Pregnant teenagers buying tobacco

Sawa

I work in a convienience store, this girl comes in and asks for 20 John Player Blue cigarettes, I am not positive she looks over 18, so I i.d her, she hands me a cancelled passport (which I can't accept, plus the picture doesn't look like her) so I tell her, "Sorry, I can't serve you.".
She gets very aggressive at me and argues until red faced I keep refusing until she leaves.

Another girl I work with said she has threatened to hit her for refusing her cigerattes, so she gives the angry girl what she wants because it is just easier.

This is just an aside to the fact that this girl is pregnant (showing quite a bit, maybe 6/7 months) and is smoking. I did not notice the first time I saw her because I was behind the till and wasn't looking at her stomach but saw her in the shop today and saw how heavily pregnant she is.

Basically to cut a long story short, I know it is not up to me, an employee of a shop to dictate to people whether they smoke when pregnant but should employees of bars/shops selling cigarettes be allowed to refuse people on the grounds of said employees beliefs/morals with regard to what the purchaser of alcohol or cigarettes is doing to their un-born child.
If the girl's i.d was valid, would you have served her and how would you have felt?

(l realise it's not my business and it is "her body" and all that, but I do feel awful at the thought of contributing to harming her baby!)

biko

This her?

Binomate

If employees are allowed to refuse the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to people based on their own sense of morality, there would be a sense of chaos to it all. I know plenty of people who work in shops who do not drink, smoke or do drugs and a few of these people despise it. If they were given the power to refuse the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to people they would do it to everyone every time they were asked. If something like this were to be implemented, it would need to be some kind of a store policy to minimise the variation since everyone feels different about certain things. It would somewhat standardise it with in the realm of that shop.

I've often wondered why so many shops still stock cigarettes and buy licences to sell cigarettes. You'd think that with a product that kills thousands every year, more shop owners would refuse to stock them, but nearly every shop you go to sells them. I've known owners of a shop who hate smoking with a passion, yet they still sold cigarettes. Weird.

Hagar

Binomate wrote:

I've often wondered why so many shops still stock cigarettes and buy licences to sell cigarettes.

One word, profit.
What better way to make money except selling a legal addictive drug to punters who will come back again and again.

Wertz

Hagar wrote:

One word, profit.
What better way to make money except selling a legal addictive drug to punters who will come back again and again.

Ah yes but as I'm sure you're aware the profit margin on a pack of fags is pretty minute...they're somewhat of a loss leader like newspapers and milk; the other items you may sell to the person merely coming in for a paper or a pack of smokes is where the profit is (soft drinks,confectionery and crisps) so the more of those items you have to entice passing business into your shop the more profit you make....just not on the actual item they came in for.

As for not wanting to sell to some pregnant millie? F*ck that...if she's threatening members of staff with violence for a bloody smoke then she's not exactly going to be mum of the year from the get go...smoking is probably the least of that baby's worries.
It's pretty honourable that you're thinking of the welfare etc, but TBH this girl doesn't give a flying f*ck and the bottom ;line is that it's her choice (even if she is underage)...

zuutroy

Apparently margins are very low on cigarettes, but I guess it brings people in who buy other crap.
As for the nut-ball pregnant smoker....Darwin in action.

Boston

Sawa wrote:

Basically to cut a long story short, I know it is not up to me, an employee of a shop to dictate to people whether they smoke when pregnant but should employees of bars/shops selling cigarettes be allowed to refuse people on the grounds of said employees beliefs/morals with regard to what the purchaser of alcohol or cigarettes is doing to their un-born child.
If the girl's i.d was valid, would you have served her and how would you have felt?

You get cases in the states of people in pharmacies refusing to sell contraceptions on moral grounds. Is that the world you want to live in? Where someone elses morality dictates your actions.

Stephen

Boston you get that here! I remember reading in the paper about some doctors who refuse to give the morning after pill to women because it goes against their Catholic beliefs :rolleyes:

Wertz

Boston wrote:

Is that the world you want to live in? Where someone elses morality dictates your actions.

Sounds like the catholic Ireland of the last half century...

Winters

Shops dont make any money on cigarettes at all.

They are only a reason to get people into the shop as generally a lot of people who come into buy cigarettes will get a bottle of coke or something else with them.

RobertFoster

zuutroy wrote:

Darwin in action.

Exactly what I thought when I read the OP. It's not your child they're "killing". The only downside I see is the wasted public money spent on welfare and health.

Dr. Seuss

Sawa wrote:

I work in a convienience store, this girl comes in and asks for 20 John Player Blue cigarettes, I am not positive she looks over 18, so I i.d her, she hands me a cancelled passport (which I can't accept, plus the picture doesn't look like her) so I tell her, "Sorry, I can't serve you.".
She gets very aggressive at me and argues until red faced I keep refusing until she leaves.

Another girl I work with said she has threatened to hit her for refusing her cigerattes, so she gives the angry girl what she wants because it is just easier.

This is just an aside to the fact that this girl is pregnant (showing quite a bit, maybe 6/7 months) and is smoking. I did not notice the first time I saw her because I was behind the till and wasn't looking at her stomach but saw her in the shop today and saw how heavily pregnant she is.

Basically to cut a long story short, I know it is not up to me, an employee of a shop to dictate to people whether they smoke when pregnant but should employees of bars/shops selling cigarettes be allowed to refuse people on the grounds of said employees beliefs/morals with regard to what the purchaser of alcohol or cigarettes is doing to their un-born child.
If the girl's i.d was valid, would you have served her and how would you have felt?

(l realise it's not my business and it is "her body" and all that, but I do feel awful at the thought of contributing to harming her baby!)

Because refusing to sell them to her will make her stop smoking? Yeah right. And it's not your call anyway - you're a shop assistant; your job is to sell products to customers - not give them advise - it's none of your business.

Note: I don't agree with the pragnant knacker smoking, but it's her choice.

Dr. Seuss

Winters wrote:

Shops dont make any money on cigarettes at all.

They don't even make 1c on a pack of 20? Bullsh*t.

Judt

Well unfortunately enforcing your morality on someone else in a case like this, where arguably you're unquestionably right, leads down the slippery slops towards a country where my hardline evangelical beliefs dictate whether or not YOU can do things like have sex before marriage, use contraception, etc etc etc.

Thrill

I'm with the "you shouldnt impose your own morality on others" crowd. Anyway, why should you feel guilty?

They are told about the dangers of smoking by their doctor, parents, school
teachers and probably friends as well.
There are health warnings on the cigerrette box, on T.V., in newspapers and
magazines.

If they wont heed all this advice, what makes you think they'll listen to
anything you say or do.

Winters

Dr. Seuss wrote:

They don't even make 1c on a pack of 20? Bullsh*t.

I cant remember the profit margin, its been 3 years or so now since I last worked in the shop, but your talking about only a few cent for cigarettes. There is so much tax on them that you cant actually put the usual 120% mark up on them.

Stuff like chocolate, drinks and deli is where the real profit is made. Cigarettes are just a way of getting people into a shop to get them to buy other things that actually make a profit.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

flogen

I always think pregnant smokers (or drinkers/drug users) are about as selfish as a person can be. Whatever about doing your own body damage, but the unborn hasn't got a choice in the matter.
It's not really accurate to say "darwinism at work", because the thing that could harm or limit the baby-to-be's life isn't based on a decision they've made. It's only really "darwinism at work" when someone's own stupidity results in their extinction... unless people think fetuses breathing in toxic fumes will lead to an evolution in the human respiratory system where people can breath air or Co2?

That said, given that most new smokers are under 18 it's hard to imagine another restriction on who can/can't smoke being effective. Just like encouraging people not to smoke in the first place, it all comes down to education. If that doesn't work, there's little you can do/say to put them off.

snickerpuss

Also it would be fairly risky to start guessing who was and wasn't pregnant. You'll only end up offending fat people. How would they prove they weren't pregnant if they denied it? Way too complicated.

But yeah smoking and drinking not good when you're pregnant but also none of your business what other people do.

Winters

snickerpuss wrote:

Also it would be fairly risky to start guessing who was and wasn't pregnant. You'll only end up offending fat people. How would they prove they weren't pregnant if they denied it? Way too complicated.

But yeah smoking and drinking not good when you're pregnant but also none of your business what other people do.

Im sure those "pro life" campaigners think different...

scojones

Sawa wrote:

Basically to cut a long story short, I know it is not up to me, an employee of a shop to dictate to people whether they smoke when pregnant but should employees of bars/shops selling cigarettes be allowed to refuse people on the grounds of said employees beliefs/morals with regard to what the purchaser of alcohol or cigarettes is doing to their un-born child.
If the girl's i.d was valid, would you have served her and how would you have felt?

(l realise it's not my business and it is "her body" and all that, but I do feel awful at the thought of contributing to harming her baby!)

No, it should not be up to a barman or a shop assistant. The woman can do what she likes to her body, and to her baby.

dranoel

By working in a convenience store that sells cigarettes, you have become a pawn of the cigarette companies. How much are they paying you to push their products, harm unborn babies, kill people and make them rich?

Sangre

Boston wrote:

You get cases in the states of people in pharmacies refusing to sell contraceptions on moral grounds. Is that the world you want to live in? Where someone elses morality dictates your actions.

Do you want to live in a world where you're forced to sell goods in your shop that you find morally reprehensible?

Ruen

Sangre wrote:

Do you want to live in a world where you're forced to sell goods in your shop that you find morally reprehensible?

You dont have to work there but if you do then you sell whatever the shop offers because thats what you'd be getting paid for. Anyway who the fcuk is anybody, let alone a shop assistant to decide whether or not someone else should buy smokes or anything for that matter just because they dont think that person should be allowed to.
Sawa you know it's not good to be taking caffeine when pregnant so does that mean you would not sell coffee to a pregnant woman? It is none of your business what anybody does to themselves when pregnant or not, so mind your own business.

Boston

Sangre wrote:

Do you want to live in a world where you're forced to sell goods in your shop that you find morally reprehensible?

Shouldn't be in that line of business.

MooseJam

pro-life ftw !

Dr. Seuss

Sangre wrote:

Do you want to live in a world where you're forced to sell goods in your shop that you find morally reprehensible?

Who's being "forced"?

tallaght01

Boston wrote:

Shouldn't be in that line of business.

I can see where you're coming from. The thought of my colleagues refusing to prescribe contraception becuase of their religious beliefs never sits easy with me.
But, having said that, these docs (and i assume other healthcare professionals) are obliged to offer the services of a colleague, preferably in the same premises that will give them what they're looking for, if indicated. For example, in the UK a lot of people just walk into their GP surgery and ask for an abortion without much else to say. Unsurprisingly, some GPs are uncomfortable witht this, and dont fill out the form. But they have to refer the patient onto another one of their colleagues who has no such ethical objections. May sound slightly offtopic, but the point I'm making is that ethical objections to doing something at work should probably be respected, as long as somebody else can offer the service.

Black Swan

Sawa wrote:

(l realise it's not my business and it is "her body" and all that, but I do feel awful at the thought of contributing to harming her baby!)

If it was in fact just "her body" that was exposed to the potentially harmful affects of smoking, then she should have the freedom to trash herself. But being pregnant can harm the child and she should be refused the sale.

Regarding alcohol, there should be a law prohibiting the sale of booze to pregnant women, cause of the high incidence of FAS and FAE (Fetus Alcohol Syndrome and Fetus Alcohol Effects).

Collie D

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Regarding alcohol, there should be a law prohibiting the sale of booze to pregnant women, cause of the high incidence of FAS and FAE (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects).

Therefore criminalising the barman who is only doing his job?

Ste.phen

Collie D wrote:

Therefore criminalising the barman who is only doing his job?

I'm not sure I follow you?
Surely there'd only be a crime committed if the barman WASN'T doing his job properly?

Boston

Igy wrote:

I'm not sure I follow you?
Surely there'd only be a crime committed if the barman WASN'T doing his job properly?

I think the point is, how about making it a crime to consume alcohol while pregnant. Place blame where it belongs.

Black Swan

Collie D wrote:

Therefore criminalising the barman who is only doing his job?

Well, isn't it a part of his job not to sell booze to underage? Why not also the pregnant?

And to answer Boston, sure, the law should also cover the pregnant mother (who is harming her child). All parties concerned should be covered by the law.

Collie D

But a barman can easily check ID. Some pregnant women don't look pregnant and the same can be said of fat women who look pregnant. Should there be a limit, ie anyone who is more than three months pregnant...? How do you prove who is and who isn't? Urine tests before we hand over the booze?

scojones

Hehe, you're all going off on some mad tangent. I'll say it again, she can do what she likes to her own body, and to the baby inside of her. If you're prolife and you disagree with me, it's because you're being biased and don't know how to think for yourself.

Hagar

scojones wrote:

If you're prolife and you disagree with me, it's because you're being biased and don't know how to think for yourself.

Nothing like an inaccurate sweeping statement to back up your argument.
I could almost hear you saying "So there" and stamping your little foot after you typed that.

Boston

scojones wrote:

Hehe, you're all going off on some mad tangent. I'll say it again, she can do what she likes to her own body, and to the baby inside of her. If you're prolife and you disagree with me, it's because you're being biased and don't know how to think for yourself.

Feminist Dogma.

Wertz

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Regarding alcohol, there should be a law prohibiting the sale of booze to pregnant women, cause of the high incidence of FAS and FAE (Fetus Alcohol Syndrome and Fetus Alcohol Effects).

In a country where even to this day there are GPs who will "prescribe" the mother Guinness as a source of iron for the baby, draconian crap like that simply ain't gonna swing...

There should be no laws regarding the sale of drink to pregnant women...if you really want to go down that road then it should possibly be an offence to be over a certain limit of blood alcohol if you're with child, perhaps some sort of wreckless endangerment or something. But again it smacks of nanny state-ism; no thanks chuckles...

tallaght01

I'd be pretty surprised if any GPs still suggested guinness during pregnancy nowadays, as current thinking is that alcohol should be avoided throughout pregnancy.

Winters

Except for that glass of red wine a day.

Sangre

Boston wrote:

Shouldn't be in that line of business.

Just to clarify, are we talking about the actual owners or the employees?

tallaght01

Winters wrote:

Except for that glass of red wine a day.

not during pregnancy though

Wertz

tallaght01 wrote:

I'd be pretty surprised if any GPs still suggested guinness during pregnancy nowadays, as current thinking is that alcohol should be avoided throughout pregnancy.

Fair enough it may not happen the last few years but it certainly did for decades before...I'm talking in terms of a country in who's culture drinking was an accepted form of medication and that this even stretched to expectant mothers...I believe it's because iron supplements are hard on the stomach, at a time when morning sickness is an issue and because guinness was readily available. Better to have the alcohol and a non-amaemic mother as far as the fetus is concerned

There was certainly some sort of UK government thing last week about 0 alcohol during pregnancy, but who really listens to them...

tallaght01

Wertz wrote:

Better to have the alcohol and a non-amaemic mother as far as the fetus is concerned

There was certainly some sort of UK government thing last week about 0 alcohol during pregnancy, but who really listens to them...

I'm not sure any of the above is sound advice, in this day and age :P

Wertz

tallaght01 wrote:

I'm not sure any of the above is sound advice, in this day and age :P

Where did I mention it was? It's against boards rules to offer medical advice...I'm merely citing my opinions.

"in this day and age"

What's changed? Have our gestationary processes evolved over the few decades?

Winters

tallaght01 wrote:

not during pregnancy though

Scrubs lied to me ;_;

Boston

Sangre wrote:

Just to clarify, are we talking about the actual owners or the employees?

employee

tallaght01

Wertz wrote:

Where did I mention it was? It's against boards rules to offer medical advice...I'm merely citing my opinions.

"in this day and age"

What's changed? Have our gestationary processes evolved over the few decades?

I dind't say it was advice. But I think that, by virtue of the fact that it's on a public board, it's fair enough to point out that it's not good advice.

Pregnancy hasn't changed, but our knowledge of what harms a fetus has.

Wertz

Our knowledge of a lot of things has...it makes you wonder how we ever managed to survive at all given all the things we used to do in the bad old days.

Like I said in the other thread, moderation and acceptable risk...no-one is advocating scuba diving in the Bushmills distillery...

tallaght01

It just depends on what risks your willing to take. And while we can't experiment on pregnant women, so we'll never really know the full facts, I'll continue to advocate abstinence during pregnancy. The individual has, of course, the right to ignore medical advice.

randylonghorn

Sawa wrote:

should employees of bars/shops selling cigarettes be allowed to refuse people on the grounds of said employees beliefs/morals

Where does it stop?

I walk in to my local Dunnes, pick up my groceries including a chop for my tea, get to the checkout to be told "I'm sorry, I can't serve you, I'm a committed vegetarian".

The recent fad of expecting the state, and legislation, to regulate every aspect of life has become ridiculous in the extreme.

Take responsibility for your own moral and ethical beliefs, rather than imposing them on everyone else, or crying to the state to do it for you.

If you object to selling meat / fur / alcohol / petrol / condoms / whatever, get yourself a job where you don't have to do so. If you object to selling cigarettes to pregnant women, get yourself another job where you don't have to do so.

While personally I would strongly deplore a pregnant woman smoking, it is her choice, provided she is an adult. She needs to take responsibility for her actions, just as you need to take responsibility for yours.

Apart from philosophical issues, it would be an unworkable law in any case, as would the suggestion to refuse to sell alcohol to pregnant women. What are the bar staff supposed to do, send her off to the loo with a pregnancy test? Supervise said procedure in case she gets one of her friends to piss on it for her? Can people please get real here!

What, I wonder, will be the next proposal from the Nanny Staters? I remember seeing a brief mention a few months ago of a proposal in some US state to ban those over 65 from driving, as that demographic had a proportionally high level of accidents. Here, of course, it would be males 17-27 who would be sent back to take the bus.

Or here's a good one ... all those underage youngsters who are having sex before McDowell wanted them to ... simple solution: lock them up in chastity belts / c*ck cages between reaching puberty and 17. Actually, make them take a test before letting them out ... that might at least alleviate the horrendous level of ignorance and downright wrong information among some Irish teenagers when it comes to sex.

No doubt I'll be told "ah now, you're just being ridiculous!"

Well, maybe I am, to make a point.

But I will guarantee you that if I had suggested 40 years ago that smoking would be banned in Irish pubs I would have been accused of being ridiculous too.