[Desertdog]

Well, where do we go from here? I don't see how it can get much worse, but it probably will.:barf:

Police officer fired for smoking tobacco
By Associated Press, 6/22/2003 06:08
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/173/region/Police_officer_fired_for_smoki:.shtml

FALL RIVER, Mass. (AP) A police officer who was fired for violating an obscure state law banning smoking among public safety workers plans to fight his dismissal, which was based on an anonymous letter.

Wayne Jeffrey, a seven-year veteran of the Fall River force, was fired May 29 after an internal investigation, prompted by an unsigned letter that claimed he smoked tobacco at a party.

A 1988 state law states that police officers and firefighters are subject to immediate termination if they are found to be using tobacco products either on- or off-duty.

''It's our policy to investigate any accusation thoroughly regardless of the source,'' Police Chief John M. Souza told the Fall River Herald News. ''The statute as written provides us no room for discretion.''

Statewide, only two other officers have been fired since the law went into effect, but Jeffrey's case was the first based on an anonymous tip.

''I don't think when they drafted this law they intended it to be used in this manner,'' Jeffrey, 42, told the Boston Herald. ''If you're charged with a crime, you get to face your accuser. I never got to face my accuser.''

State Rep. Robert Correia, D-Fall River, agrees and said he would file legislation to give officers second chances. Those caught smoking would have one chance to quit by joining a cessation group at their own cost, according to Correia's bill. He called the anonymous letter ''insidious.''

''The law wasn't passed for people to use it against one another,'' Correia said.

Jeffrey plans to appeal for arbitration or a civil service hearing. History is against him, however. The state Supreme Judicial Court in 1997 upheld the firing of a Plymouth officer who was caught smoking four years earlier in her cruiser.

The Legislature passed the law to accompany legislation that enables public safety officials to receive special disability benefits easier than the average worker. Without the law, proponents argue, doctors are unable to determine if a heart or lung illness is work related.

Under the law, all new public safety hires must sign a contract, as Jeffrey did, pledging not to smoke tobacco products.

[Devonai]

Yet another outrageous law from the nanny state. Why do you think they call it MA?

[SteelyDan]

Un-freaking-believable. Repeat: un-freaking-believable.

[Wildalaska]

Under the law, all new public safety hires must sign a contract, as Jeffrey did, pledging not to smoke tobacco products.

Yeah forget about the fact that he signed a contract, and forget about the fact that your tax dollars pay for him when he gets sick....

WildgoodlawAlaska

[jimpeel]

Nothing new here. A couple of years ago a teacher was dismissed from her job because someone saw her smoking in her car while she was driving down the street on her own time.

Their excuse was that they have a strict no smoking policy and those who smoke cause insurance premiums to go up for the rest of the employees. Once again, they place a dollar value on your rights and liberties. When that dollar value is exceeded, you lose that right.

Examples would be the requirements for helmets and seat belts. If you are injured in an accident, the cost to society is too high so you must be protected from yourself by a government that will disavow any responsibility to protect you from others.

This guy should simply state that he wasn't smoking tobacco products. He should state that he was smoking cornsilk like people did during the depression.

[Tamara]

Yeah forget about the fact that he signed a contract, and forget about the fact that your tax dollars pay for him when he gets sick....

Hey, good idea! I think they should make them sign contracts promising to use birth control and wear galoshes in the winter so that we don't have to pay for pregnancies or cold medicine among government employees, either!

Un-friggin'-believable.

WildgoodlawAlaska

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever seen a bad one. :scrutiny:

[Gray Peterson]

I wonder how long it will be before owning a firearm off duty is enough of an offense to get you immediately terminated.

[Wildalaska]

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever seen a bad one.

Golly and Im wondering if youve ever seen a good one :)

I think they should make them sign contracts promising to use birth control and wear galoshes in the winter so that we don't have to pay for pregnancies or cold medicine among government employees, either!

Hell yeah! im paying for it...

Always wanted to have Senators get paid the same amount as an army private and live in barracks...govt service should be a priviledge not a cash cow..

WildcheapskateAlaska

[Esky]

SteelyDan:
Un-freaking-believable. Repeat: un-freaking-believable.

I absolutely agree.

Esky
who hopes they don't hear about this in Australia, it's bad enough here already

[Tamara]

Golly and Im wondering if youve ever seen a good one :)

Wait... I'm thinking... ;)

[Wildalaska]

Wait... I'm thinking...

Givin wymyn the right to vote? :)


WildgotchaAlaska

[Tamara]

I'm not sure how keen I am on anybody (pointers or setters) doing all this "voting" stuff; it seems to cause about as many problems as it solves. ;)

[Cal4D4]

Could he beat the rap if he claimed to be smokin' a non-tobacco product?

[Wildalaska]

I'm not sure how keen I am on anybody (pointers or setters) doing all this "voting" stuff; it seems to cause about as many problems as it solves.

Hmm appoint me as all powerful omnipotent and all knowing great Leader....

No need for voting then..

My campaign promise...a mingun in every garage! (But I gets the Vulcan)..

Alors, to NYC I go!

WildvoteformeandammoisfreeAlaska

[Tamara]

Alors, to NYC I go!

On purpose?!? :eek: ;)


Have a safe trip! :cool:

[cordex]

WildvoteformeandammoisfreeAlaska
*laugh*
I don't support socialism, even if I'm the one benefitting from it.

[GhostShooter]

Ok call me naive but I don't see how that law can stand up in court. You want to make it count against his health care premium fine, fire him.. NO. While we're at it why don't we add drinking, eating fast food, and not exercising to the list. I think a law should be passed that forces all public servants to run at least 10 miles a day or else they will be fired.:scrutiny: So much for liberty....:fire:

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

[tyme]

"Your honor, that was weed, not tobacco."

[TheeBadOne]

.......and next! I saw him salt his fries, and you know that can raise blood pressure
Fire him! :rolleyes:

[Dash Riprock]

Wild Alaska is 100% correct.

If you ,or your union , demand that a third party has to pay your health care costs, that third party has every right in the world to require that you are not permitted to engage in any risky behavior, whether it be smoking, skydiving, motorcycles, or anything else.

Don't like that idea? Pay for your own health insurance. Subsidized health care, whether it comes from the gummint , or a place that work actually gets done, is the main reason that health care costs have run out of sight. It seems that everybody wants someone else to pay for their fun.

[trooper]

If you ,or your union , demand that a third party has to pay your health care costs, that third party has every right in the world to require that you are not permitted to engage in any risky behavior, whether it be smoking, skydiving, motorcycles, or anything else.

I don't know how bad a neighbourhood Falls River actually is, but the guy's job just MIGHT pose some risks to his health that are greater than smoking.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Fortunately they could never impose such a policy over here. 80% of my colleagues would be fired on the spot...


Regards,

Trooper

[WonderNine]

Pretty ridiculous. But then the whole state of Mass. is ridiculous, so I guess that makes sense.

[4570Rick]

Smoking is everybody's problem. There should be a law making tobacco illeagle to posses or use in any form.

I have had some personal experiances with the effects of smoking on members of my family. My Aunt Olive smoked until she diedlast April. Her house smelled like tobacco. If you visited her you smelled like tobacco. When it was made clear to her that smoking was going to kill her, did she quit? Not a chance.

Who knows how the hell long she might have lived had she not gotten involved with EVIL TOBACCO.

I was looking forward to her 95th birthday. :what:

Regardless of what people like Wildalaska think about this case, this freekin stinks.



IF A NANY STATE CAN TAKE ANY ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY, THEY CAN TAKE ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

[mussi]

If they did that over here, there are two options:

- no cops (to my knowledge, almost 90% are at least occasional smokers)
- the guys that voted that junk law would have unmarked police cars with cameras following them all the time and fine every infraction they can come up.

[Dave P]

You totally confused me:

There should be a law making tobacco illeagle to posses or use in any form.

and then:

IF A NANY STATE CAN TAKE ANY ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY, THEY CAN TAKE ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY

So you want to control what other people do, but you don't want anybody to take away your rights??

[TarpleyG]

is the main reason that health care costs have run out of sight
No its not. The main reason that healthcare costs have skyrocketed is because everybody wants $$$ and there ain't enough to go around. If you had to pay for an office visit without insurance, you'd understand. Just seeing the doc for 2 minutes will cost you $75. It is crazy and I blame tort lawsuits and insurance companies for robbing people blind.

GT

[Preacherman]

Dave, I think it's called "sarcasm"... ;)

[OF]

deleted due to me being a moron.

[jimpeel]

Hmm appoint me as all powerful omnipotent and all knowing great Leader....
Click (Audio File) (http://www.siliconmeadow.net/~richard/prev/wav/oz.wav)

[BigG]

It all depends on whose ox is gored. Hard to believe that some want their rights acknowledged but would like to limit others'. :rolleyes:

[braindead0]

I can assure you that the baby farmers here are raising my health insurance costs far more than all the smokers combined.

If you want to ban anything cause "it's dangerous" you are using the same logic the anti's use.... Tobacco, drugs, vehicles, alcohol, sniffing glue, guns are inanimate objects that in themselves are not dangerous .. if a person abuses them (doing it a lot, shooting someone, causing an accident) it is not the objects fault.

100% of the blame falls on the human driving the car, doing the drugs, pulling the trigger.

I see no difference...

[buzz_knox]

Hey, good idea! I think they should make them sign contracts promising to use birth control and wear galoshes in the winter so that we don't have to pay for pregnancies or cold medicine among government employees, either!

And your point is? If we are serious about individual liberty, then we have to be serious about individual responsibility. This person made a deal, then broke the deal. May not be good (and it's definitely stupid) but there's that whole individual responsiblity thing. You want to smoke, don't take that job if it's conditioned on your not smoking. Seems simple, no?

[Atticus]

Fundamentally, the whole business sounds very wrong. At most, a written warning should have been issued for the first "offense". OTH - I would assume that the city signed a contract with an insurance company at a discounted rate to insure non-smoking employees.

I read an interesting article a few months ago about the Government's "War on Tobacco". The article claimed that the Fed's did not want to push the tobacco issue until much of the population of "The Greatest Generation" had passed on (many or most from smoking related causes). The justification? It was a cost saving move, due to the reduction in Social Security and Medicare benifits paid to those non-smokers who would most likely live to be 80,90 or older. Personally, I think the cost is probably a wash either way due to several factors. Smoker's pay a ton of taxes - tobacco companies are responsible for thousands of jobs and also pay taxes at multiple levels - Smokers tend to die early.

[Chris Rhines]

Eh. Stupid requirement, no doubt about that, but he did sign his name to the contract. I have to assume that he went into the agreement with his eyes open. Little sympathy (especally considering his employer. I wonder if it would be possible to have prospective public servants sign onto the NAP as a condition of employment?)

- Chris

[spacemanspiff]

if its a "right" to smoke, drink, use narcotics, do whatever to your body that endangers it as you see fit, why is suicide illegal? your body is yours, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, correct?

saying 'smoking is a right' is hypocritical if you look down on those who commit suicide and get it over with in one fell swoop.

[Ledbetter]

Can't get a job as a cop without signing away your rights. What's next? No one gets health insurance unless they agree not to

hang glide
fly in an airplane
go hunting (might catch cold)
race go karts
go target shooting (might get shot)
wear high heels (might fall down--that's how Churchill's mother died, BTW)
eat salad (might choke)
go in the sun (might get cancer)

If the health insurers ran our lives, we'd all have to stay home all the time, eat prescribed food and (shudder) exercise once a day.:what:

As stated, your health costs are due to lawyers, baby farmers and higher HMO profits.

:cuss:

[444]

I work as a firefighter and we are not allowed to smoke. It isn't a right because when you get hired you voluntarily agree not to smoke. The reason behind it is that we are covered by The Heart and Lung Bill. Because we are exposed to smoke/toxic gasses etc. regularly, the bill says that if we develop respiratory or heart disease, it is automatically considered to be a work related injury and are covered by SIIS. In order to get this bill passed, we had to make it a policy that we can't smoke. Actually that isn't completely true, only people hired after a certain date about 10 years ago are not allowed to smoke. I could smoke since I was hired prior to that date, but don't. Historically, firefighters don't live long after retirement due to their exposures on the job. Yes, we wear airpacks during firefighting operations, and this is also a requirement. But just like any other job, people become injured dispite their safety gear.

[gunsmith]

you know,not to change the subject much.
cops in no issue and may issue ccw states
should be subject to the same ccw laws us peasants
are subject to. i.e a SF PD police officer should just rely on
response time just like they want me to

[Erik]

I used to work under a similar bar. If you do, it is best to follow the bar. If you don't, well, you may end up canned.

[jimpeel]

if its a "right" to smoke, drink, use narcotics, do whatever to your body that endangers it as you see fit, why is suicide illegal?It is not illegal to commit suicide. No person has ever been convicted of committing suicide.

It is only illegal to attempt suicide; and then it is not to protect you from yourself. Taking a swan dive from a tall building onto a crowded sidewalk endangers others. That is the premise behind the law.

Pursuant to Roe v Wade, if a woman's body is her own to choose to do with as she pleases; why can she not put drugs into that same body? Why do those protections not extend to men as well under the equal protection doctrine?

The law, politicians, and politics are fickle and the pols only let the law cover what they want it to cover to the exclusion of all else. They will fight for a woman's "choice" to purge a child from her body; but they will send her to jail for doing anything else they feel is incorrect with that same body -- which was heretofore held sacrosanct -- and used by them for political gain.

[GhostShooter]

Spaceman, what kind of backwards legislature would make suicide a crime? Who are they going to punish?!

My questions is, if insurance companies would give lower rates to cities if they added a no firearms provision to their hiring contract would you agree a person should be fired if he violated this?!!!!

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

[XLMiguel]

They're call "M@$$holes" for a reason, I mean, beyond electing Kennedys :evil:

Hell, ban double bacon cheeseburgers while yer at it:fire:

[hammer4nc]

I predict this guy is going to spend the next year appealling the decision; and then be reinstated in his position, with back pay and compensatory damages. Here's why:

1. The action was taken without due process; an anonymous letter is cited; apparently the subsequent investigation confirmed the smoking violation, and the first (and only) action is termination?

2. Arbitrary and capricious application of the law. Its stated that only two officers have been fired for smoking in 15 years. The notion that only two officers actually used tobacco in the the state, in that time is absurd on its face. Further, for such a serious action to be taken (termination), the state has a responsibility to screen employees equally, and on a regular basis. This is easily done, and the state was negligent not to do so.

3. The contract was signed under duress, and is hence invalid. The facts state that ALL new public safety workers MUST SIGN the contract. The contract could have been written to allow employees to opt out of the super-healthcare program, and continue smoking if they wanted, but they were not given that option. No one loses. State was negligent in not providing this no-cost option, which would maximize freedom of choice among employees.

4. Violation of privacy. Smoking cigs is not illegal; the alleged violation did not take place at work; employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy at home (or where ever the party was).

Prosecution rebuttal?

[444]

1) Depending on their contract, termination may be the punishment for a first offense. We don't know. I know in our contract, being caught drinking at work is termination with the first offense, however using drugs requires rehab. Smoking isn't even covered although an agreement was individually signed.
2) "The notion that only two officers actually used tobacco in the the state," This isn't the case. Two officers were fired, it doesn't say they were the only ones using, they just got caught. The fact that people have been fired for the same offense in the past seems to imply to me that they might be able to make it stick.
3) "The facts state that ALL new public safety workers MUST SIGN the contract." They don't have to sign the contract, they only have to sign it if they want to work there. Getting that job isn't a right. They have the right to screen their applicants. The applicants have to comply with the rules and regulations as well as the contract in order to work there. Smoking just happens to be one of the terms of the contract. I am sure there are many others and they have to also comply with them. It isn't their choice to comply with them, it is a condition of employment. This avoids the popular phrase; the inmates are running the asylum.
"The contract could have been written to allow employees to opt out of the super-healthcare program," The benefits package that was selected is not normally something that individuals are able to configure to suit their own needs. It would be nice if they could, but it just ain't gonna happen. The reason the rates are what they are is because of the power of numbers. Therefore, the benefits package is the same for all the employees covered by that contract.
4)"the alleged violation did not take place at work" That doesn't matter. The effect is the same whether at work or at home. I would be willing to bet that they also have a rule that as a police officer, the officer can not be convicted of a felony. If he is convicted of a felony he is terminated whether or not the felony occured on the job or not. And, the fact that what he did is not illegal also doesn't matter. I know that our rules and regs state that we cannot wear our uniforms off duty, in public. This is not illegal, but again, it is a rule as an employee of that organization. You know the rules, if you choose to break the rules, you probably also know the consequences. Especially in this case where it has been tested before and two other officers lost their job over it. The rules are usually negotiated in the collective bargining process (I am assuming that as a police officer, he is a union employee). If I am correct that he was a union employee, he voted for the union officers, he voted on the contract, and then has to abide by the terms of the contract whether or not he agrees with all the terms of it.

[4570Rick]

Preacherman is correct.

This is sarcasm.

My Aunt Olive would be 95 next month but tobacco use may have contributed to her death at 94 years 9 months.

This is not sarcasm.

IF A NANY STATE CAN TAKE ANY ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY, THEY CAN TAKE ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS AWAY

It doesn't matter if it is a right you do or don't care about,

IF YOU DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST THE USURPATION OF ANYONES RIGHTS OR LIBERTYS, YOU HAVE CONSPIRED TO TAKE ALL RIGHTS AND LIBERTYS AWAY FROM EVERYONE!!! :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

[444]

I think more than one person here is going off the deep end. First of all, smoking has not been banned wholesale, it was banned only for employees of that agency. AND, they agreed to it of their own free will. Let me put this simply: Let's say you want your own house. You find one you like and secure financing. Of your own free will you agree to make payments on it. A year later, if you decide that you don't want to make the payments, they repo the house. You didn't fulfill your end of the contract. You lied. You tried to change the rules mid-stream and the other party to the contract didn't let you. Very simple.
If you buy a car and get a loan on it, you sign a contract that you will maintain insurance on it. If you quit paying your insurance, they will take back the car. You don't just decide which terms of the contract you are going to comply with. This isn't some issue with kids.

You are responsible for your actions.

[hammer4nc]

444, to clarify my earlier post:

A contract is a two way street, imposing obligations on both sides. You have correctly pointed out that that the employee has an obligation to abide by the non-smoking clause.

However, consider the actions of the State. They have a responsibility to enforce their non-smoking rule in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner, do they not? The argument can be made that a grand total of (2) terminations of police for smoking, through the entire state, during a period of 15 years, is tantamount to implicit acceptance of smoking, through non-action by the State. If you think the enforcement of this clause has been fair, than feel free to advance this argument...

[444]

No, I don't think it was fair. The reason is the anonomous letter thing. I have a hard time believeing that there isn't a lot more to this story. Like some political angle. I can't believe this ruling will stand.
But, I do stick to everything I said, he had to abide by the terms of the contract. However, I think it would take more than an anomonous letter to get you fired. I don't think that because only two previous people have been fired under this policy, that is tantamount to implicit acceptance of smoking. I just think that no one is foolish enough to get caught. This guy was probably doing the same thing as the other smokers, only someone had it in for him. Or, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out he wasn't smoking at all.
My argument is only with some of the more extreme views on the subject. I think they have the right to say you can't smoke. I also think they have the right to enforce it. This case is BS, but that doesn't change my opinion of the policy in general.

By the way, I don't care if you smoke or not. If one of my co-workers was smoking I wouldn't care at all. I am an avid tobacco chewer, so this isn't some holier than thou crusade.

[jungleman]

I hate the smell of cigarettes. I do want to breathe someone's
second hand smoke at work, or restaurant etc.

I also believe that a person should be able to do what he wants on his own property within reason. As long as your smoking does not bother any other persons it is alright. Same for drinking,
eating french fries, etc. We have lost too many freedoms already.
Unfortunately I do not see an end to this madness.:banghead:

[faustulus]

Dash Riprock:
Don't like that idea? Pay for your own health insurance. Subsidized health care, whether it comes from the gummint , or a place that work actually gets done, is the main reason that health care costs have run out of sight. It seems that everybody wants someone else to pay for their fun.

Good idea, since some in government believe you are more likely to become injuried with firearm than without, they should be allowed to ban employees from owning firearms. That is the position you are taking, are you sure it is one you believe?

And your point is? If we are serious about individual liberty, then we have to be serious about individual responsibility. This person made a deal, then broke the deal. May not be good (and it's definitely stupid) but there's that whole individual responsiblity thing. You want to smoke, don't take that job if it's conditioned on your not smoking. Seems simple, no?
Ah but see this is a GOVERNMENT position and the government doesn't have the same leway as private citizens. When I hire people at my business I can say they can't ride motorcycles, because I don't like motorcycles, however, the government is made up of the people, some who like motorcycles some who don't. By taking this position the government is saying that motorcylces are bad. It isn't the government's job to say if motorcycles are bad or not. Think of this, would it bother you if you used the same scenerio and replaced the word 'cigarette' with 'gun'?

why is suicide illegal?
How do you figure that? Let's think about this logically. In our legal system you cannot try a man who is dead. Suicide is the taking of one's own life. Anyone see a problem developing from this?

As long as your smoking does not bother any other persons it is alright.
Your owning guns and carrying them in public 'bothers' me would you support legislation that would force you to keep them in your homes or at designated 'firing ranges?'

[Ryder]

I was under the impression that the 95% cost of tobbacco paid in taxes was to pay for health care problems caused by smokers. So where has such enormous sums of mega dollars been going? And what about the free for nothing double payment when they beat the tobbacco corps in their courts? I'd say smokers already paid their own way. If everyone quit smoking the whole economy would collapse.

Give em an inch and they'll take a mile comes to mind. It's just too bad we can't give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke but liars and thieves really :fire: me up.

[Moondancer]

I DID smoke. I ended up with quadruple bypass surgery at the age of 45 (TWICE!).

A friend of mine asked me if I was going to sue the tobacco companies since the thoracic surgeon said the coronary arteries were damaged from nicotine.

I told him he was an idiot. I told him that I knew the risks from the day I took my first puff and I still continued to smoke until the docs told me I had heart problems. He was more than just a little ticked when I told him he needed to realize that all actions have consequences and that if you don't have enough stones to take responsibility for your choices then you ain't much of an adult.

[Devonai]

I smoke a pipe and the occasional cigar. I will smoke a cigarette under the right circumstances, such as while out in the field, which would preclude the 20-30 minutes required for the former.

I do not inhale any of the above (Clinton jokes aside). I smoke because I enjoy the smell of tobacco. Yes, stale tobacco odor is pretty foul, but it helps to limit the most offensive items (cigar, cigs) to outdoors.

If I have any say in the matter I will be smoking my Ehrlich's Canadian-style pipe with a stout English burley blend. It aids in concentration and relaxation and smells wonderful.

I would almost never sign any contract that prevented me from smoking a pipe. If I did find it in my best interest to sign such a contract, I would smoke anyway. And I would not put up a fuss if I was fired because of it.

[iamkris]

Dave -- sarcasm

[veloce851]

This idea that you should be barred from working for the state or any public office, just because you choose to smoke, what if you eat McDs, Wendy's.. should you then be barred from service because obesity increases insurance premiums.
Make the smokers pay a slightly higher Ins premium the same way Ins companies do it to individuals.
They idea that you can't performa a job because you partake in a health risk on your own time.

How about employees that skydive, drive in automobiles, rollerblade. WORK OUT for that matter.
EVERYTHING in life is a risk.

If we continue to legislate our rights to take on risk then this society is going to fall.
Just as someone else stated we are putting a price on liberty. All in the name of Insurance premiums.

PATHETIC.

If I had a job and they threw a "contract" in my face that said I have to give up my liberties to continue my employment. If you have kids to feed you are going to sign it regardless if its right or wrong.
Any contract lawyer can argue your way out of a contract signed under duress(sp).
So I don't fault any of these officers for "breaking the law" by engaging in a once legal activity.

[buzz_knox]

Duress means you have no choice. Economic duress is a very hard row to how, given that you have to basically have to show that except for that job, you would be starving. I don't think any court would accept that. I certainly wouldn't.

[brownie0486]

In Mass. it isn't a contract, it's the law after a certain date back a decade ago now perhaps.

You choose to work as a PO, you follow the states guidelines or find another profession. It isn't mandatory to apply to the position, but if you pass the testing and academy you will be required to follow the law.

They instituted the law as officer deaths from stroke, heartattacks, emphazema [ spelling ], and all the other maladies associated with a lifetime of smoking were killing the officers while on duty and costing the states towns and cities a whole lot more money in death benefits, helth coverage, insurance payouts to surviving family members.

Smoker all his life, he chases a BG and keels over dead from a massive coronary. Family collects his pension and death benefits.
Would it happen to anyone who didn't smoke? Sure, but statistics show smokers have more health issues while living [ cost to the city/town in overtime for his absence to cover shifts, healthcare charges/use ]and were dying prematurely costing the cities/towns even more.

Your hard earned tax dollars at work. Paying for the officers healthcare do we not consider the consequences of their actions when the data stares us in the face nationally for everyone about the costs associated with smoking?

You want the job, don't smoke. I think thats your choice to continue with the app process knowing the rules. No one is forcing this on anyone. Oh--and if you are caught while employed, you get to find another job that will allow you to smoke shortly.

Happened a couple of times in towns around me in the last 5 years. They were both let go, fought it in court and lost. Now there is precedence in this state and you really might as well walk if they get it documented.

You will find it very difficult to tell the officers who smoke they will pay more in premiums, the unions will not allow that discrimination amoung their ranks. They either all sink or all swim in the union.

Brownie

[faustulus]

Brownie,
You are missing the point, by passing the law the government is doing more than playing the statistics (if not no police would have cars or guns) they are making a statement that the government disapproves of smoking -- that is a moral decision. Since heart disease is hereditary in some cases, the could pass a law saying that no one with a history of heart disease may be a police officer or they could say that someone who is homosexual could not be a police officer, or a woman. Try telling someone 'if you want the job don't be homosexual' and see how long that lasts in a court of law. The problem is this law is immoral and wrong.

[brownie0486]

Restrictions and company rules inthe private sector would be no different.

If you are working for a company who has a policy that no jeans are allowed, would you take the job and then expect to be able to wear jeans?

How about private companies telling me I can't be armed on their property as a condition for employment? I have the choice to not take that job if I do not like the restrictions placed on it's employees.

We live with restrictions in our lives everyday. Some we can live with and others we can't on an individual basis. I don't like the fact that I can't carry at work, I find another job.

I don't like the idea I can't smoke asa condition for employment, I go somewhere else or come to terms with their corporate rule.

If I accept employment knowing the restrictions and then break them I have put myself in a postion where I can be fired for violating those rules/restrictions.


Brownie

[faustulus]

Private companies can do many things the government cannot. As I said the yard stick is different for government. If I want to put the 10 commandments on my storefront window I can do that, however, the State cannot because it is supporting an establishment of religion. Same thing here, with the law the government has contradicted itself. It has said that partaking in a legal substance while not at work is wrong and you may be punished for it. What has hurt them is they are inconsitant about it. Alcohol cuases health problems as does many types of food, if they had banned all these things they might have an arguement. What they did is single out one.

If you are working for a company who has a policy that no jeans are allowed, would you take the job and then expect to be able to wear jeans? Do you think it would be legal if the company said you couldn't wear jeans in your house?
How about private companies telling me I can't be armed on their property as a condition for employment? Again, what if your employer said you could not own or carry a gun while not at work, would you have a problem with this? What if it was the government saying you had no right to carry a gun?

[tyme]

Do you think it would be legal if the company said you couldn't wear jeans in your house?
If jeans contributed to health problems that were easily confused with job-related injuries, and if the State was picking up the tab for their disability, yes.

[faustulus]

If jeans contributed to health problems that were easily confused with job-related injuries, and if the State was picking up the tab for their disability, yes.
What about the gun part? I am pretty sure you could find at least one or two towns in America that would say guns contribute to 'health problem' and cite CDC statistics to back them up. The state (and lets be clear by state we mean government) is picking up your health benefits so it should be allowed to prevent you from owning a gun.
That is what you are arguing for, be sure it is you position.
And lets follow the idea of state funds to its logical conclusion. If the state gives you money for anything that would allow them to prohibit guns. On medicare or medicade? No guns.
Many of you are doing exactly what you accuse Liberals of doing, picking and choosing which rights you want to support. You are all out of sorts when the ACLU wins a radical First Amendment case, but how many of you would critisize the NRA for a smiliar win for the Second?
If we don't fight for them all, the all will fall.

[brownie0486]

Guns being health issues do not have the extensive databases to show cause and effect as in smoking which has been well established as a leading cause of heart disease as well as other malady's.

They might claim it but they could not prove it without a database to show their position.

As to wearing jeans in my house. My house is not a public entitity where tax payers are responsible for my actions.

No correlation to the example, try again.

It's not the three muscateers here. You certainly can pic your fights as you see fit, but because you don't fight them all certainly doesn't mean you lose them all. Rights are always fought on an individual basis, isn't that one of the reasons the rights were listed seperately in the "bill"?

Brownie

[444]

If you took a job that required you to sign a contract that you would not privately own firearms and you violated that contract; you should gracefully accept the consequences. Why ? Because you are a lair that can not be trusted. You are not a man of your word.
If on the other hand, you feel this is none of their business, and it is a violation of your rights then don't apply for, let alone take the job. How difficult is that to understand ? Why is that difficult to understand ? It really is just that simple. You can be on all the holy crusades you want and you are only beating your head against the wall. When you are working for someone else, you don't make the rules. When you voluntarily sign a contract, you don't change the rules after the fact because you arn't a man of your word. Period. Like it or not.

[faustulus]

It's not the three muscateers here.

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned. --Martin Niemöller Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636

444,
If we were talking about a private enterprise I would agree. But we are talking about the government. By saying it don't allow you to smoke/own guns/wear jeans they are it is making a judgement which may or may not be shared by the all the people who make up government. In doing so they break the social contract which exists between the governed and the state.

[hammer4nc]

Once again, a legal discussion that serves as a litmus test; whether or not one accepts authority without question. I put myself in the "not" category.

A reminder: many legal questions involve "competing" rights. In this case, does the right to privacy supercede the desire by the state to reduce its healthcare costs? A quick search thru Mass. statutes will reveal any number of "wellness" programs, not just about smoking/heart disease, but concerning things like diet, exercise, obesity. How far does it go? Anyone care to speculate?

One member attempted to justify the smoking ban based on "scientific data". I'm not arguing against the data, just the concept that its any of the governments business to regulate legal activities outside the workplace, as a privacy issue. We're right on the brink of having genetic testing which could prescreen for various disease markers. Just think how much the govt. could save by not employing folks with risky genetics! That would be just peachy for the "acceptance" crowd, yes?

The following issues, raised previously, no one has touched:

1. Contracts (expressed and implied). A few members have quoted the "express" or written part of the contract. However, the law also recognizes the "implied" part in any contract; that not written, but established by common practice. In this case, the failure by the state to enforce the no-smoking ban in any consistent fashion would lead a reasonable person to believe the law was one of many that was not actively enforced. Anyone care to argue otherwise? How about other Massachusetts "blue laws" still on the books?

2. Arbitrary and capricious: the state has a responsibility to enforce its regulations in a fair and equitable manner. Has it done so? Only two enforcement actions in 15 years? Has this person had substantive due process?

Batter up.

[brownie0486]

hammer4nc:

Where did you get the figure that only two instances had been enforced in 15 years?

The rule is enforced pretty regularly where I'm from in Mass. if the admins are made aware of the officers actions against policy where smoking is concerned and it subsequently documented.

Brownie

[Edward429451]

Under the law, all new public safety hires must sign a contract, as Jeffrey did, pledging not to smoke tobacco products.

Contract problems people? Hehe.

I think if you sign a contract, you should live up to it and if you didn't want to abide by the terms, you shouldn't have signed. Simple.

This is why I didn't sign the CCW contract. Up front when they're tryin to get you to sign, everythings all peachy keen. "Aw,it just a formality they do, everybody has to sign it, it isn't nothin."

Until its signed, then thet got you by the short ones and will use any and all technicalities (contract terms) to nail it to you.

So tell me, how many of you people actually read all that fine print in your CCW application? Looked up the references to law and such? Hmmm?

They make you sign your 1040 forms too. Wonder whats up with that?
Traffic citations? Signature. Hmmm.
Duress? Intimidation? Har de har har. Be careful what you put your signature to cause they might just hold you to it.