Hiring Smokers Banned In South Florida City 1199
Penurious Penguin writes "On October 2, City Commissioners of Delray Beach finalized a policy which prohibits agencies from hiring employees who use tobacco products. Delray Beach isn't alone though; other Florida cities such as Hollywood and Hallandale Beach, require prospective employees to sign affidavits declaring themselves tobacco-free for 12 months prior to the date of application. Throughout the states, both
government and businesses are moving to ban tobacco-use beyond working hours. Many medical facilities, e.g. hospitals, have implemented or intend to implement similar policies. In some more-aggressive environments referred to as nicotine-free, employee urine-samples can be taken and tested for any presence of nicotine, not excluding that from gum or patches. Employees testing positive can be terminated. Times do change, and adaptation is often a necessary burden. But have they changed so much that we'd now postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had toked his pipe? Would we confine our vision to the Milky Way or snub the 1373 Cincinnati because Hubble smoked his? Would we shun relativity, or shelve the works of Tolkien because he and C. S. Lewis had done the same? If so, then where will it stop?"
Have you seen the tobacco packaging in Australia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tobacco products complying with the world’s first plain-packaging laws started arriving in Australia’s stores around Oct. 1. [businessweek.com]
New government standards set out the images and health warnings that must cover 75 percent of the front of cigarette packs. Among them: a gangrenous foot, a tongue cancer, a toilet stained with bloody urine, and a skeletal man named Bryan who is dying of lung cancer. Further warnings must appear on the sides and cover 90 percent of the back.
The High Court of Australia in August dismissed a claim by British American Tobacco (BTI), Philip Morris (MO), Imperial Tobacco, and Japan Tobacco International that the law illegally seizes their intellectual property by banning the display of trademarks. Appeals have also been lodged by Honduras, Ukraine, and the Dominican Republic at the World Trade Organization, claiming the law restricts the tobacco trade.
Cigarette makers are right to fear the regulations, says David Hammond, an expert in tobacco rules at the University of Waterloo in Canada: “Once tobacco control measures are established in one country, they spread.”
Where will it end? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now Tobacco/Nicotine, soon to come:
Meat eaters need not apply, only strict vegetarians. The risk of eating high fat dietary items carries a higher risk of medical issues.
What a Load of Bullcrap! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Make it illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not just make smoking illegal?
So far, every time there's been any attempt to make things that are dangerous to people illegal in the US, half the country has a hissy fit and insists that they should have the right to do anything and everything they please, no matter how sensible it is to just stop doing the dangerous thing.
Good. Ban it too. (Score:0, Interesting)
Then legalize other drugs that are not harmful in doses that still give a better result than stupid cancerous crap like that.
Note that I mean things taken, not smoked. Smoking is cancerous, period. Burning of pretty much anything organic is.
I don't take anything just to point that out. But I certainly know damn well that there are drugs out there that don't do any damage in sensible dosages and still give some result in the end. (feeling good, painless, creative, whatever the hell you want)
Pain killers are already abused. You think it is going to make a damn difference that these would be? THEY ALREADY ARE WITH THE LAWS.
At least this abuse would be LESS damaging than the damn street drugs that are mixed with DIRT and BRICK DUST and CLEANING AGENTS.
Even ecstasy is now being looked at again after all those retards using street drugs as a reason to ban them were pushed aside.
Street drugs != pure drugs. At all.
Legalization of drugs has already been proven to cut down abuse various times in various countries and cities. Only a moron would question it.
So, I am completely behind this. Ban actually dangerous drugs, legalize the others that give something more productive and not damaging in sensible doses.
No, banning it in public doesn't work. What it does is just hurt children more because they are being infected by their disease. And in turn causes more children to take up that crap.
Outright ban for blatantly damaging activity.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Have you seen the tobacco packaging in Australi (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Uruguay, we've had that for a couple of years, I think. A quick google images search of "uruguay paquetes de cigarrillos" will show you what that will look like (only the ones in Spanish are Uruguayan: www.google.com/search?q=uruguay paquetes de cigarrillos&tbm=isch).
They say that, in conjunction with a broad prohibition of smoking everywhere inside, it's working very well, esp. with young people
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
If smoking is so great and such a valuable right that others shouldn't be able to stop you doing it whenever and wherever you please, why do cigarette companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to keep convincing people they need to keep doing it?
They don't. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to try to get people to start smoking (or re-start as the case may be). Current smokers basically ignore most cigarette advertising as the vast majority will stick to one brand once they're accustomed to it.
I smoked for over half of my life; and just quit two weeks ago. Cigarette advertising was something that I hardly noticed before - now I see it everywhere.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if anybody "enjoys" smoking. They probably enjoyed it the first year or two when it was cool to hang out with the friends and feel cool "smoking", but nobody enjoys smelling like that all day long, or having their breath stink, or have your body take the toll it goes through from smoking. It's something that starts out socially, and then slowly but surely becomes incorporated into their daily living experience as a vice.
Someone needs to come up with some new "cool" way for people who hardly know each other can hang out and feel part something that doesn't involved sex, drugs, alcohol or smoking something. Smoking is a gateway to feel like you have friends. If you ask a stranger for a bite of a hamburger or a couple french fries they're going to think you're insane, ask for a light or a cigarette and they'll put down whatever they're doing and reach in their pocket and gladly help you out.
Same thing goes with the workforce. If you want to feel immediately cool, follow the group of people down to the smoking section and immediately there's a group of people who welcome you in to make you feel like you have a group of people to hang out with and talk to. Plus who can argue with going outside and talking with people all day long? It seems like smokers get the free-pass to leave their desk anytime they feel like it, and they have a good excuse.
With the high-school social desires of teens and interoffice acceptance of smoking it makes for tough competitor to "nothing".
Instead of putting all this money towards increased anti-smoking campaigns, all they would need to do is funnel a little bit of money into some sort of "social spots" that have gum, some candy, soda, water, nice chairs, and a place where it's accepted to hang out and talk for a few minutes and move on. This would give people the gratification they want to go into an area and hang out for a few minutes, talk, and go back to work. I think the problem with this idea is that there's no acceptable "need" to go down there every few hours. People might look at you as a slacker hanging down there, whereas the smoker doesn't get deemed a slacker for "going for a smoke"..
Where does it end? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a smoker. I hate the smell. But I don't agree with this. The last time I checked tobacco was legal to purchase and use. If it's a question of health insurance costs then what's next? Should we also exclude hiring people that are overweight, or have high blood pressure, or their lipid count is too high? Because surely they will consume health care dollars at some point too. What about people that have too much stress? Exclude them too? What happens if nobody will hire people that smoke? Should we just categorize them as permanently disabled and have society support them...or maybe just send them to a leper colony?
This is a clear example of exactly why I don't want employers involved with health insurance. Sooner or later it comes down to money and then things like this happen.
Personally I think that alcohol is a far, far greater problem to society than tobacco. Here is an indisputable fact - 100% of all drunk driving accidents and deaths are caused by alcohol. All of them...every single one. I can't prove this but my feeling is that a good percentage of assaults and domestic violence incidents are fueled, at least in part, by alcohol. In nearly every bar fight I have ever seen both of them were drunk. I'm not suggesting that alcohol has the same effect on everyone but it sure messes up a lot of people.
Smoking is bad for you no question. Anyone that smokes should try to quit. People can get addicted to tobacco much like people can get addicted to alcohol. Instead of excluding tobacco users from the work force why not try to help them quit? If a smoker has the qualifications then hire them but tell them, look we'd rather you didn't smoke. Science has proven that it's bad for your health and we'd rather have healthy workers than unhealthy workers. It's better for you and it's better for us. So here's what we're going to do. We have a smoking cessation program and we'd like you to attend it. It's going to be part of your on-boarding process. We're going to pay for it and our expectation is that at the end of it you're going to be tobacco free. We're doing this because we think you'd be a good employee and we like to treat our employees right. At the end of it you're going to thank us. Your children will thank you because you'll live long enough to see their children. You'll feel better about yourself and that's the kind of people we want working here. What do you say?
Re:Make it illegal (Score:1, Interesting)
If YOU smoke near me, it makes MY clothes and hair stink, and it gets into MY lungs and damages them.
First, as I mentioned elsewhere here, I don't smoke near non-smokers. I am well aware of how intolerant you people can be.
Secondly, I do not believe for a second all the BS I hear about second hand smoking. What a crock of shit that is and how to stretch an idea! No, you don't smoke in a car full of kids with the windows rolled up, because why would anyone?!? I wouldn't pee in my Mom's coffee either, because why would anyone?!?
I say again, I can't speak for other smokers, but *my* 'habit' will not affect you anywhere near as much as some of your 'habits' affect me.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
If people had been raised with the idea that any idiot can quite smoking if they want, it would be much easier to stop. In fairness, though, that might lead to more people taking up the habit in the first place. Regardless, the psychological arena is the one area where perception can become truth.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a right (a liberty in Hoefield's scheme of rights) to curse within my own home. I also have a right to live off of brownies if I so decide. I don't have that right because brownies or cursing is so "valuable" per se, but because it's my right, legally, to do what I wish within my home so long as it doesn't affect others. To carry my example, I can't curse so loudly as to disrupt my neighbors, even though I can otherwise curse - again, the issue isn't the cursing here, it's that I am disrupting my neighbors.
We can argue that smoking seems to cause a lot of health issues for non-smokers who are nearby. The majority of the research we have at this point seems to indicate a causative pattern pretty strongly. Therefore, at least in some states, you can't smoke in a restaurant or by a door way. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason (nor does the Federal Government have the ability to) limit smoking within the privacy of your own home. I would argue that most businesses don't either unless they can prove that your smoking/non-smoking is required for your job (say, if you work at a hospital).
TLDR: "If [eating brownies] is so great and such a valuable right that others shouldn't be able to stop you doing it whenever and wherever you please, why do [brownie producing companies] spend hundred of millions of dollars every year just to keep convincing people they need to keep doing it?
Re:Easy answer (Score:0, Interesting)
When I was young, my neighbor, a working adult, told me: "Don't ever start smoking". That person was smoking all the time himself. Few years later they detected a lung cancer. He started getting thinner and the days in hospital increased. And eventually, after suffering from pains for years, he died.
I was pretty lucky that I could learn from the mistakes of others.
The problem with smoking is this: It is not just your business if you smoke or not, unless you grow your own tobacco and smoke it in secret. If you buy it, you give money to the tobacco companies, so they can make even more people start smoking. If you smoke it, you will be a living ad for every young person who can see you. Of course there is the passive smoking and allergies also. And environment issues due to tobacco farming.
If we could stop tobacco by sacrificing just the perfumes and peanuts, that would be great.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice insightful reply to my throw-away comment, thanks.
I actually can agree with most of your points, though I think many of them are somewhat moot. Most of my friends who entered, or tried to enter, the Armed Services who also smoked generally quit or dramatically cut back before joining. They had to do this to maintain the currently existing fitness requirements. Some of them did take up the habit again, but they generally were in non-combat tech jobs, and still had a lesser habit than they did before joining.
The criteria of the job is enough to either force people to stop, or to encourage them to do something about it on their own. Banning would be a bit redundant.
This topic annoys me, so some snark might sneak in. I'm pretty much against banning anything, or having employers dictate what I do at home. This includes smoking, and drinking, and various other activities, as well as politics, religion, sexual preference, and speech. If it doesn't effect performance, then it is none of your business. If your job has high enough standards, most addictions will be filtered out since they hurt performance. Beyond that, if someone enjoys a cigarette or a beer on their lunch break, it isn't anyone's business.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but in business law in college I was taught that you can't discriminate against people for engaging in legal practices that do not directly affect the job.
With few exceptions, tobacco use does not have a direct detrimental effect on workers' performance. In fact studies have generally shown smokers to be more productive than their non-smoking counterparts. (Though nobody is saying that smoking is the actual cause of that.)
So according to what my law Prof. told me, this is definitely an illegal practice. I can't wait for somebody to sue the pants off of some self-righteous company.
Re:Make it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, smoking likely decreases lifetime medical costs so old age "socialized" medicine (Medicare in the US) benefits from smokers dying younger. Everyone dies of something and that something will often cost money to treat. A smoker who dies suddenly of a massive stroke at 70 costs very little to society. A smoker who dies at 72 of lung cancer costs a bit more but a lot less than the non-smoker who dies with dementia and various "old age" ailments at 95 in a state of severe dementia in a nursing home paid for by Medicaid.
This! I have an interesting little tidbit that illustrates that perfectly.
My Mother in law died a few years back. She did not smoke nor drink. She spent the last ten years of her life in a nursing home as a dementia patient. The last two years of her life was extremely expensive, and she tapped her health insurance and Medicare for some hundreds of thousands of dollars. Probably half a million, but I don't have the figures handy.
My Mother on the other hand, who died at the same age as the Mother in Law, did smoke and enjoyed the occasional beer. She had a massive heart attack, and was gone in a few minutes. Aside from making mental notes that if I had a choice, I'd pick her demise over wearing diapers and not knowing who I was for the last ten years of my life, the cost of my mother's demise was minimal. Whether it was related to the smoking is not certain, but the point is that the belief that people living longer will save money is plain false.
Even with cause of death ignored, today's medical system is designed to get you on maintenance drugs as early as possible, so just the costs of your blood pressure meds, your cholesterol meds and whatever else they can get you to take every day keeps that old health care meter ever running. And the longer they can have you tapped into that maintenance med goodness, the more it costs your HCP.