible allegation that you didn't authorize them. But the law does not require people to leave their cubicle at 1:00 and exit the building at 1:10, even if they don't want to.A company large like Wal Mart has been prosecuted for this kinda sh!t up the wazzoo(they will fire you for not taking breaks and lunches).Were the allegations that they voluntarily refused to take rest periods, or that they were not allowed rest periods?For you are working off the clock, and are on mandatory overtime, to boot.No, it is not overtime.

Lots, but then again, I'm not an employee, and don't have a fixed work day.

So you're demanding of others what you're not willing to give yourself. WTG! Maybe it's YOUR work efficiency we need to look at.

Even with respect to employees, I don't see how it's relevant. Let's say they waste time goofing off on the Internet (for those employers stupid enough to allow employees unrestricted Internet access on the job). Well, so do the addicts; they just need additional time to support their habit.

I'd like to see how your research came to the conclusion that this is in ADDITION to, not instead of, general off-goofing.

A common sentiment among ex-tobacco addicts is how much extra free time they have, now that they don't have to sit outside for 10-15 minutes every couple of hours to feed their addiction.

Yes, now they have time to do what the nonsmokers have done all along - surf the internet, send emails to their mothers, visit someone else's office for a recap of the weekend etc. Of course they feel they have tons of free time. That, however, doesn't mean they work any more - or less - efficient than they used to, or that they work any more - or less - efficiently than those who never smoked. All it means is that whatever they do when they don't work has changed.

No, it is not overtime.

Noone is ever going to thank you for working for free. As an on-the-clock employee you have absolutely no reason to do so. I find the notion that it's not overtime if you work more than your regular work day rediculous. If I don't take my lunch, and don't leave early, that's 30min overtime for me.

That's the deal you make when you get hired. You give them your time and effort, they give you money. If you give of your part without requiring them to give of theirs, that's just plain bad (personal) business.

So you're demanding of others what you're not willing to give yourself.Um, no. I don't have a contract with someone else to work a specific number of hours per day.I'd like to see how your research came to the conclusion that this is in ADDITION to, not instead of, general off-goofing.Observation of addicts, and the amount of time they spent huddled outside the building getting their high.Yes, now they have time to do what the nonsmokers have done all along - surf the internet, send emails to their mothers, visit someone else's office for a recap of the weekend etc.They do that too, if the employers let them.That, however, doesn't mean they work any more - or less - efficient than they used to, or that they work any more - or less - efficiently than those who never smoked.You're shifting the argument now from time, to efficiency.

Yes, a very efficient tobacco addict might still get more work done in a day, despite his need to light up every few hours. But he'll be spending less time at his desk, which means that in order for him to be as valuable to me, he must be more efficient than the regular employee. So that's a big strike against him in hiring, along with the other tobacco addict minuses (smells like **** all the time, sick more often, results in higher health care costs, etc.).

I find the notion that it's not overtime if you work more than your regular work day rediculous. If I don't take my lunch, and don't leave early, that's 30min overtime for me.Nope. That's not the law, not here in California, at least.

However, if your employer refuses to provide you the meal period or rest period, you can sue him and recover 1 hour worth of pay for each day you were denied it, so you're considerably better off (minus the expense and hassle of the lawsuit).

If a W2 worker is taking his or her breaks, as proscribed by law, then what right do you have to dictate what he or she is doing on those breaks?

If a worker wants to go home and beat off on his or her lunch break, that is his or her business, not yours.

Break and lunch time belongs to the worker, not you, not the company.



First you make it illegal to smoke while at work.
Then you make it illegal to smoke in the building on breaks.

Now you are bitching about people smoking outside on their breaks, on their own time; when it was you that pushed them out there in the first place.

I tell you what, as much as you decry incrementalism and slippery slopes....you sure have mastered them.

If a W2 worker is taking his or her breaks, as proscribed by law, then what right do you have to dictate what he or she is doing on those breaks?I don't. But if the regular employees routinely waive their breaks, and the addicts don't, I have good reason not to hire the addicts (in addition to the many other good reasons I pointed out to Tinsi).

I don't. But if the regular employees routinely waive their breaks, and the addicts don't, I have good reason not to hire the addicts (in addition to the many other good reasons I pointed out to Tinsi).

That exploitive attitude is exactly why I reach the conclusion that noone is ever going to thank you for working for free. Noone should do it. Ever. It encourages employers like you who will not hire you unless you give away 30min+ free every day.

It's bull****, it's exploitive, and I'm not letting you pass it off as a GOOD thing.

Observation of addicts, and the amount of time they spent huddled outside the building getting their high.

That observation tells you nothing about the time spent surfing the net, chatting about the weekend or whatnot. So you are basically saying you have no idea.

You're saying it in rather colourful language as well, which, of course, is fooling noone - not in this forum. People here are smarter than that.

You're shifting the argument now from time, to efficiency.

That wasn't my intention. Feel free to substitute the words and re-address my point.

But he'll be spending less time at his desk, which means that in order for him to be as valuable to me, he must be more efficient than the regular employee.

1. He IS a "regular employee".
2. You're assuming about the time-spent-at-desk

It's bull****, it's exploitive, and I'm not letting you pass it off as a GOOD thing.Of course it's a good thing. I hire people to make me money, and within the confines of the law, I'm going to hire the person who is going to make me the most money.

If a tobacco addict makes me less money (all the while annoying the **** out of me and others with the stench), and has nothing special to offer, why should I hire him?

I don't. But if the regular employees routinely waive their breaks, and the addicts don't, I have good reason not to hire the addicts (in addition to the many other good reasons I pointed out to Tinsi).

If you as an employer even, just remotely, suggested(including in your hiring practices), that I can not take my break times...

I would never work for you.

You would eventually have to offer more in terms of wages(greater offset) to attract your workers.

Workers are workers for a reason, they don't have your self employment values, um, they are workers and not self employed for a reason.

That observation tells you nothing about the time spent surfing the net, chatting about the weekend or whatnot. So you are basically saying you have no idea.I have no reason to believe tobacco addicts spend less time goofing off. Do you?That wasn't my intention. Feel free to substitute the words and re-address my point.Time and efficiency aren't fungible concepts, so no, I can't substitute and readdress.

If you want to shift the argument to efficiency, convince me that tobacco addicts are more efficient than regular employees (as they must be, to make up for lost time), such that they're equally worthy of being hired.

If you as an employer even, just remotely, suggested(including in your hiring practices), that I can not take my break times...Of course you can. Who said you can't?

However, if you voluntarily choose not to, you're going to be a more attractive employee.

Just as, you're allowed to be fat, but if a thin person can do the job more quickly, he's going to get the job over you.

With just the physiological effects of nicotine, the opposite case could be made.


It is obviously one of the reasons why it still remains legal. Nicotine increases productivity of workers, just like caffeine does.

Of course you can. Who said you can't?

However, if you voluntarily choose not to, you're going to be a more attractive employee.

Just as, you're allowed to be fat, but if a thin person can do the job more quickly, he's going to get the job over you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ex=1287979200&en=e9a0f5ce669f026e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Of course it's a good thing. I hire people to make me money, and within the confines of the law, I'm going to hire the person who is going to make me the most money.

If a tobacco addict makes me less money (all the while annoying the **** out of me and others with the stench), and has nothing special to offer, why should I hire him?

I don't care about your reasoning for expecting people to give you 30minutes free every day or how much more of a profit you will make doing so. It's still exploitive.

I have no reason to believe tobacco addicts spend less time goofing off. Do you?

Yes. I am one. I take my lunch break when I can - and eat at my desk when I'm drenched in work. And I take 10 additional minutes to myself each day. That's it. I'm working right now, actually. I'm number 17 waiting for a proper person to answer my call.

If you want to shift the argument to efficiency, convince me that tobacco addicts are more efficient than regular employees (as they must be, to make up for lost time), such that they're equally worthy of being hired.

I'm not. We're not talking about efficiency, we're talking about time. If we were talking about efficiency, we'd be at "that's all individual, what a pointless debate" a loooong time ago.

The fact that you hammer on about the "lost time" over and over does not make it true. Everyone here knows that, you're wasting a perfectly good key board, sir.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ex=1287979200&en=e9a0f5ce669f026e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssGood for them.

Of course, they could always hire the fat guys, but with less pay to compensate for their added costs and lower efficiency.With just the physiological effects of nicotine, the opposite case could be made.

It is obviously one of the reasons why it still remains legal. Nicotine increases productivity of workers, just like caffeine does.Another off-the-wall, totally unproven Fyyrism. I'll add it to the collection.

By the way, it's legal for the same reason alcohol is -- tradition -- nothing more.

I don't care about your reasoning for expecting people to give you 30minutes free every day or how much more of a profit you will make doing so. It's still exploitive.No it isn't. Not any more than it is to hire the faster worker, who produces more per hour.

Or do you believe employers should be FORCED to hire people at random, regardless of their income-generating ability?The fact that you hammer on about the "lost time" over and over does not make it true. Everyone here knows thatI have met many smoker employees who have proven it true.

By the way, it's legal for the same reason alcohol is -- tradition -- nothing more.

How many employers do you know of have alcohol breaks for their employees?

How many employers do you know of have alcohol breaks for their employees?It's called the lunch break.

.Another off-the-wall, totally unproven Fyyrism. I'll add it to the collection.

Decreased stress responses and increased awareness and cognitive ability are the effects of nicotine.

They are known physiological responses. Hardly off the wall.

Even though it goes against your TRUTH dogma and ideology.

No it isn't. Not any more than it is to hire the faster worker, who produces more per hour.

Yes, it is exploitive. Expecting workers to work for free is exploitive. Period. Just because it's "only" 30 minutes doesn't make it any better. If nothing else, if you expect people to work longer hours than they get paid for, then in reality their hourly wages decrease. Firstly, that should be reflected both in negotiations and in the contract. Secondly, you'd need to check to see if you're not in violation of minimum wages laws.

Or do you believe employers should be FORCED to hire people at random, regardless of their income-generating ability?

No. Wherever did you get that idea? I'm saying that forcing (and yes, refusal to hire unless you comply IS forcing) people to work for free is not a good thing.

[QUOTE=Tudamorf]I have met many smoker employees who have proven it true.

And I've met many that have proven it untrue. So we're nowhere nearer the truth. And seing how you're the one making the claim, it's on you to document it.

Yes, it is exploitive. Expecting workers to work for free is exploitive. Period.Why? It's no different than expecting worker X to make more widgets per hour than worker Y.If nothing else, if you expect people to work longer hours than they get paid for, then in reality their hourly wages decrease.They get paid for the whole package, and if their productivity is higher, then given proper competitive forces, their pay will rise accordingly. TANSTAAFE(mployee).No. Wherever did you get that idea?You seem to be arguing for some sort of forced equality in hiring, even in cases where the law doesn't require it. Like, I must consider tobacco addicts to be equal to non-addicts, or I must consider fat people to be equal to thin people.

Not only isn't it true, it doesn't even make much sense. If I don't have to, why would I hire an employee with a known disability that could be a liability?And I've met many that have proven it untrue. So we're nowhere nearer the truth. And seing how you're the one making the claim, it's on you to document it.We can both agree that tobacco addicts have to spend time during the work day to feed their addiction, something that non-addicts don't have to do. (Right?)

Therefore, the burden is now on YOU to show that the addicts give up something else to make up for the time they lose filling their lungs with addictive crap. Because the assumption/null hypothesis is, they're just like the regular employees in other respects (goofing off, efficiency, etc.).

They get paid for the whole package

No, they get paid for renting you their work and competence fo xdollars/hour.

Like, I must consider tobacco addicts to be equal to non-addicts, or I must consider fat people to be equal to thin people.

Hire whoever you want. But when you come out and say that you think it's a GOOD thing for employers to start requiring that the workers give up their breaks for free, you have got to expect someone to tell you you're a few fries short of a happy meal.

Therefore, the burden is now on YOU to show that the addicts give up something else to make up for the time they lose filling their lungs with addictive crap. Because the assumption/null hypothesis is, they're just like the regular employees in other respects (goofing off, efficiency, etc.).

I never made a single claim - I'm asking you to back up yours. I do understand that you can't, and that you're trying to shift the burden of proof. In your situation I might even try the same stunt myself. But really - your bluff's been called. Back up your claim, or accept our conclusion that you're unable.

I'm actually suprised at the very stereotypically republican pro-business stance from Tudamorf.

Now for my own views.

I think an employer should hire who they like. If the employee doesn't like the environment for whatever reason, so far, they are free to move on. If the employer is too harsh, eventually they will have no employees and then no business.

Employers hire people expecting at least a certain minimum of production but should also know that people aren't robots and need break times or goofing off and such.

I guess the CDC is full of ****, too, eh Aidon?

And employers believe it. They see it going on. Feeding your addiction at work is going to become harder and harder and employers are going to put more and more pressure on you to quit, both because of the lost productivity and the higher health care costs.

The CDC is the Center for Disease Control.

Not the ****ing Center for Efficiency and Workplace Productivity.

The very fact that they were engaged in a study which attempted to quantify such is indicative of the ridiculous bias behind the study. An attempt to have the CDC leave its imprimateur on the study doesn't render it instantly valid, indeed, in this instance it renders the results nstantly suspect, as the CDC had no expertise nor experience in quantifying labor practices, as its purpose for existance is to study and combat the spread of infectious disease!

Another off-the-wall, totally unproven Fyyrism. I'll add it to the collection.
It's not that off-the-wall. There are quite a few studies which have found that nicotine increases attention span and aids learning.

Nicotine Enhances Learning And Memory: Could This Lead To New Alzheimer's Medications? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070404162413.htm)

Speaking anecdotally, when I used to smoke I'd get up in the morning, light up a cigarette, and code non-stop until I ran out of smokes 18 or so hours later. I lost a substantial amount of that nicotine induced productivity when I quit but at least I no longer have to make 3AM trips to the 7-11 to pick up smokes. I also breathe easier, don't smell like an ashtray, and have cheaper health insurance. :)

The CDC is the Center for Disease Control.

Not the ****ing Center for Efficiency and Workplace Productivity.Tobacco addiction is a disease. One of the deadliest in the country.

It's not that off-the-wall. There are quite a few studies which have found that nicotine increases attention span and aids learning.In impaired patients, and only vaguely.

A cigarette also contains other chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, which reduces blood oxygenation and impairs brain activity.

Not to mention, when you come off your high, you develop withdrawal symptoms that again hinder your productivity (moodiness, inability to concentrate, etc.).

Any suggestion that cigarettes make you work better (as opposed to a non-addicted person) is simply laughable. Just another verse for Fyyr's new bible; I can't wait to meet his Messiah.

Hire whoever you want. But when you come out and say that you think it's a GOOD thing for employers to start requiring that the workers give up their breaks for freeExpecting or desiring something is not the same as requiring it.I never made a single claimSure you did. You suggested that tobacco addicts are more efficient than non-addicts, in that they make up for the lost time lighting up by goofing off less (Post #69).

If employee X and Y are similar, except that Y requires 15 minutes every few hours to feed a habit, then in order for X and Y to be equally productive, Y must be more efficient.

The burden of proof is now on you to disprove the null hypothesis and prove that Y is, in fact, more efficient. If you can't prove that, the null hypothesis says that X and Y will have similar amounts of goofing off time, etc., and Y will end up being less productive due to the forced addiction-feeding time.

In impaired patients, and only vaguely.
It works for the unimpaired as well.

Not to mention, when you come off your high, you develop withdrawal symptoms that again hinder your productivity (moodiness, inability to concentrate, etc.).
That isn't usually a very difficult problem to overcome. 7-11 is open 24/7 and they're more than happy to sell you a solution to your withdrawal problems.

Any suggestion that cigarettes make you work better (as opposed to a non-addicted person) is simply laughable.
They made me work better. Laugh away.

Have you ever been a smoker?

Anectodal evidence:

I used to be able to code 18 hours a day, too. I have never smoked.

/shrug

Personally, I don't care if someone wants to breath smoke. I don't want to breath any or theirs either.

That isn't usually a very difficult problem to overcome.Yes, except that it takes a lot of time out of the work day. Chain smoking at work is not going to make you productive, mythical Fyyrisms notwithstanding.They made me work better.Of course they did. You were addicted to them. Duh.

A cigarette takes less than 5 minutes to smoke.

Who the hell are you talking about?

It takes longer to drink your Starbucks than to have a smoke.

In impaired patients, and only vaguely.

A cigarette also contains other chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, which reduces blood oxygenation and impairs brain activity.

Smoking may, but not nicotine.

Besides smoking increases the amount of heme in your blood stream, by way of up regulation. Which means when a smoker is NOT smoking, they are actually getting more oxygen to their brain.

Not to mention, when you come off your high, you develop withdrawal symptoms that again hinder your productivity (moodiness, inability to concentrate, etc.).
Or you return to your normal state. Which may not be as productive.


Any suggestion that cigarettes make you work better (as opposed to a non-addicted person) is simply laughable.
Never tried it huh? Maybe I should get a brick wall next time.

Just another verse for Fyyr's new bible; I can't wait to meet his Messiah.
I keep offering, but you decline every time.

Smoking may, but not nicotine.Then wear a nicotine patch to work. It wouldn't bother me one bit, and you could have your high all day without affecting productivity.I keep offering, but you decline every time.I should've known. You're it. Scary. I can't wait to see your miracles.

Yes, except that it takes a lot of time out of the work day.
Depends on what kind of work you do. If you work on an assmbly line or something smoking is going to be a time sink. If your work involves a lot of thinking/problem solving, however, smoking might be more beneficial than detrimental (to your work, of course, not to your health).

Of course they did. You were addicted to them. Duh.
The comparison was between my time as a smoker and my time as a non-smoker, not between when I had a cigarette in my hand and when I didn't.

Then wear a nicotine patch to work. It wouldn't bother me one bit, and you could have your high all day without affecting productivity.

I want you Anti Smoking NAZIs to deregulate smokeless cigarettes, actually. Or to shut your yaps and let us deregulate it.


I should've known. You're it. Scary. I can't wait to see your miracles.
I have brought people back from being dead or dying.

Have you?

I want you Anti Smoking NAZIs to deregulate smokeless cigarettes, actually. Or to shut your yaps and let us deregulate it.If they are truly smokeless (current ones aren't), and just fill YOUR lungs and blood stream with addictive crap, and don't take extra time out of your workday, I'm all for it.

Hell, work with a nicotine IV bag for all I care.

My view on dangerous products is very libertarian. You can use them as long as you don't harm anyone else and you pay for their cost to society.I have brought people back from being dead or dying.And I've applied E=mc². Does that make me a genius?

The comparison was between my time as a smoker and my time as a non-smoker, not between when I had a cigarette in my hand and when I didn't.Yes, and conveniently, you ignore the million other variables involved.

Yes, and conveniently, you ignore the million other variables involved.
At least I'm not ignoring the scientific studies that show that nicotine improves alertness and cognition.

At least I'm not ignoring the scientific studies that show that nicotine improves alertness and cognition.All the while ignoring the other deleterious and cognition-damaging ingredients in cigarette smoke, and making leaps of logic from some theoretical change in cognition and improved productivity.

All the while ignoring the other deleterious and cognition-damaging ingredients in cigarette smoke, and making leaps of logic from some theoretical change in cognition and improved productivity.
When science and personal experience agree, it really isn't much of a leap.

When science and personal experience agree, it really isn't much of a leap.When you take a scientific conclusion out of context, overstate it, apply it to a completely different scenario, and ignore a million variables, the consequences of each of which can easily outweigh the original conclusion, then yes, it is that much of a leap.

Unless maybe you a religious zealot, they do stuff like that all the time.

If they are truly smokeless (current ones aren't), and just fill YOUR lungs and blood stream with addictive crap, and don't take extra time out of your workday, I'm all for it.
Then it sounds like you are on my side. We need to make Nicotine Inhalers as available and as inexpensive as smoke cigarettes.

It is not the tobacco corporations who oppose this. It is the anti smoking lobbists, and the FDA, and many in healthcare who oppose this.

If we change their opinions, or just overrun them, we could make smoke cigarettes obsolete. I don't have a problem with that.

Hell, work with a nicotine IV bag for all I care.
Too much hassle. I can hang a bag of caffeine though if you like. Or ETOH, that would be great.

My view on dangerous products is very libertarian. You can use them as long as you don't harm anyone else and you pay for their cost to society.
Fair enough.

And I've applied E=mc². Does that make me a genius?
Well if you have actually applied it, then you just might be. I don't know many practical nuclear physicists, glad to meet ya.

Then it sounds like you are on my side. We need to make Nicotine Inhalers as available and as inexpensive as smoke cigarettes.Not quite. The cost of the cigarettes will also have to reflect the total societal cost (including health care costs and lost productivity due to sickness/death of workers).

Right now, they don't; they'd need roughly a $7 tax added to them to make up for the cost to society. A small portion of that relates to environmental tobacco exposure, which you can deduct.

However, if you increase the price, and actually pay for the probable medical consequences of the drug, I have no issue whatsoever with you voluntarily killing or injuring yourself. An integral part of the right to life is the right to destroy or terminate that life, as you see fit.

Not quite. The cost of the cigarettes will also have to reflect the total societal cost (including health care costs and lost productivity due to sickness/death of workers).
Yes, quite. Nicotine, in and of itself, has very few side effects which are negative.

I am talking about letting tobacco companies make, sell, and distribute Nicotrol Inhalers(which are only available by prescription, and at 80 bucks a pack), effectively.

The problems that you cite are with the delivery system of the drug nicotine, not the drug itself.

Right now, they don't; they'd need roughly a $7 tax added to them to make up for the cost to society. A small portion of that relates to environmental tobacco exposure, which you can deduct.
There would be no ETS exposure with them.

The side effects might actually be beneficial. For example, our hospital delivers about 40 percent of its babies with C Section now. The vast majority of them are because the baby is to large to safely pass through the birth canal. One of nicotine's bad side effects is reducing the birth weight of babies. Until our society gets rid of the causes of 10 pounders(mom obesity, for example), it could actually be therapeutic in many cases.

Of course this is mostly facetious. Just in case you miss the humor, as you mostly do.

However, if you increase the price, and actually pay for the probable medical consequences of the drug, I have no issue whatsoever with you voluntarily killing or injuring yourself. An integral part of the right to life is the right to destroy or terminate that life, as you see fit.

The actual drug, itself, is safer than Tylenol.

If I could buy a pack of nicotine inhalers at the corner store, you and I would have no argument here on this topic. I could 'smoke' anytime, anywhere I like then,,,and that would be freedom. I don't even like the smell of second hand smoke, or even on clothes,,,,it makes me want to go have a cigarette. Just like the TRUTH ads do.

I am talking about letting tobacco companies make, sell, and distribute Nicotrol Inhalers(which are only available by prescription, and at 80 bucks a pack), effectively.That's not what the "smokeless cigarettes" I've heard of are about. They still have tobacco.

Now, if you just want to make pure nicotine doses, I've already stated I have no problem with that. Go ahead, needlessly addict yourself to drug, have fun with that.

I'd even be glad to sell you those things and make an easy profit. Nothing like a customer that "needs" your drug.