Discrimination Against Smokers Today...Who's Next?

I have seen this story coming for many years, and I do believe it is just a matter of time before employers will be able to say, hey, you are 5 -10 lbs overweight, can't hire you. Sorry you are pregnant, a high risk for using our health plan, nope can't hire you. You are married with five children, nope! You ski, ride motorcycles, and hike in the woods, these are dangerous activities and we can't have you doing that on your off time, because it may cost us in health benefits. See the goal is to pay your benefits because we are a great employer, but we don't want anyone using the benefits, because that would increase our premiums. So everybody must live the life we sanction, else you can't work here.

I just yesterday, lost a cousin, who was just 40 years old, the picture of health, she was a hiker, outdoorsy type of lifestyle, no smoking, no drinking, no bad food, no alcohol. But she died after numerous rounds of toxic medicine to kill the cancer ravaging her body. The air she was breathing in Southern Ontario, is certainly not the problem. If everyone in a community lived 'the proper lifestyle' and still died from cancer, maybe then they would recognize that it isn't the daily choice of lifestyle but the greater damage to the planet that is killing us. It has become popular and easy to target smokers', every period in time has a group of people they can discriminate against openly, with the full sanctioning of their government. This is the no smoking era! But the government still makes a great deal of money from tobacco products, far more then they spend on research to try to cure it. Also the drug companies make money off the stop smoking products, and the cures for cancer. When your employer can tell you, that you can't smoke on your off time, we have a problem. For what it's worth, I am totally against the popular discrimation and I would even go so far as to call it a systematic tool to allow employers to discriminate with full sanction of the government. Many people will think this is ok, because they have become brainwashed into believing much of the hype. I fear that tomorrow's workforce will be the elite, with new allowable discrimination rules in place.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Sorry to hear about your cousin but as a medical transcriptionist I can tell you that your cousin is the exception. The vast, vast majority of people coming in with cancers are not living the lifestyle you describe for your cousin. I can also tell you that as far as any cancer of the respiratory system and chronic illnesses such as emphysema and COPD, heart disease and stroke smokers far outweigh nonsmokers in these cases.

On a personal note, I can tell you that it is no fun watching you 74-year-old mother in a hospital bed struggling to get more than the shallowest of breaths and going into a confused state because she can't clear the CO2 from her system; all because a 50-year smoking history has left her with such limited lung function that she couldn't fight off a lung infection any nonsmoker at that age and in reasonable health otherwise could easily overcome. My mom got out of hospital and had since gotten a pneumonia that the doctor described as a very serious infection but since nearly quitting smoking in the interim between admissions my mom was not in a life-threatening condition this time. She is, however, now tied to an oxygen tank that she has to carry with her wherever she goes. If this is something you think you would look forward to by all means continue smoking.

This nonsense of arguing that laws against smoking contravene a person's rights is just plain bullshit usually advocated by smokers who don't want to face the reality of their addiction. Case in point, Ralph Klein just recently shot down a proposal by one of his MPs to enact a law banning smoking in public places in all of Alberta. After months of making comments against such a law we then find out Klein is still smoking 1/2-pack per day (which in reality means closer to one pack per day, as smokers always under report the amount they smoke).

Your argument that passing such laws will lead to other such laws is lame and basically amounts to a non sequitur, as such actions could be stopped at any time they are deemed unreasonable.

Well actually I don't agree, as I said, mainly because the reality is that overweight, and it's health issues will be next, and any employer will be able to discrimate on various issues. That is the issue, we could debate whether smoking is the real cause of cancers, or whether everything else pollutants are major contributors. I know I see my step-father dying of emphazema, and yes he does smoke, and no he can't quit, but he also worked in the mines for years when he was young, is it asbestos or cigarettes or both? My point isn't really about whether in one person's opinion it is a good idea to smoke or not, it is whether the employer has the right to discriminate against, what a person does on their off time. Employers will next be saying if you drink on your own time, you are a health risk, which could be argued, if you are an alcoholic, you may miss Monday's etc. But I think the line is being drawn in the sand here, and I think because it is popular to discriminate against smokers, we are all being sucked into the plan. Next it will be legislated exercise classes, and you can only eat certain foods the gov or employer says you can. Sorry but I see this as a bigger issue. Much bigger.

Remember the old, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, well here we go again.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

I don't smoke tobacco, (or anything else these days), and I don't think anyone should smoke tobacco products. I don't think employers should be able to discriminate against those who do smoke other than saying that you can only smoke in designated areas. I don't think governments should tax smokers for their tobacco products because they are obviously addicted. I think tobacco companies should be required to provide the patch, Zyban (Wellbutrin), hypnotism , classes or anything else that would help people to quit smoking. The tobacco companies should provide this and the cost should be included in the price of the product. I think tobacco companies should not be allowed to add anything to their tobacco products, no formaldehyde, no pages and pages of additives designed to rush the nicotine to the brain quicker. <p>I think Catherine is right, tobacco is being used as a scapegoat. The <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050523151543265">Cartagena biosafety protocol</a> final draft is being debated at the international convention in Montreal starting on May 25th. Corporate and government interests are seeking to minimize any liabilities they might incur from their shoddy products <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050519175021664">in any way that they can</a> (in this case it is plants and animals that have had their DNA altered). <p>The petrochemical industry knows full well that their gas pump jockeys are exposed to carcinogenic vapors every time they pump gas. Petrochemical industry chemists wear remote air respirators in their labs, when was the last time you saw a pump jockey with a remote air supply rig on? The petrochemical industry knows full well that carbon monoxide(CO) is soaked up by the blood in a 32 to 1 ratio to oxygen. They know that CO causes cell to make fatty weak muscle tissue which is a cause of heart disease. They don't want causes and effects to be discussed because it is bad for business and the only business they care about is the making money business. So the governments make deals with tobacco companies as to how much will be paid for the damages they have and are causing with their products. Then they pass the costs on to those who are addicted to their products (products which have additives put into them to foster addiction). Then they blame the victims. God damn the pusher man! <p>I think the idea is to blame the plethora of industry generated carcinogenic, mutinagenic and teratogenic diseases on one cause. Divert our attention from all the other possible factors which may have caused the disease.

Discrimination has always been around, and yes, more new ones are being added as some old ones fade away. Homeless people are discriminated virtually out of the workforce, and natives will tell you that discrimination is to such an extent that many companies hire non-natives to work in stores that are on reserves. The lazy and stupid likewise seldom 'get a break'. The question is, can they fulfill all their duties as employees, and increasingly, as companies become more sales and team oriented and society changes, the answer becomes no. A heroin addict is likely to be discriminated against, and those with a record have a harder time as well. If I say I hate corporations and capitalism a Fortune 500 company probably won't hire me, even though I could fulfill the job's duties as easily as any other applicant.

There are two sides to the story, both are expressed well, and I don't even know which I agree with. The 'slippery slope' argument hasn't really held the test of time very well. That other things cause cancer is no real defense of the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, something which even those who sell them have agreed with.
We are quickly realizing the obese are not that way because they want to be. Coffee is extremely addictive as just about any canadian will tell you, but their horrible breath, cups littered everywhere, caffeine addled minds are not yet among those targeted-will they be 'next'? Who knows? More importantly, SHOULD they be? To my mind Canada is a drug propped slave camp where everything is aimed toward being able to keep you working. We'll decriminalize and even support the drugs that keep you working, while banish all the drugs that enhance recreation and 'lazying about' (there's a reason they're called recreational drugs).

Like any other discrimination, this has merits. Smokers are addicted, yet the government doesn't treat it as a disability so the company cannot benefit from any of the programs which are normally present to deal with problems arising from the issue. Smokers often smell, which is a disturbance to other workers, particularly as people are increasingly sensitive to odours. Anybody who knows a smoker knows full well what they are like when they 'need their fix'. In a work setting where constant work is most desirable, the breaks are not welcome. In any work situation we have to remember, there are many applicants, so it's hard to figure out if somebody is discriminated against, or just not as desirable as another candidate.

We know that discrimination on overweight people already exists and has for years-it just isn't newsworthy. Likewise studies have shown that attractive people are at a clear advantage when it comes to career success. But uggos don't have a lobby group.

Try finding an acting or modelling job if you're overweight. Likewise, if you're overweight or a smoker you probably aren't going to be hired as a salesperson for exercise equipment. That's just business. The real failing is as mentioned, that the government doesn't want to recognize it as a disability because then it has to actually do something. It has to support companies that have addicted workers, and it has to grant them rights under the charter.

I too am a nonsmoker, and smoke as well as most other pollutants, make me sick so I tend to favor Hoopoe's arguement because it certainly works in my favor. If smoke is removed from my personal space, I'm happy, and feeling better. However, I would hate to think that this is the edge of the slope, that would lead to discrimination by employers for reasons unrelated to how well a person could do a job. Also like Milton pointed out it is too typical that smokers are so openly restricted while industry gets a carte blanche to pollute however it likes.
It's too easy to blame cancer on lifestyles, as it put no onus on industry to reign in the pollution. We hear about parents not exposing their children to second hand smoke in the home, but little (at least until just recently) about how cleaning products and the increasing glut of air fresheners and scented products sanctioned by the regulatory bodies, and sold to consumers are poisoning people in their own homes. I was off work for a six months after the office I worked in was sprayed with pesticides for paper fleas six times in a three month period. After the sixth dose when I reported for work the papers on my desk, and my chair cushion where still wet with pesticide. The short term result was that I couldn't correctly answer what my own name was when asked, until after I had fumbled around for a few seconds trying to come up with it.
It is also too easy to rate a persons health risk on one factor ie. weight, smoking, or what they eat. Sure they indicate risk, but they are not the whole picture. I saw a bit on TV recently highlighting risk to bone density from eating disorders. A young women with anorexia had the bone density of an 80- yr-old woman and had snapped her femour just from jogging. I couldn't help think that If I saw that tiny body jogging around town, I would envy the implied good health just from the size of her. I guess it's not always that straight forward, you have to look at all the variables. People in Sydney Cape Breton, are told that the high rate of cancer for their region is due to lifestyle choices, and yes a lot do smoke, but it nicely ignores the greatest health threat which is the tar ponds.
I feel that measures that remove second hand smoke from the public at large are necessary, but I don't see why employers have to weigh in except for how it relates to smoking in the workplace.

With Liberals being so adamant about legalizing pot, which is far more dangerous than cigarettes, because it has been shown that smoking pot regularly reduces the user's IQ and thus creates a society full of dysfunctional people, I don't see why smokers need to be discriminated against in such a foul manner.

<br><br>It's hard to discuss this issue without coming across as an off the wall alarmist or some sort of apologist for the tobacco industry and smokers.<br><br> I'd suggest though that neither the health effects of smoking or 'smoker's rights' are the issue here.<br><br> A related article:<br><br> <a href="http://www.workplacefairness.org/2005_01_30_pblog_archive.php">Flash in the Pan, or Threatening Trend: Workplace Smoking Restrictions</a><br><br> Whether factual or not, the article above indicates the employees were let go because they refused to take a test to 'verify' they were not smokers.<br><br> Assuming this is the case, the four lost their jobs for refusing to take a test that would verify whether they were partaking in a legal activity.<br><br> As concerns hoopoe's comment 'as such actions could be stopped at any time they are deemed unreasonable.', forty years ago would society have considered the above to be reasonable, even had the health problems attributable to smoking been fully known?<br><br> I not sure it would have.<br><br> What will be considered 'reasonable' forty years from now? Almost anything can be made to appear 'reasonable' given the right spin.<br><br> Health concerns are always the first mentioned in 'smoker' discussions. While these are in themselves legitimate, both for the smoker and those around them, inevitably the discussion gets around to what may be the 'real problem' for most, this being the costs attributable to smoking on productivity, insurance plans and the health system.<br><br> If these costs are the real issue for many, or most, initiating the discussion, there are, as the article and other contributors have indicated, a number of health problems, lifestyle choices and activities that can also be demonstrated to 'cost' the system. Some health problems may be common or likely to occur to any or all however, others are not.<br><br> Given that health problems can be costly, why should I as an employer have to risk hiring anyone who may have a gentic predisposition for certain diseases? Would it not be both prudent and reasonable for me to reduce the risk of unecessary health related costs to the company and other employees (premium wise) through through the identification and screening out of 'high risk' individuals in the initial employment process? What's to prevent me from doing so?<br><br> <a href="http://huntingtondisease.tripod.com/genetictesting/id11.html">Genetic Information and the Workplace Restrictions</a><br><br> For that matter, is there any benefit to society in having potential 'high cost' drains on the health system born in the first place? Why not just test every potential parent to ensure they're not passing along genetic traits that could add additional costs to the system, or result productive individual than might otherwise be 'desirable' in society. If 2% of the population is likely to pass along some genetic trait that may cause their children to be more costly to the system, might a case not be made to the remaining 98% of society that it is not in society's interests that the 2% have children?<br><br> As I mentioned, it's difficult to discuss these types of issue without coming across as alarmist or off the wall and I'm not indicating any of my above comments will in fact become legitimate concerns in the coming years.<br><br> Still, I wouldn't dismiss the slippery slope too quickly. If people don't keep an eye out for it, they may be in for quite a fall.<br><br> Interestingly enough, drug/tobacco testing has created its own little cottage industry.<br><br> <a href="http://www.2passyourtest.com/index.html">PassYourTest</a> <p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />

"What will be considered 'reasonable' forty years from now? Almost anything can be made to appear 'reasonable' given the right spin."

Witness the banning of trans fats by law here in Canada, enacted by those who profess to be for our individual rights and freedoms. Those who profess to be against big corporate, or big government control over the lives of the average "little guy" in Canada. Tobacco use, ice cream, sugar, pork, caffeinated beverages, alcoholic beverages. What will be next on the hit parade? Will it be your favorite indulgence next? One can only speculate.

Hockey players get injured and have to be treated more frequently than others who don't play hockey, thereby creating an unfair burden on the "system". Causing all the people who don't play hocky in their off time to pick up the tab for them, again unfairly. The irrational, irresponsible hockey players should not be covered by the health plan, let alone be employed at all. They are mindless and selfish. After all they have been informed, have they not, that playing hockey can cause injury? There are even labels on the hockey helments which officially, and legally warn them of the risk and dangers, yet they still go ahead and play anyway, and we continue to pick up the tab.

And while we are actively attempting to ban our own favourite "evil of the day", or impose "sinners taxes" upon its use to our own financial benefit, what are we doing in the meantime? We are still actively engaged in attempting to legalize, and in fact encouraging, the use of marijuana as a new Canadian standard to be held up to the world as an example of our "progressive, enlightened" state of being.

Vive le canada!

Smokers contibute an enormous percentage of their income in a voluntary tax that isn't really voluntary when one considers the addictiveness of tobacco.

This tax has been justified by claiming that smokers health care costs are higher than those of non-smokers.

If all gov't costs are included (pensions etc) it turns out that smokers cost the gov't less than non-smokers because smokers die earlier and quicker.

Hate to use the word conspiracy, lol, but...

Um, it is *already* illegal to smoke pot (for now, anyway), and employers can fire people for drug use. Tobacco, which has many, many studies showing its harmful effects (I'd take a lower IQ over cancer any day) is only now catching up.

(note: I won't believe that pot causes lower IQ without seeing such studies myself).

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

What province are you from? BC? No one is trying to legalize the use of MJ, and no one that I recall is advocating it's use (excluding the usual fringe groups).

It's time smokers were seen for what they are - addicts. Cigarette warnings featured on the package tout that "cigarettes are more addictive that heroin" and no one seems to draw the obvoius conclusion that quitting smoking is somewhat harder and should be treated as such.


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

My main concern here is not so much the 'health risk' to smoking, as many other issues pose health risks, and many people can object to another person's choices. For instance the well it smells bad, so does garlic breath, and so does some ethnic cooking, which to one person smells great to another, yuk! It is that once an employer has the right to tell you what you can or can't do on your off time, as per his right to pay less premiums etc, then where will we draw the line. If you are not a smoker you see this as progress to clean up the public air, but tomorrow your choice to drink on the weekend or have wine with dinner, could be cause for firing, or your choice to sky-dive, or drive a fast car, or paint as a hobby, could increase your health risk.

I am just wondering if anyone considers that life is meant to be lived, and that living should be a choice for people, not an imposed choice, according to what is popular at the time. When cigarettes were issued to military, and standard coming of age practice, nobody complained. Prohibition showed us what happens to society when the moral authority starts imposing their choices on everyone else.

Personally I find that employers already have too much influence on our private time, this is going to far!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Well in actual fact I don't agree, as there is no such thing as discrimination against smokers. If we go with your argument thtat using reason to control one issue will lead to rampant abuse and abandonment of reason when deciding to enact laws on other more minor issues is to deny the fact that we humans have enough intelligence to know when to draw a line. To use your argument we shouldn't discriminate against rape by having laws against it because it may lead to discrimination against what many consider to be more minor sexual deviances. This is the same backward reasoning that smokers use against passing laws banning smoking from public places, ie. you may as well ban cars because they pollute too. Also, if you think smokers only smoke on their off time, you are deluded; I have yet to see a smoker who doesn't have to find time to have a cigarette at least every hour (seems to me that would likely be the employers time). Why do you think your step-father can't quit even though it is obviously compromising his health, and for your information emphysema is a direct result of smoking and is not related to asbestos (this would be asbestosis which is an entirely different disease). By the way, it has been definitively proven that smoking causes cancer, so please come out of your denial. As you can probably guess, I don't smoke, do you? I think we have a right to know when you are taking a position as above.

You seem to have missed my point that human intelligence is fully capable of making the sorts of distinctions necessary to enact individual laws. As far as you statement about coming for the Jews, I find that a complete misappropriation of that quote and indeed your use of it here trivializes the events to which it refers.