Florida employer: no smoking, not even on your own time

Fash · Post by **Fash** » November 8, 2007, 5:10 pm

http://www.local6.com/news/14537611/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A growing number of companies in Florida are forbidding their workers from smoking not only at work, but also in their private lives.

Westgate Resorts, the largest private employer in Central Florida, has banned smoking and won't budge from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke.

"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place," Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.

Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend -- a heavy smoker who died of cancer.

"If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you, then we are going to tell you that if you want to work for our company, you will not smoke," Seigel said.

Central Floridian Ava Bryant said she was called by a recruiter for Westgate and told not to come in for an interview because Westgate won't hire smokers.

"I call it discrimination," Bryant said. "I'm not an avid smoker or a constant smoker. I just said I smoke. Sometimes I may pick up a cigarette and smoke."

But Local 6 reporter Steven Cooper reported that at Westgate, "sometimes" is one time too many.

Seigel said his policy is cost effective and said since it went into effect, health insurance claims have gone down significantly -- making insurance more affordable for employees.

The concern for privacy groups is that policies could extend beyond health issues.

"Why should non-smokers sympathize with you?" Cooper asked Bryant.

"Because, then if it's not for the smoking, it may be something else that may infringe on their rights," Bryant said. "So, how far are you going to go with it? Like, you wear pants so we are not going to hire you because you wear pants?"

"Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory, we will do," Seigel said. "If you are an alcoholic and we have the right to fire you, we will do so. And if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you, we will do that, too."

"That sounds like discrimination," Cooper said.

"Well, I'm saying that anything that is not discriminatory," Seigel said. "If it is, we can't do very much about it."

Local 6 videotaped several Westgate employees leaving his building and smoking in a nearby strip mall.

Seigel said if those smokers are found out, they will be disciplined and assisted to quit smoking.

Seigel said when the non-smoking policy initially went into effect he gave employees a year to stop smoking and opportunities to receive counseling, patches and other smoking cessation programs.

I can't rail too much against this... I've argued in another discussion that I have the freedom to take my labor elsewhere (i forget what that was about... was it smoking related or web-surfing?)

I do think it's discrimination, though, as what you do on your own personal time is none of their business (as long as it's legal)

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 8, 2007, 5:15 pm

Obvious discrimination. But yes, who would want to work for a shitty company like that anyway.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 8, 2007, 5:20 pm

"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place," Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.

While it may be discrimination apparently it's legal. At least according to them. If there's nothing that says they can't I think there's not a whole lot anyone can do other than lobby to make it not legal to discriminate for that reason.

As noted by that quote they aren't denying that it is discrimination.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 8, 2007, 7:01 pm

None of that shite here, but if I lived in the states I'd not be staying at any Westgate resorts.

We're a dwindling market segment, under 30% now I think, but I like stories like this just so I can boycot these self-righteous fucks.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » November 8, 2007, 7:11 pm

Lol, I'd laugh if someone told me I had to quit smoking to work for them. Of course, I don't think I have much to worry about in my field.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » November 8, 2007, 7:46 pm

Sounds a bit like Scientology-led corporations. From what I heard, they pull similar tactics to bypass certain discrimination laws. I say "they" only as an assumption, my source was from someone who had worked for one briefly.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » November 9, 2007, 11:57 am

I am all for rights and freedoms but I think the company is fully within their rights here. Healthcare costs are huge for companies and smokers drive those costs up for everybody. Smokers are also more likely to miss work and use sick days for smoking related problems. This policy makes good business sense.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 9, 2007, 12:05 pm

Deward wrote:I am all for rights and freedoms but I think the company is fully within their rights here. Healthcare costs are huge for companies and smokers drive those costs up for everybody. Smokers are also more likely to miss work and use sick days for smoking related problems. This policy makes good business sense.

The "smokers driving up insurance costs" justification is bullshit when the smokers will drive up the cost no matter where they are employed. The cost of insurance that this company will have to pay would not be directly affected by any of their employees that smoke. Basically you are saying that it is okay that smokers become unemployed/uninsured just because they smoke.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 9, 2007, 12:22 pm

Boogahz wrote:The cost of insurance that this company will have to pay would not be directly affected by any of their employees that smoke.

Corporate healthcare premiums are based in part on what was paid out the previous year, so a company with a workforce of fat smokers is going to pay more.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » November 9, 2007, 1:40 pm

My company charges you a higher insurance premium if you are a smoker.
It's nice that my premiums are a little lower because I don't smoke, I don't have to shoulder as much of the costs for people who choose to be at a higher health risk, like you would in companys that charge a flat rate to everyone.
Basically you either quit, pay more, or lie about it.
They also sponsor weight watchers programs at work, letting you go on company time, and pay for Trestle Tree which is a contracted company that calls you once every three weeks to help you develop a personal health plan if you need it.
And they offer private, anonymous help for drug addicts, alcoholics, and people with depression.
All in the name of cutting our health insurance costs.
Pretty progressive for Alabama.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 9, 2007, 2:02 pm

I'd be interested to see what they think the average smoker costs a company per year in health insurance. I smoke and I went to the doctor once last year, for an annual checkup. Many of my friends at my company smoke, I don't know of a single one who was hospitalized for a single day last year for anything smoking-related. I think one of my friends might have gone to the emergency room when she had a concussion after a car accident.

I would guess that women having babies cost my company more than anything else last year, as far as health insurance is concerned. You don't hear me bitching about that though!

Smoking has an adverse effect on fertility, reducing the costs of obstetricians and expensive hospital births. Smokers are much less likely to be out participating in physical activities that can get them hurt and lead to expensive surgeries and treatments. I think the main group of smokers that cost people money are old smokers that have been smoking 2 packs a day since Vietnam. Hell, old people in general are the ones who most need the costly medical procedures and medicine. If you're going to discriminate to save money on health insurance, it should be against procreators and the elderly.

Or is that unreasonable? Because I think it's kind of unreasonable to discriminate against anyone, including smokers.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » November 9, 2007, 2:09 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'd be interested to see what they think the average smoker costs a company per year in health insurance. I smoke and I went to the doctor once last year, for an annual checkup. Many of my friends at my company smoke, I don't know of a single one who was hospitalized for a single day last year for anything smoking-related. I think one of my friends might have gone to the emergency room when she had a concussion after a car accident.

I would guess that women having babies cost my company more than anything else last year, as far as health insurance is concerned. You don't hear me bitching about that though!

Smoking has an adverse effect on fertility, reducing the costs of obstetricians and expensive hospital births. Smokers are much less likely to be out participating in physical activities that can get them hurt and lead to expensive surgeries and treatments. I think the main group of smokers that cost people money are old smokers that have been smoking 2 packs a day since Vietnam. Hell, old people in general are the ones who most need the costly medical procedures and medicine. If you're going to discriminate to save money on health insurance, it should be against procreators and the elderly.

Or is that unreasonable? Because I think it's kind of unreasonable to discriminate against anyone, including smokers.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 9, 2007, 2:11 pm

A good demonstration of one of the reasons why health care ought to be divorced from employment!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » November 9, 2007, 2:13 pm

Sueven wrote:A good demonstration of one of the reasons why health care ought to be divorced from employment!

also a good point... this is actually the first and only reason I've ever seen where it made sense.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » November 9, 2007, 2:17 pm

Men aren't involved in the baby process? Oh sorry, I didn't know.
Without it, you wouldn't be here.

You really think smoking doesn't increase your risk of lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema?
Maybe not right now, but when you are older it's probably going to catch up with you. My company employs a lot of older people, including my mother, who smokes, and who has emphysema, along with chronic bronchitis, and chronic sinus problems, and asthma. But surely none of that is from smoking. None of those require inhalers, medication, or trips to the doctor.....

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » November 9, 2007, 3:45 pm

A good demonstration of one of the reasons why health care ought to be divorced from employment!

With my arthritic knees, I was denied healthcare when I tried to get it on my own. The only way I can get coverage is through my company insurance. My son has the same problem, he takes growth hormones and he was also denied private insurance. We would be screwed if they separated healthcare from employment.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 9, 2007, 3:47 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'd be interested to see what they think the average smoker costs a company per year in health insurance. I smoke and I went to the doctor once last year, for an annual checkup. Many of my friends at my company smoke, I don't know of a single one who was hospitalized for a single day last year for anything smoking-related. I think one of my friends might have gone to the emergency room when she had a concussion after a car accident.

I would guess that women having babies cost my company more than anything else last year, as far as health insurance is concerned. You don't hear me bitching about that though!

Smoking has an adverse effect on fertility, reducing the costs of obstetricians and expensive hospital births. Smokers are much less likely to be out participating in physical activities that can get them hurt and lead to expensive surgeries and treatments. I think the main group of smokers that cost people money are old smokers that have been smoking 2 packs a day since Vietnam. Hell, old people in general are the ones who most need the costly medical procedures and medicine. If you're going to discriminate to save money on health insurance, it should be against procreators and the elderly.

Or is that unreasonable? Because I think it's kind of unreasonable to discriminate against anyone, including smokers.

I understand how that looks and would seem to make sense. However, smoking is much more expensive in the long run that any of those things you described. I just coded a 3 month inpatient chart of lung cancer that was over 8 million dollars. That's a single 48 year old 2 pack a day smoker. Furthermore, smoking is a HUGE comorbidity. It makes everything worse, from headaches to heart attacks.

I'm not playing devil's advocate here. Just trying to throw out some perspective. On the surface your logic seems sound. However, the reality is that on average, smokers will be a much larger drain than anything else I can even think of, besides drug abusers and other extreme examples. Worse yet, it's a voluntary comorbidity. Don't get me wrong. Diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidimia will always be the holy trinity of comorbidities. However, if a person has one or all 3 of those AND smokes, well, it makes a bad thing so much worse.

This isn't anti smoker rhetoric. True, I've always thought it was a pretty stupid thing to do, but since getting into the medical side of things my belief has been cemented. It is a very, very stupid thing to do.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 9, 2007, 3:55 pm

what the fuck is hyperlipidimia?

Tyek: I don't support just divorcing employment and insurance and leaving it at that. It just makes no real sense to me to tie the two together. I have no idea what structure should go up to replace it, but I'm pretty confident that there's something out there that's more logical.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 9, 2007, 4:00 pm

rhyae wrote:Men aren't involved in the baby process? Oh sorry, I didn't know.
Without it, you wouldn't be here.

Generally, the insurance which the woman is covered under would pay primary. He never said that men weren't involved. If my wife and I were on separate plans with different companies, hers would probably be paying while mine paid nothing. Therefore, I cost my company's insurance plan less money.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » November 9, 2007, 4:04 pm

It infuriates me that I can not get insurance which covers allergy serum injections, yet all sorts of weight loss, drug rehabilitation, and help-quit-smoking items are covered. During our yearly meeting with the insurance representative, I asked the man questions about this, and finally got him to admit that those things I listed above save the company money if they actually help (people lose weight, get off drugs, or quit smoking, etc), whereas Allergy serum is maintenance and allergies pose no life risk on the person.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 9, 2007, 4:08 pm

Aardor wrote:It infuriates me that I can not get insurance which covers allergy serum injections, yet all sorts of weight loss, drug rehabilitation, and help-quit-smoking items are covered. During our yearly meeting with the insurance representative, I asked the man questions about this, and finally got him to admit that those things I listed above save the company money if they actually help (people lose weight, get off drugs, or quit smoking, etc), whereas Allergy serum is maintenance and allergies pose no life risk on the person.

Did you mention the life-risk to others if you don't get your motherfucking shots?! I don't miss having bad allergy problems. local bee-pollen honey has worked wonders for me

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » November 9, 2007, 4:47 pm

Boogahz wrote:
rhyae wrote:Men aren't involved in the baby process? Oh sorry, I didn't know.
Without it, you wouldn't be here.
Generally, the insurance which the woman is covered under would pay primary. He never said that men weren't involved. If my wife and I were on separate plans with different companies, hers would probably be paying while mine paid nothing. Therefore, I cost my company's insurance plan less money.

Yeah. I was coming from the direction of reproductive services as an angle to penalize or discriminate against women by making them pay more for being the baby incubators.
Can't compare smoking and reproduction imho.
Consequences of completely quitting all smoking: longer, healthier lives and lower medical costs.
Consequences of completely quitting all reproduction: end of civilization.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 9, 2007, 5:30 pm

Sylvus wrote: I smoke and I went to the doctor once last year, for an annual checkup.

I thought you quit, did you fall off the bandwagon?

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » November 9, 2007, 5:32 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Aardor wrote:It infuriates me that I can not get insurance which covers allergy serum injections, yet all sorts of weight loss, drug rehabilitation, and help-quit-smoking items are covered. During our yearly meeting with the insurance representative, I asked the man questions about this, and finally got him to admit that those things I listed above save the company money if they actually help (people lose weight, get off drugs, or quit smoking, etc), whereas Allergy serum is maintenance and allergies pose no life risk on the person.
Did you mention the life-risk to others if you don't get your motherfucking shots?! I don't miss having bad allergy problems. local bee-pollen honey has worked wonders for me

Bee-pollen honey? Haven't heard of that one, what exactly do you do? I will pretty much try anything at this point. And I can't totally complain about insurance, I do pay like $50 for 3 months supply of 6 different medications I take, all mostly for allergies.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 9, 2007, 5:36 pm

I would just get honey made from local bee pollen. Some family friends used to keep bees on their property, and we would get honey from them. I was told to try it by one of the doctor's that I went to growing up. I think that just helped me build up a tolerance for whatever was in the air that caused so many issues for me. I have done it in three different places that I lived, and it worked in every one. It was difficult to find some in Lubbock though. I guess that the bees don't even like that place.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 9, 2007, 5:44 pm

rhyae wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
rhyae wrote:Men aren't involved in the baby process? Oh sorry, I didn't know.
Without it, you wouldn't be here.
Generally, the insurance which the woman is covered under would pay primary. He never said that men weren't involved. If my wife and I were on separate plans with different companies, hers would probably be paying while mine paid nothing. Therefore, I cost my company's insurance plan less money.
Yeah. I was coming from the direction of reproductive services as an angle to penalize or discriminate against women by making them pay more for being the baby incubators.
Can't compare smoking and reproduction imho.
Consequences of completely quitting all smoking: longer, healthier lives and lower medical costs.
Consequences of completely quitting all reproduction: end of civilization.

I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that men weren't involved in the baby process. I also wasn't suggesting that women should be forced to pay higher premiums. I was merely pointing out that having children is a choice that people make, as is smoking, that increases health insurance costs for coworkers. Relative merits of the two choices aside (as they are not comparable in the slightest), they are both personal choices that have an impact on the finances of one's coworkers.

I am not suggesting in the slightest that smoking is a good decision. Far from it, it's one of the worst decisions a person can make and one that I wish I never had. I just think that there are all kinds of choices that people can make that have a monetary impact on health insurance, and I don't know that I find it fair for me to be expected to be cool with footing the bill for other people's choices if I can't do what I want to do. Legally allowing discrimination because it hurts a company's bottom line feels like a slippery slope to me. Once smokers are forced out of working for companies in an effort to minimize spending on health care and maximize profits, what's next? Fat people? People with diabetes? And after them? Should a company be allowed to discriminate against employees (men or women) who want to have babies if that company's insurance would be the one covering the costs?

I'm not going to pretend like smoking doesn't have a direct impact on people's health, but there are people who smoke their whole lives and don't get cancer or emphysema. There are people who get those diseases without ever having smoked. Should a company be allowed to discriminate against someone who used to work in asbestos removal? Where do you draw the line?

Chidoro wrote:I thought you quit, did you fall off the bandwagon?

Unfortunately, yes, I fell into the trap that has gotten me before. Thinking I had broken the addiction and could have a smoke now and again as the mood struck me. I realize that's not ever going to be an option. I'm going to try quitting again soon, I'll hopefully have more success this time.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 9, 2007, 5:48 pm

Sylvus wrote:Where do you draw the line?

Let's start with the obvious and work our way down.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » November 9, 2007, 6:06 pm

there are people who smoke their whole lives and don't get cancer or emphysema. There are people who get those diseases without ever having smoked.

Those two things being true... how has a causal relationship been made between them?

My father smoked for over 40 years before quitting cold turkey, had his lungs checked (they were fine), and gained nearly 50% of his body weight (which caused health problems)... go figure. Swapping one addiction (smoking) with another (eating) is not the answer, but I doubt if he kept smoking he'd have half the problems he has now.

I consider myself a healthy smoker and my vital signs are all pretty much optimal... I discourage smoking in those who are not healthy.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » November 9, 2007, 6:18 pm

Fash wrote: I discourage smoking in those who are not healthy.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 9, 2007, 6:24 pm

After having several family members die a horrible death from cancer and also seeing what I do now on a daily basis in the hospital, I often think about the tragedy of smokers. Pretty much all smokers begin when they are in their teens. Almost all of them began smoking well before 18. At this age, most people do not have a concept of their own mortality. It's not even in the cards. Advance into the 20's and 30's, and many smokers start to realize their habit is not good for them. By this time, it is effecting their health in various ways. Some small, some big. All are warning signs that are ignored for various reasons. Most people in general do not think about what the future holds for their health. Old age is still along way off and is not a motivating factor to make them quit. By the time a serious condition is identified, it's too late. Suddenly, realization sets in. They should've stopped years ago, yadda, yadda. Listening to a terminal cancer patient's smoking history is very difficult because there is almost always a realization in the patient's story that they brought this terrible death upon themselves.

It's very sad, no matter how many times I see it.

Btw, I think every resp. therepist in our hospital smokes. I always thought that was ironic.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 9, 2007, 7:03 pm

Anything to fix allergies??!?!?!?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_irrigation

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 9, 2007, 7:59 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: I understand how that looks and would seem to make sense. However, smoking is much more expensive in the long run that any of those things you described. I just coded a 3 month inpatient chart of lung cancer that was over 8 million dollars. That's a single 48 year old 2 pack a day smoker. Furthermore, smoking is a HUGE comorbidity. It makes everything worse, from headaches to heart attacks.

Smoking two packs a day is akin to being an alcoholic. All the ranting is based on these people, and frankly I'm not surprised they die before 50. I don't expect anyone that abuses a substance to that extent to live long.

However, every time I see one of those "when will you die?" surveys, a 1/2 pack a day habit reduces your lifespan by an average of 1-2 years over a person that never smoked. Yes, you might have a predisposition to some disease that makes the last few years uncomfortable, but there's no real evidence that "light" smoking is the same as heavy smoking.

The anti-smoking lobby however doesn't want to discriminate between alcoholic levels of smoking and social smoking, nor does this employer. They have *something* against all smokers and they will use any bullshit rhetoric to attempt to justify it.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » November 9, 2007, 8:29 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote: I understand how that looks and would seem to make sense. However, smoking is much more expensive in the long run that any of those things you described. I just coded a 3 month inpatient chart of lung cancer that was over 8 million dollars. That's a single 48 year old 2 pack a day smoker. Furthermore, smoking is a HUGE comorbidity. It makes everything worse, from headaches to heart attacks.
Smoking two packs a day is akin to being an alcoholic. All the ranting is based on these people, and frankly I'm not surprised they die before 50. I don't expect anyone that abuses a substance to that extent to live long.

However, every time I see one of those "when will you die?" surveys, a 1/2 pack a day habit reduces your lifespan by an average of 1-2 years over a person that never smoked. Yes, you might have a predisposition to some disease that makes the last few years uncomfortable, but there's no real evidence that "light" smoking is the same as heavy smoking.

The anti-smoking lobby however doesn't want to discriminate between alcoholic levels of smoking and social smoking, nor does this employer. They have *something* against all smokers and they will use any bullshit rhetoric to attempt to justify it.

Yeah, the fact that heavy/light/social smoking doesn't make a difference here is part of what is screwed up. Plus, he based the whole policy on a friend, who was a heavy smoker, dying from cancer:

Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend -- a heavy smoker who died of cancer.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » November 9, 2007, 9:29 pm

It is his company so he makes the rules - if you find out the rules and cannot abide by them I guess you do not have to work there - seems pretty simple to me.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 9, 2007, 9:56 pm

Zaelath wrote:The anti-smoking lobby however doesn't want to discriminate between alcoholic levels of smoking and social smoking, nor does this employer. They have *something* against all smokers and they will use any bullshit rhetoric to attempt to justify it.

Point is he doesn't really have to justify it. It's perfectly legal and within their rights as the business owner.

Not only that but there's no way to determine 'consumption'. If you smoke you smoke and smoking is not good for your health. That's pretty black and white. Add in the "How much do you smoke?" and you're getting into grey areas.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 9, 2007, 10:25 pm

Fash wrote:I consider myself a healthy smoker and my vital signs are all pretty much optimal... I discourage smoking in those who are not healthy.

And then one day out of the blue you have a stroke, because you're taking in a something that constricts your blood vessels and you had a little piece of something floating through your system that would pass right through on a non-smoker. That's one of the more common consequences, starting at about age 40. There's a lot of potential consequences even to being a light smoker. The longer you smoke, the more likely you are to begin facing some of them.

Are there people who smoke their whole life with no consequences? Certainly, but they're the exception, kind of like the person who drowns after driving into a river and having the seat belt release get stuck.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 9, 2007, 10:29 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Zaelath wrote:The anti-smoking lobby however doesn't want to discriminate between alcoholic levels of smoking and social smoking, nor does this employer. They have *something* against all smokers and they will use any bullshit rhetoric to attempt to justify it.
Point is he doesn't really have to justify it. It's perfectly legal and within their rights as the business owner.

Not only that but there's no way to determine 'consumption'. If you smoke you smoke and smoking is not good for your health. That's pretty black and white. Add in the "How much do you smoke?" and you're getting into grey areas.

Drinking kills more people every year than any illicit drug known to man put together. Are you OK with enforcing a "no drinking at all" ban on a work place too?

How about a "no fatties because they're a health insurance burden"? What about "No ugly people because they don't encourage repeat business"? How about "No fat chicks because they a health insurance risk *and* ugly"?

It may be perfectly legal, but it shouldn't be. And my point is not that I don't have to work there (which is a bullshit argument, would you say "you black people don't have to ride this bus"?), my point is that a not insignificant proportion of the community should tell this guy to go fuck himself and withdraw their patronage.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » November 9, 2007, 10:36 pm

I've seen some hot fat women before! The trick is being proportioned!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 10, 2007, 1:00 am

Ultimately, as has been mentioned, if an employer refused to employ fat people for the reasons many of you are mentioning, none of you would think twice about criticising it.

Yes, smoking is bad for you, we get it. The anti-smoking faggot bandwagon is getting out of control.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 10, 2007, 1:48 am

Nick wrote:Ultimately, as has been mentioned, if an employer refused to employ fat people for the reasons many of you are mentioning, none of you would think twice about criticising it.

Yes, smoking is bad for you, we get it. The anti-smoking faggot bandwagon is getting out of control.

And I'm not criticizing them about not wanting to hire smokers either. What's your point? As employers they have that right. Don't like that as an employee? Do something about changing it.

Here are the only reasons an employer is legally obligated not to discriminate: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, physical or mental disability, or age. Everything else is up to them. Whine about it all you want and insult the 'anti-smoking bandwagon' but it doesn't help your cause any.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 10, 2007, 7:35 am

Zaelath wrote:It may be perfectly legal, but it shouldn't be. And my point is not that I don't have to work there (which is a bullshit argument, would you say "you black people don't have to ride this bus"?), my point is that a not insignificant proportion of the community should tell this guy to go fuck himself and withdraw their patronage.

Regardless of whether smoking is smart or not, I agree with that entirely. Smokers and fat people seem to be acceptable targets for employment discrimination. Refusing to hire morbidly obese people has already gone to court here, the fat person lost.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 11, 2007, 4:22 am

Aslanna wrote:
Zaelath wrote:The anti-smoking lobby however doesn't want to discriminate between alcoholic levels of smoking and social smoking, nor does this employer. They have *something* against all smokers and they will use any bullshit rhetoric to attempt to justify it.
Point is he doesn't really have to justify it. It's perfectly legal and within their rights as the business owner.

Not only that but there's no way to determine 'consumption'. If you smoke you smoke and smoking is not good for your health. That's pretty black and white. Add in the "How much do you smoke?" and you're getting into grey areas.

This isn't exactly true. They've found small amounts of niccotine to be helpful in preventing Alzheimer's. There simply hasn't been much research into anything other than tobacco's relationship to cancer.

There are assloads of grey areas already. Moderate drinking, especially red wine, IS healthy. Why is it automatically assumed that having the occasional smoke is BAD BAD BAD?

Asheran Mojomaster · November 11, 2007, 5:35 am

If cigarettes were just made from organic grown tobacco (no pesticides) and weren't filled with chemicals during processing they wouldn't even be that bad for you. They also wouldn't be as addictive though, so that most likely won't happen.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » November 11, 2007, 1:57 pm

Sueven wrote:Anything to fix allergies??!?!?!?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_irrigation

That is the best shit ever btw. I've been fighting a sinus infection caused by allergies for the last week and it wasn't until 3 days ago when I started doing this that I've been able to breathe through my nose.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 12, 2007, 9:35 am

masteen wrote:Why is it automatically assumed that having the occasional smoke is BAD BAD BAD?

I've seen a couple of articles that say small amounts of nicotine are good for you in a number of areas, but overwhelminly that the delivery method(s) will eventually kill you. It's not just the carcinogens, the spikes in dosage caused by smoking are a problem among others. I'm not going to take a stab at what's OK, I'm sure there's a threshold that most people's body can deal with though.

One I read was speaking to who actually smokes today, and what they're self treating for. It's not a coincidence that the poor and people suffering from depression and other mental issues also have he highest incidence of tobacco use. Does that include everyone who smokes? Not at all.