Smokers need not apply

[sadhatter]

They test you for nicotine. They'll know.

"My family smokes heavily." or " I chew nicorette because i used to smoke. ".

 

[Stray Cat]

http://healthmad.com/addiction/what-are-the-effects-of-smoking-on-productivity-at-work/

Oh well I'm convinced...

"Healthy reading for your mind, body and soul. Healthmad’s articles on health and wellness come from all perspectives; Western and Eastern medicine, holistic and alternative care, and homeopathy. If you’re looking for another opinion, or just interested in health topics, don’t forget to schedule a check-up with Healthmad."

Source: http://healthmad.com/about/


Anecdotes are not evidence anyone?

Sure it's a free market. Employees are free not to smoke

Which isn't really free market at all

and employers are free to hire whomever they want.

I strongly agree in the individual employer's right to do what ever he wants in his own business... However, regulations introduced mean that in this specific area, it is not a free market at all, because of it was OK to hire only non smokers to work in a non smoking environment, it would be equally free market to employ only smokers in a smoking environment.

 

[sadhatter]

There is a nicotine test, some companies that have a full non-smoking policy will test for it like some companies who drug test regularly.

Here's a company who will fire you if your spouse smokes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400105.html

Now, maybe it is different where i am from. But in ontario, if you have been hired, you cannot then be fired for a new policy. For example, when i was working at a call center they attempted to institute a drug testing policy, and fire workers who were found to have done drugs.

Within about a week the place was informed that this was completely illegal, if you wanted to start requiring new employees to undergo random drug testing, they would have to inform them when they started, but that currently employees could not be forced to undergo said testing.

That being said, within their location, is it even legal to have current employees have to undergo the testing?

 

[slingblade]

"My family smokes heavily." or " I chew nicorette because i used to smoke. ".

They still don't have to hire you. And if you don't pass the test, they don't have to care why not.

 

[sadhatter]

Oh well I'm convinced...

"Healthy reading for your mind, body and soul. Healthmad’s articles on health and wellness come from all perspectives; Western and Eastern medicine, holistic and alternative care, and homeopathy. If you’re looking for another opinion, or just interested in health topics, don’t forget to schedule a check-up with Healthmad."

Source: http://healthmad.com/about/


Anecdotes are not evidence anyone?


Which isn't really free market at all


I strongly agree in the individual employer's right to do what ever he wants in his own business... However, regulations introduced mean that in this specific area, it is not a free market at all, because of it was OK to hire only non smokers to work in a non smoking environment, it would be equally free market to employ only smokers in a smoking environment.

I truly believe that anyone who states " Your free to not..." in an attempt to claim that a system is free ( and it happens a lot) should have their computer shut down for 2 months so they have time to think about what they have done. If the idea was verbalized, the person should have their mouth " New-skin"'ed shut for the same period of time, for the same reason.

 

[sadhatter]

They still don't have to hire you. And if you don't pass the test, they don't have to care why not.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is how effective the test is at determining if someone smokes. What about if legitimate ex smokers are not hired because they choose to use a smoking cessation product?

Addiction is classified as a disability, to discriminate against these people, or set up a system in which they are discriminated against for attempting to stop their addiction, would be something a lawyer would have a field day with.

And beyond that, they don't have to hire me, but they don't have to not either. As we see every day here, lying is an effective method to get what one wants, and if they are going to have a system that can be taken advantage of, why even bother making it a policy?

 

[Spindrift]

Oh well I'm convinced...

"Healthy reading for your mind, body and soul. Healthmad’s articles on health and wellness come from all perspectives; Western and Eastern medicine, holistic and alternative care, and homeopathy. If you’re looking for another opinion, or just interested in health topics, don’t forget to schedule a check-up with Healthmad."

Source: http://healthmad.com/about/


Anecdotes are not evidence anyone?

Nice strawman. It cites the navy study that resulted in banning smoking on subs.

Which isn't really free market at all

Then there is no free market at all is there? There are lots of regulations that companies have about hiring and not hiring people.

I strongly agree in the individual employer's right to do what ever he wants in his own business... However, regulations introduced mean that in this specific area, it is not a free market at all, because of it was OK to hire only non smokers to work in a non smoking environment, it would be equally free market to employ only smokers in a smoking environment.

Except that smoking environments are unhealthy due to the smoking. Non-smoking environments may not be healthy but it's not due to the non-smoking.

 

[Spindrift]

I truly believe that anyone who states " Your free to not..." in an attempt to claim that a system is free ( and it happens a lot) should have their computer shut down for 2 months so they have time to think about what they have done. If the idea was verbalized, the person should have their mouth " New-skin"'ed shut for the same period of time, for the same reason.

So are you saying I'm free not to make such statements?

 

[sadhatter]

So are you saying I'm free not to make such statements?

In my perfect world yes, in the real one that has to take into account other people's wants and desires, no.

 

[Spindrift]

In my perfect world yes, in the real one that has to take into account other people's wants and desires, no.

Okay, in your perfect world please shut down your computer for 2 months.

 

[sadhatter]

Okay, in your perfect world please shut down your computer for 2 months.

Don't recall saying my perfect world was a free one , in fact , the fact that i would use the ultimate power vested to me to make sure my annoyances were squashed , would indicate the exact opposite.

Good try at banter, but it works better when you reply to what i said, not what you wish i said so you could use the witty rejoinder you had on deck.

 

[Stray Cat]

Nice strawman. It cites the navy study that resulted in banning smoking on subs.

No it doesn't cite it at all, it mentions it in passing.
For all we know what the navy may have found out that people who get dishonorable discharge or demotion are more likely to be smokers and not that people who smoke are more likely to get dishonorable discharge or demotion. There is a subtle but important distinction that your anecdotal article doesn't explore.

Then there is no free market at all is there? There are lots of regulations that companies have about hiring and not hiring people.

I'm not arguing against individual choice of what regulations individual employers follow. I am arguing that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. A position we are not in at the moment.

Except that smoking environments are unhealthy due to the smoking. Non-smoking environments may not be healthy but it's not due to the non-smoking.

People choose to smoke, it's their business if they make that choice, not yours and you nor anyone else should have any right to regulate that in cases/places where you would not be exposed to it unless you chose to.

 

[Spindrift]

I truly believe that anyone who states " Your free to not..." in an attempt to claim that a system is free ( and it happens a lot) should have their computer shut down for 2 months so they have time to think about what they have done. If the idea was verbalized, the person should have their mouth " New-skin"'ed shut for the same period of time, for the same reason.

So are you saying I'm free not to make such statements?

In my perfect world yes, in the real one that has to take into account other people's wants and desires, no.

Okay, in your perfect world please shut down your computer for 2 months.

Don't recall saying my perfect world was a free one , in fact , the fact that i would use the ultimate power vested to me to make sure my annoyances were squashed , would indicate the exact opposite.

Good try at banter, but it works better when you reply to what i said, not what you wish i said so you could use the witty rejoinder you had on deck.

I replied to exactly what you said. Sorry if the banter was too much for you.

 

[Spindrift]

No it doesn't cite it at all, it mentions it in passing.
For all we know what the navy may have found out that people who get dishonorable discharge or demotion are more likely to be smokers and not that people who smoke are more likely to get dishonorable discharge or demotion. There is a subtle but important distinction that your anecdotal article doesn't explore.

Subtle distinction, but I don't see the importance. Please explain.

I'm not arguing against individual choice of what regulations individual employers follow. I am arguing that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. A position we are not in at the moment.

I'm not sure that it would be illegal to hire only smokers in states that don't have 'lifestyle' rules. Of course they still couldn't smoke at work in most states.

People choose to smoke, it's their business if they make that choice, not yours and you nor anyone else should have any right to regulate that in cases/places where you would not be exposed to it unless you chose to.

I don't disagree with you, that people can smoke if they want. However I think the employers right to run their business as they see fit, as long as it's legal means they get to hire whoever they want and make whatever legal requirements of their employees that they want.

Personally, I don't smoke but I don't think I would ever work for a company that does that, but I feel they have the right to do so.

 

[Stray Cat]

Subtle distinction, but I don't see the importance. Please explain.

One indicates smoking as the cause, the other does not.
It's like the old 'All X's are Y therefore All Y's must be X'.

Your link is ambiguous (go figure) as to the studies actual results, it doesn't link to the actual study so that people can check their reporting of it is accurate and call me a sceptic but... That article is spinning so much it's a wonder it stays on the page.

As an aside: You do know that in that study they found nicotine/CO levels in submarines to be below the safe limits cited by the Surgeon General?

I'm not sure that it would be illegal to hire only smokers in states that don't have 'lifestyle' rules. Of course they still couldn't smoke at work in most states.

Which is part of the problem. A problem that blind acceptance of myths about smokers being more likely to have time off work or take more breaks only serves to compound.

I don't disagree with you, that people can smoke if they want. However I think the employers right to run their business as they see fit, as long as it's legal means they get to hire whoever they want and make whatever legal requirements of their employees that they want.

And yet it's illegal to open and operate a smokers club, run by smokers, staffed by smokers and frequented by smokers. A product that is perfectly legal to purchase and consume.
Where does this fit into your free market?

Personally, I don't smoke but I don't think I would ever work for a company that does that, but I feel they have the right to do so.

And yet you appear to stand up for legislation that doesn't allow this freedom.

 

[23_Tauri]

Nice strawman. It cites the navy study that resulted in banning smoking on subs.

To clarify, the US Navy justified its ban on smoking in submarines not on a study of its own but on a 2006 Surgeon General's report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. On publication of this report Richard Carmona, the Surgeon General at the time, famously said that there was no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. However, the EPA's safe level of threshold for nicotine is 0.5mg/m3 and even in submarines nicotine levels only reach 0.032mg/m3, or 8% of the EPA's 'safe level' [1].

To say that there is no safe level of a substance is clearly spurious. There is a safe level of everything. That the EPA publishes safe levels of substances such as nicotine and carbon monoxide infers that it agrees that there is such a thing as a safe level for these bi-products of smoking.

[1] Velvet Glove, Iron Fist by C. Snowdon, p.135

The Navy's ban on smoking in submarines was not based on science, but on propaganda.

 

[Stray Cat]

That's the problem with spindrifts anecdotal article not really citing it's source.
It seems that Healthmad can spin stuff however it wants with no real citations.

 

[GlennB]

Except that smoking environments are unhealthy due to the smoking. Non-smoking environments may not be healthy but it's not due to the non-smoking.

The discussion at that point was about people who don't smoke at work but who choose to smoke at home (say), or who use nicotine chewing gum, and would thus fail an employer's nicotine test. Your argument fails.

 

[Varanid]

I smoke because I am cooler than most of you, so spare me your concern for my health. In fact, studies have shown that smoking behavior is the only mechanism for the relatively old (ahem) to out-cool the young, who are by definition, cooler.


That being said, I am of the insanely unpopular opinion that an employer should be able to refuse to hire someone for any reason at all. Including race, religion, handicap, and any other non-pc thing you can think of- much less something like smoking.

It is their business. Let them run it how they wish so long as they aren't causing harm, etc.

I think it would be incredibly stupid (not to mention just douchey) to not hire someone because of their race, but who am I to tell them who to hire? Honestly, were I to own a business, I wouldn't be inclined to hire theists, as they are generally indicative of poor critical thinkers (I said "generally", that is as diplomatic as I can manage- I will allow for the possibility of some completely rational, brilliant, Hindu guy somewhere).

Beyond this though, there is nothing more obnoxious to me that anti-smoking-nazis. I go out of my way to reek around you all. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes we like the sweet stink of lady nicotine because it covers your natural stench? Hate away. It makes us dedicated smokers that much more powerful.

Think about this- many, many, many in the food service industry are smokers. And we make your food!!!!

Bwahaahaa Bwaahaa Bwaa*choke*haa *phlegm*Bwaha *cough*

----lights cig----breathes deeply-----that's better----

BWAHAAHAA

 

[mikeyx]

The healthcare industry is one of few sectors of the economy that is still adding workers in the last decade. In fact it's the fastest growing sector.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=4304[/qimg]

But increasingly it's an industry that is closed to smokers, even if they don't smoke on the job.

Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban



As a non-smoker (ex-smoker) I favor rules that keep tobacco smoke out of my own personal space, but isn't this going a bit too far? Cigarettes are already taxed at a very high rate, which means smokers pay more taxes than nonsmokers. How far can the discrimination go before it becomes unreasonable?

Smoking should simply be banned, its that vile an addiction.