Smokers need not apply

[Lolly]

I don't like it because it promotes the idea that people should be judged and shunned for perceived "deficiencies". Shun the smokers, the fat, the this, the that. First deny them employment, then what?

If you want to exclude people because of what they choose to do in their spare time, then I wouldn't employ anybody who watches "reality" tv.

It's unacceptable.

If an employer feels that strongly about smoking, then they can lobby a politician to get it banned. Going around shunning people when their activities are legal is not the way to go.

Where did this idea come from that we have the right to control others so that our own little world is just the way we like?

 

[fuelair]

Smokers are cheaper to insure, smokers are absent more, they often take time away from work to smoke (depending on the company).

It's an economic decision. Why do you hate the free market?

I believe you meant to write "Smokers are more expensive to insure" or
"Non-smokers are cheaper to insure" - either of which would be correct.

 

[Polaris]

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

"I don't drink, and I'll do everything in my power to keep you from drinking."

That attitude's worked really well for marijuana (granted not an addictive drug), cocaine, alcohol, heroin, methamphetamines, PCP, LSD, crack, etc...

 

[Xephyr]

I haven't hired employment applicants for hundreds of different reasons over the years (many of which I would never disclose to anyone)... and in all honesty, smoking/non-smoking as a qualifier/disqualifier has never once crossed my mind during an interview because it has never been an issue in the workplace from my 20+ years of corporate personnel and financial analysis.

Smokers only smoke on their designated coffee and lunch breaks in the allowed smoking areas outside, do not miss any more time from work than their non-smoking peers, do not utilize our medical benefits plan any more than their non-smoking peers, and butt out their cigarettes in the proper cigarette butting spot permitted - the outdoor ashtray.

The few individual employees who've attempted to abuse breaktime has had their wrist slapped with a written warning... this includes just as many non-smokers pulling the same crap.

Personnel files do not lie.
Anecdotal ? Yes.
But real world observation over a span of two decades is all the evidence I need to qualify my hiring/firing decisions.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about our employees who get the damn flu shot every fall... They're the buggers walking around the office all winter sniffling, sneezing, hacking and coughing throughout the season spreading their germs every second week to the rest of the staff and putting them at risk.

So in light of this thread, from now on I'm not hiring anyone who gets the friggin' annual flu shot...






.... and anyone who thinks Will Ferrell is a good actor.

 

[wasapi]

Just before my last surgery, I was waiting in a room with the anesthesiologist, who was a smoker. Since we had about a 20 minute wait we talked about it, and he said that even after seeing everything he has while working, he decided that the relaxation he feel when he smokes, outweighed the risk. He told me that he no longer trys to quit, though he doesn't smoke much at home, just at work.

When conversations like this come up I think about that. If someone is considerate about where and when they smoke, setting such restrictions seems to be more about control and power then concern, safety, and cutting costs.

Julia

 

[Trakar]

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?

Is suicide considered a crime, or self-endangering psychological abberation where you live? other than legality, what is the difference between a tobacco addict, a caffeine junky and a functional heroin addict?

 

[23_Tauri]

I smoke because I am cooler than most of you,

Pfft! I'm cooler than you! I smoke dinky roll-ups with liquorice Rizlas. For a mere girl, that's cool round these parts, or at the very least de rigueur.

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.

And to prove the point, here's the coolest man on the planet:

 

[23_Tauri]

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

Great idea mikeyx. Let ban people doing things that we don't like. Once you've banned smoking tobacco, what's next on your list of "vile things"? Popcorn in cinemas? Dogs? Alcohol? Women showing their hair public? What would your punishment be? Cutting off hands? Shooting at dawn?

Mmmmm yeah let's get on that prohibition train because curtailing people's personal freedoms is so-o-o good for democracy.

 

[JJM 777]

And then what? What will Tobacco Control morph into next and set its eyes on for prohibition?

Coffee.

The doctors are not few who estimate that caffeine is a more harmful substance than many substances which now are illegal, so if coffee entered the market now and not centuries ago, it would probably be treated with the same criteria as other substances, and banned. But now this substance is being treated with more lenient criteria than other substances, not because it is less harmful but because it has gained political acceptance, so banning it would be politically more difficult than banning many of the less well-known substances that indeed are illegal now.

 

[Stray Cat]

Coffee.

The doctors are not few who estimate that caffeine is a more harmful substance than many substances which now are illegal,

I used to smoke tea quite a bit but I've never tried smoking coffee.

 

[GlennB]

Well, I've thought long and hard about this I've become a convert to the 'smokers need not apply' school. In fact it doesn't go nearly far enough, so I'd like to propose extending it:

Tub o' lard? You'll find it hard.
Why should my fit, nimble frame be penalised by fatties who'll keel over with an expensive heart attack the first time the lift is out of action?

No floss? No boss.
Dental insurance doesn't come cheap my friend. Open wide now and let's have a poke around in there ....

Yak? Stay back.
Previous employers and teachers will be required to indicate the job applicant's tendency to chatter inanely at inordinate length with random passing co-workers instead of doing what they're paid to do.

Nice tits? Don't fit.
Do you have any idea just how much productivity is lost by workers having naughty thoughts about their colleagues' most excellent arses, breasts and other bodily parts?

 

[Stray Cat]

Tub o' lard? You'll find it hard.
Why should my fit, nimble frame be penalised by fatties who'll keel over with an expensive heart attack the first time the lift is out of action?

Or block the stairwell in the event of a fire in the building. A fire BTW that was most likely caused by them heating up a pie in the company microwave!
A pie that even if it hadn't set alight, would have stunk out the offices all afternoon triggering my allergy to pie smell.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I agree that this sort of employment policy is ridiculous. I think this is true for any such policy that attempts to regulate away from work activity that is legal, and really even into illegal activies to an extent. I don't allow people to smoke at my house or in my car. I think its very rude to stand next to someone in public areas while smoking without asking.

When I worked at a convenience store smokers did get extra breaks for a long time. At one point I started taking smoke breaks myself. I just didn't smoke during them. It annoyed the manager, but I told her she could pay me extra, treat us equally, or fire me. She gave up and let me have my smoke breaks. I worked nights and only had a "2 hour" overlap with the manager and morning crew. It was more like 1 hour so that should give an idea that these specific people were in general just lazy, not something I had problems with in other places heavy with smokers. One time the manager asked me to take over the work for a few minutes while she took a smoke break so I signed back on the clock, which upset her. I told her I don't care if she gets paid when she isn't working, but I'm certainly getting paid when I do work. On the other hand, if I walked in randomly in the day and someone asked for a break I'd give it to them without signing on. It was more the manager being poor at planning when I was leaving that triggered my annoyance.

When I was younger and did not drive, one of my biggest pet peeves at bus stops was when someone walked up right next to me, asked me to turn down my music and then lit up a cigarrette. I tried to be pretty good at keeping my music down when next to people and even as a driver I tend to turn it down at traffic stops.

 

[joobie]

REally? So they actually have a policy that says " if you smoke you are allowed to take extra breaks, if you don't your s.o.l."

there is no official policy. it is just the way things work. and yes, i could stand around outside for 5 minutes here and there, but i would get yelled at.

 

[Fnord]

... I favor rules that keep tobacco smoke out of my own personal space, but isn't this going a bit too far?

No. It is not going far enough. Smoking should be banned everywhere.

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?

People who drink beer, wine, and liquor pay more taxes than those who don't. People who buy ammunition pay more taxes than those who don't. This is not discrimination, as smoking, drinking, and hunting are choices, not at-birth conditions (like gender and skin color). Since people choose to do these things, they should pay the taxes on those activities.

I wish that smokers and their sympathisers would stop whining about being discriminated against for engaging in a filthy, disgusting, hazardous addiction, and stop making a general nuisance of themselves.

 

[23_Tauri]

No. It is not going far enough. Smoking should be banned everywhere.

One of the great things of living in a liberal democracy is that by and large the state does not get involved in the private realm. Or at least it has up until now. Clearly, you don't like this and would prefer to live in a totalitarian state. Well, I'm sure that could be arranged as there are plenty of those dotted around the globe and you'll feel right at home there. Just beware because whatever country you choose to settle in is likely to have draconian sanctions against your chosen leisure pursuit as well as against those you don't like. Sanctions like having your hands chopped off. And public floggings. But don't worry, you just go for it.

People who drink beer, wine, and liquor pay more taxes than those who don't. People who buy ammunition pay more taxes than those who don't. This is not discrimination, as smoking, drinking, and hunting are choices, not at-birth conditions (like gender and skin color). Since people choose to do these things, they should pay the taxes on those activities.

No one is saying it is discrimination. What high taxes on tobacco does is ensure that any additional cost to state health systems caused by smoking are more than paid for by smokers themselves, and not the likes of you.

I wish that smokers and their sympathisers would stop whining about being discriminated against for engaging in a filthy, disgusting, hazardous addiction, and stop making a general nuisance of themselves.

We are voicing our disapproval at the bully state's desire to forbid consenting adults carry on our chosen 'addiction' away from those who would be upset by it. There's no accommodation, no sense that the individual should be free to do what he likes as long as it doesn't impact on others. No, because nanny knows best, and when the prohibition movement has got what it (and you) wants, which is for tobacco to be made illegal, it will turn its moral crusade towards the next 'filthy, disgusting, hazardous addiction' whether that be watching beautiful ladies lap dance, or drinking alcohol, or sun beds, or allowing sugary and fatty foods to be sold to those with a BMI over 25.

You name your poison, Fnord, because with the lifestyle fascists about no stone will be left unturned.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

You are assuming at all smokers are addicts, which is far from the truth. The health authorities cited in the OP imply that they don't want anyone who smokes as an employee, from the 60 a day man to the social smoker who only smokes when in the company of other smokers, or when drinking in their local bar at the weekends. Both would be caught with their cotinine test.

Non-smokers leap to the erroneous conclusion that all smokers smoke because they can't stop. This is just not true. There are plenty of folk, like myself, who haven't been smoking all their lives and only took up smoking later in life because they realised they enjoyed the effects of nicotine. However, I've never been very good at it and can't smoke that much, no matter how hard I try. But the last thing I want to do is give up. I smoke because I enjoy it.

I can go a day without thinking about needing a cig, particularly if I'm very busy. I am not addicted and nor am I in denial about this. I enjoy a cream bun two or three times a week but this doesn't make me addicted to cream buns.

To be labelled and addict, or even worse someone with a disability, who needs help is downright patronising.

 

[Fnord]

You are assuming at all smokers are addicts, which is far from the truth...

Oh, sure ... and you can quit any time you want to, but you don't want to quit, right?



You enjoy your regular morning coughing fit, as well as the greater risk for cancer, lung and heart disease, and peridontal disease than non-smokers, right?



And you don't really care that your second-hand stink causes respiratory problems for others, especially any children living in your home, right?



Tell you what; when you're lying in that hospice bed, getting the puss drained from the remaining half of your remaining lung, drop me a line and I'll come over and throw a bar-b-cue in your room.

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh, sure ... and you can quit any time you want to, but you don't want to quit, right?

And you can quit your predictable, sarky comments anytime, right?

You try and shoe-horn me into the definition of an addict if you can, because the American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction as: ....characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships.

There are no problems related to my light smoking of tobacco. I am fitter than most women my age, have a BMI of 20-21 and do hard cardio-vascular exercise daily (running or Bikram yoga). If you told me I couldn't have a cigarette today I would not have cravings or problems with my behaviour. This often happens if I am very busy.

You enjoy your regular morning coughing fit, as well as the greater risk for cancer, lung and heart disease, and peridontal disease than non-smokers, right?

No coughing fits here. Jeez, you do live on stereotypes, don't you? As for diseases, considering the amount that I smoke and the length of time I've been smoking, I weigh up and very small increase in risk against the pleasure I derive from my lady nicotine. Pleasure.... you wanna try that sometime.

And you don't really care that your second-hand stink causes respiratory problems for others, especially any children living in your home, right?

No one in my apartment but me.

Tell you what; when you're lying in that hospice bed, getting the puss drained from the remaining half of your remaining lung, drop me a line and I'll come over and throw a bar-b-cue in your room.

Yawn.... Oh by the way, watch that bar-be-que old bean, full of carcinogens you know

 

[Trakar]

...To be labelled and addict, or even worse someone with a disability, who needs help is downright patronising.

There are functioning heroin users that fit your routine and rationales of use, would you consider them addicts?