But I've got a question then...based upon your argument, that it would take massive amounts of second hand smoke to show up on these tests, then why was second hand smoke such a major cause for the ban smoking movement? Or was exposure to second hand smoke NOT responsible for cancer in people?
Because nicotine was not the emphasis for the second hand smoke concern or a major carcinogen. You're assuming the primary testable marker (the other being conitine (the inactive metabolite of nicotine) is correlated with the degree of exposure to toxic chemicals in smoke. It is like assuming that just because you have a low carboxyhemoglobin level then there is no risk from smoke exposure when we know quite well that cyanide exposure and methemoglobinemia can still kill a smoke-exposed person who has a negative or clinically insignificant COHgb level.
That's great...if they actually do that. No mention is made of this in the article though, so you're assuming that is the case.
I doubt you could fire someone- especially in a heavily unionized busines like the fire service- without hard evidence. Even if they chose to do so, they would open themselves up to a massive lawsuit so I would imagine that like every other occupational smoking ban I have heard of there would be a testing component either on suspicion of exposure or at random or designated intervals.
And I hate it when people opposed to the slippery slope argument ignore historical evidence that it does occur and try to sidestep the question by not answering it
I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to it being used as a strawman argument whenever someone disagrees with a particular intervention. That is simply the case here.
I'm not ignorant of the reasons for the ban...I'm just opposed to the ban - there's a difference.
Then try to respond with quantify your opposition more than the intellecutal equivalent of going "...and the next thing you know, they'll be loading anyone who is opposed onto trains bound for Poland". You're a bright fellow, you can do better than that and I was disappointed to you resort to tactics that are beneath you.
I have no problems with any of these arguments, but they also go to prove the slippery slope argument that you despise.
As I said, I do not despise it.
Who mentioned rights vs privileges? I never said it was a right for somebody to smoke or drive.
Then be careful how you paint your arguments. You gave the impression that people would be stripped of their rights to do these things and others through your use of the slippery slope argument. Also, if it is not a right, then it is not given any protected status under the law so therefore you and every smoker out there can complain until you're blue in the face about it (which doesn't take long if you've been smoking long enough
) and there is no legal standing for it.
Each one of these standards was started with the best of intentions, but we all know the saying concerning paving and intentions.
True and all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to stand idle. Your side of the argument is not the only one with pithy statements.
When taken together, they paint a picture of a disturbing trend in our society today.
I suggest you look at the issue of illusory correlation. Simply put, it's when you see problems, linkages, etc that are not there because of preconceived notions. In other words, it is the statistical basis for the old adage, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like nails." It is also when you see connections between events that are not connected, such as provide the basis for conspiracy theories, etc.
There has been no major ethical erosion associated with taking drunk drivers (including members of my own family who have multiple DUIs on their record) off the road or allowing those of us who choose not to smoke the opportunity to dine or go out in public without having to experience the inside of a house during salvage and overhaul without becoming firefighters and suffer the health detriments thereof. There have been cases where local jurisdicitions have applied the law in odd ways that are a little draconian (arresting people who are sleeping in the car in the parking lot of a bar for DUI, etc), but those do not negate the overall positive benefit of such regulations. Every law has unfortunate victims. Would you argue against sex offender registries if you learned that in many places urinating in public is considered cause to register? This is why there is recourse to amend the laws through contacting your political representatives or taking legal action. The law is not a rigid unflexible doctrine but a living breathing and adjustable set of codes that change as society changes. The problems arise when someone stands against the majority and it suddenly seems like the sky is falling for those people.
Then again, I personally don't care if people smoke and I actually used to smoke myself. I just don't believe that there is any good argument against it if an employer says "If you want to work here you are not going to smoke" any more than if they say "If you want to work here, this will be what you wear to work" or a valid argument for forcing people who don't smoke to basically take up the habit to avoid inconveniencing those who do.
