Discriminate Against Smokers?

The New York Times reports that "more hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants." The shift from smoke-free to smoker-free workplaces has provoked objections not only from tobacco companies but also from civil libertarians and even some anti-smoking activists.

According to the Times, the American Legacy Foundation, a leading anti-smoking group, says job discrimination against smokers is unfair because "refusing to hire smokers who are otherwise qualified essentially punishes an addiction that is far more likely to afflict a janitor than a surgeon."

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, argues that "there is nothing unique about smoking. The number of things that we all do privately that have negative impact on our health is endless. If it's not smoking, it's beer. If it's not beer, it's cheeseburgers. And what about your sex life?"

Reinforcing Maltby's slippery-slope argument, the Times notes that the head of the Cleveland Clinic, which pioneered the "No Smokers Need Apply" trend, "mused in an interview two years ago that, were it not illegal, he would expand the hospital policy to refuse employment to obese people."

But just as people should be free to set the rules for smoking on their own property, they should be free to hire employees based on whatever criteria make sense to them.

Employers may have sound financial reasons for declining to hire smokers. Although smokers seem to have lower lifetime medical expenses than nonsmokers do (because they tend to die younger), they may be more costly to insure during their working years and more likely to take sick days.

In addition, medical businesses such as hospitals may see modeling healthy behavior as part of their missions.

Whatever their reasons, freedom of contract means people should not be forced to hire smokers, any more than they should be forced to hire nonsmokers. Yet most states, in response to lobbying by cigarette manufacturers, have made it illegal to require abstinence from tobacco as a condition of employment.

The real threat to our privacy and autonomy does not come from nosy employers. It comes from an increasingly intrusive government that considers promoting "public health" one of its core functions and interprets that concept broadly enough to encompass everything people do that might increase their own risk of disease or injury. That paternalistic tendency is reinforced by the government's ever-expanding role in health care, which gives every taxpayer a financial stake in his neighbor's lifestyle.

There's a fundamental difference between a private employer's hiring policies and a government's campaign to make us all as healthy as we can be.

While a smoker or fat guy turned away by one employer can always look for work elsewhere, citizens subject to the state's paternalism cannot easily pick a different government. Nor can they opt out of their government's requirements, restrictions, taxes and bans without risking punishment for failing to fasten their seat belts, for smoking in unapproved areas, for buying untaxed tobacco or alcohol or for using illegal drugs.

Yet some of the same activists who oppose employment discrimination against smokers nevertheless support coercive government policies aimed at getting people to quit smoking.

The American Legacy Foundation, for example, is perfectly happy to "punish an addiction" through regressive taxes and legal restrictions that make it increasingly difficult for these addicts to get their fix -- even when, as with bans on outdoor smoking and separately ventilated smoking rooms, there is no plausible bystander protection rationale.

There is a kind of consistency in these seemingly contradictory positions: a consistent urge to meddle in matters that are none of the government's business.


Your thoughts?

 

I dont really care about smoking... it doesnt bother me

 

It's been this way for some time. There's just more light being shed upon it.

Your car insurance also goes up if you're a smoker.

If you are or have at one point been a smoker and are unlucky enough to catch lung cancer, emphysema, or any other various smoking related affliction, your health insurance can legally deny you coverage.

Speaking as a smoker, this is fucking awful.

 

Ever since they stopped allowing smoking in certain restaurants and what-not, they seem to keep going for smokers. I don't see a problem with it, but I'm not a big smoker myself.

 

That's stupid smoking is one's own choice and I doubt it would interfere with a job at all.

 

It's wrong, going back lets say 50 years ago, It was encouraged for men to smoke..

 

This will lead to more people quitting smoking, which is a good thing.

Smoking is a nasty habit..

 

smoking is the causing death around the world so its not a bad idea

 

When your an employer looking to hire someone. Your most desirable employee would be one that puts in 110% for you.

If they can't even put in half of that to help save their life, why would they do it for the employee?

 

I agree with this.

It's one thing for older people who got addicted before we knew it was addictive and so bad for you.

But younger kids now who start.

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPRESS.

It doesn't look cool, and shortens your life.

 

This, as mentioned in the article needs to be handled by private business owners. Business owners should be able to decide to allow or to ban smoking in their private property.

I my self don't smoke however, If you as a business owner choose to allow smokers, that's perfectly fine. In fact I believe you should be able to place a rule that says that ONLY smokers are allowed in your restaurant/bar whatever it may be.

The same should apply to a private business owner when making the costly decision of hiring new personnel, if you find that smoking cuts down on productivity then it's perfectly fine not to hire someone because they choose to engage in such an activity.

Life is a series of choices made around property (be it your business, home, car, body, etc)
If you choose to smoke that's a choice and you aren't being forced to do so
If you choose to go to a restaurant that allows smokers, that's your choice to do so - Leave or make your feelings know with management
If you choose to go to a restaurant that only allows smokers (and you don't smoke), that's your choice to do so.

See where I'm going?

-Vergil

 

/end of discussion

Karl pretty much summed it up, lol. Smoking is one of the worlds biggest industries; even though I'm against tobacco smoking product, I find it a bit extreme for a business to refuse employment because of it. They should simple just ban smoking in the building / 200 ft. radius, etc.

Also, this may be a bit off topic, but... We still need to try and get marijuana legalized. ^_^

 

Yeah I do, I wont lie about it. Smoking is f*cking nasty and nobody should do it.

 

Why should a healthy person be punished? ..

 

I wouldnt mind if the guys were chewing tobacco, that way i dont get hit by the gay secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke=worst than the original puff.

 

As a person with smoke triggered asthma, yes I do discriminate. Hospitals have every right to as well. It'd be like hiring the dietitian that eats Mcdonalds daily.

 

smoking shouldnt be used as much as people use it, sometimes its decent just to relax you but thats about it

 

I agree with this, anything to stop the younger generation from starting to smoke and making the current generation quit. Smoking tobacco should be abolished there's absolutely no point to it and what it does to you is quite frankly disgusting.

 

the products legal i personally am a light smoker because it chills me out and i dont think if someone smokes or not has to do with anything else in there lives

 

A harsh, but necessary measure to stop people from smoking. It doesn't matter if it makes you 'feel high' or not. In the end, you're harming yourself and others around you.