[dsenette]

Is it harmful to others though, you have to ask yourself that. I know there are usuallly designated areas, but you still get second hand smoke, regardless.

well...there are two things here....

#1...technically....second hand smoke (or at least...the majority of it) is filtered twice..once by the cigarette...and once by the best filter...the smoker's lungs...unless you're in a closed room with a bunch of burning cigarettes...the actuall smoke from the cigarette...is not a problem....and...if you're in a room full of smokers...and you don't smoke....why are you in that room complaining about the smoke? any company that i've ever worked for that allowed smoking....has designated smoking areas...if you don't smoke...why go there?

#2....the stress put on someone due to another individual is detrimental to your health...should they fire you if you're a known stress causer? my old boss was a certifide jackarse ( i think he actually had a union membership with a card and everything). should i be able to sue him for any stress induced health issues i have? should he have had to pay more for my health insurance because he caused my stress?


there are alot of areas in society...where you have to make a sacrifice for the good of the group...but...when you start interfering with stuff like smoking...you get into a fuzzy area...i mean...why hurt the smokers who..choose to smoke..and generally are smoking in a designated area just for smokers...? i can sort of understand increasing health insurance prices..but...at the same time...why not do that for all health risks...like the guy who buys the donuts...or what not..

[Advertisements]

Where I worked, I was with my friends. When they took breaks, they smoked. So I go with them. If I don't I really have no place to rest. Say you're a partner job and you drive to places. If they smoke, they smoke in the car. Regardless, it's going to effect you in some way or another, the one that upsets me the most though is that smoking is a "reason" for taking a break, while "taking a break" is not a good enough reason, so they get to take more freqeunt breaks then non-smokers.

And yes, I believe high stressed causing people should be fired. It's the same as a disruptful worker IMO.

[nick_mi]

Where I worked, I was with my friends. When they took breaks, they smoked. So I go with them. If I don't I really have no place to rest. Say you're a partner job and you drive to places. If they smoke, they smoke in the car. Regardless, it's going to effect you in some way or another, the one that upsets me the most though is that smoking is a "reason" for taking a break, while "taking a break" is not a good enough reason, so they get to take more freqeunt breaks then non-smokers.

And yes, I believe high stressed causing people should be fired. It's the same as a disruptful worker IMO.

[dsenette]

smoker's shouldn't take more breaks than others....if someone smoking is taking more breaks than those allowed by company policy...they should be dealt with in t hat manner...if you are working for a company that has an open break policy...then...if you're not a smoker....take a break when you need one...non smoker's tend to use that excuse alot (the smokers get to take a break...but i don't) i've always opperated under the principle..that...as long as it's not against protocol..and i feel th at i need a break...i take one...


as far as the car ride scenario...most people i know will be more than happy not to smoke in the vehicle...if you ask them not to...and if they don't oblige that...don't ride with that person

[loophole]

Actually after checking its not even 35%... Quote from American lung association

In 2002, an estimated 45.8 million, or 22.5 percent of, adults were current smokers. The annual prevalence of smoking has declined 47 percent between 1965 and 2002.

Anyway I may see a need (sort of ) to charge more for health insurance through a company policy (Private policy insurance already does this). To justify firing people for smoking is ridiculous unlesss its in direct conflict with thier work duties. Smoking has almost been outlawed everywhere in my state (IN) where non-smokers will be. They are trying to pass a law now where you cant smoke within one mile of a of a certain hospitals property which includes a stretch of interstate as well as private establishments......$140 fine....c'mon....They sure dont mind collecting the taxes from ciggarettes and Alcohol though...........

[warriorscot]

I dont know about anywhere else but they need to charge the tax here to pay for the medical treatment of tobacco and Alcohol abuse.

[nick_mi]

Actually after checking its not even 35%... Quote from American lung association
Anyway I may see a need (sort of ) to charge more for health insurance through a company policy (Private policy insurance already does this). To justify firing people for smoking is ridiculous unlesss its in direct conflict with thier work duties. Smoking has almost been outlawed everywhere in my state (IN) where non-smokers will be. They are trying to pass a law now where you cant smoke within one mile of a of a certain hospitals property which includes a stretch of interstate as well as private establishments......$140 fine....c'mon....They sure dont mind collecting the taxes from ciggarettes and Alcohol though...........

I don't know about ciggarettes off hand, but the taxes they make off alchohol is much less then you would think.

Also, It's an estimate. I know from personal experiance and just seeing people that mroe then that smoke. There are a lot of people out there who will not say whether they smoke or not and some will say they don't when infact they do.

Edited by nick_mi, 03 January 2006 - 10:13 AM.

[Janis]

Why fire people when money or less of it is a stronger incentive for health habits. Before I retired, part of the overhaul we did on health insurance was making the employees responsible for their choices. Smoke, go ahead as long as it isn't at work but that is going to cost you. Each employee receives initial physicals, and for two subsequent years. After that the employees physican furnishes the information needed. If an employee, or any member of their family makes health choices like smoking, it's going to cost them. Several employees ( who later quit) were paying ninety percent of their health care coverage. Things that cost you, high cholestoral, high BP, inactivity, excess weight. Employees are not penalized for things like diabetes if they are doing everything in their power to control it. But if they overeat, it's going to hurt money wise. Right now from talking to the current operations managers, 72 percent of the employees and 68 percent of their families are now back on track health wise! Four to five hundered per month out of your pocketbook for health care is one huge incentive. Not a perfect system but if the government and all employers would adopt similar policies, costs would go down and businesses might improve their bottom line.

Edited by Janis, 12 February 2006 - 04:06 PM.

[warriorscot]

Or you could introduce a government health system that gives everyone the right to free medical care whenever they need it for whatever reason no matter who you are, Nationalised health care is something that any self respecting firt world nation should have, access to proper medical care free of charge is a right not a privelage.

[Mousie]

In my opinion, no. People shouldn't be fired because they smoke. I mean...having designated smoking areas help keep those who smoke and those who do not apart.

Its a bad habit that is a punishment itself.

[techwhiZ]

Fired due to smoking habits?? WHile I don't agree with smoking--at all--I don't think firing someone due to that is right.


Everyone's favorite tech-help guy,
Mr. Zach Tepe

[warriorscot]

Only 20 days till the ban woo hoo, cant wait being able to go to the pub and not be smoked out.

[fleamailman]

May I remind everyone here that in the middleages, most ilnesses was treated with prayers, herbs amputations, and where falling these ostrigization as a lepper ( the infalable cure for lepperacy being castration), almost nobody had baths(king John was thought to be a woman because he had one a month and, though somewhat later I admit, queen Eliszabeth set the example and had two baths a year), also, Sunday service was compalsery i.e. if there was any plaige going one went to church of Sunday and most probably died on Wednesday. Now bare with me please, if we just halve our ages now we get the average lifespan of the middleages, being that someone rarely made fivty years, (I would be 96 years old now by their scale then) so marrages were very early being before, during, or just after pewbity, childbirth was hit or miss for mother and child alike(in fact, even the idea of a children's hospital didn't come into being or cross their minds until the middle of the 18th century) and war, bad diet and hardwork did the rest. It was in effect, "yugenics by default" and looking back it is for us now to understand and acept it as such but imagine then the future generations judging us now, will they not see of our age in turn as still "yugenics by default" albeit in milder ways(smoking being just one manifestation all the other self distroying factors)

For me the fundament problem here then is (yes, alright, OK, besides being unable to spell correctly) not should a segment of society be banned (in this case smokers) because of the incressing cost of keeping them alive and healthy, but, simply the wider and ever more real question of "how far and until what age is society willing to cover the cost of a human's life" in other words where to place the "yugenics by default" parimiters for humans to live under then.

[warriorscot]

For me having a ban on smokers out of the workplace and social areas is not a protection fo them but a protection for the more numerous non smokers, smokings a disgusting habit and i hate it being imposed on me if i go out with friends if someone smokes its there choice but they should do it in there own home like you would with anyother bad habit you have.

Its not so much ugenics as its survival of the fittest back in those days, the strong lived and the weak died it was the way of things, ugenics implies it was intentional they just didnt know better, but if someone who knows better wants to smoke then they deserve any disease that comes ther waythey just shouldnt be able to impose there health risks on the rest of the population who choose not to smoke.

[Whiskeyman]

Yeah but like i said, a patientwho has had a heart attack can be treated for his condition for life for the price it would treat someone with lung cancer from smoking just ONCE, cancer drugs cost alot of money, the newer better ones can cost more that £50,000 per treatment(almost $90,000 US) and a person needs alot of these treatments and there is still no guarantee of success.

So i can see why they should charge more for a smoker. People often say here that smokers get taxed more for cigarettes so they are paying for there treatment, but it is so expensive and the risk is so high they could charge a tenner for a 20 pack and would still be lucky to cover the costs.

Obesity and alcohol related illnesses can be also have high medical costs associated with them. When you compare the medical costs for extreme cases of these to that of smokers you will see comparable rates. As a former drinker that was overweight my treatments which included a liver transplant, the tab has gone over the half a million dollar mark. Obese people can have liver problems just as well as alcoholics. We can also toss in heart disease because you are fat. Let's also add in productivity in the work place. Fat people and alcoholics can have problems keeping up and/or missing time due to problems arising from their problems.

My belief is that workers should receive adequate pay so they can purchase their own health insurance instead of the companies being responsible for it. If the politicians worked on creating affordable health care and insurance for everyone then removed the provision that companies need to provide them it would be better for all.

As for stopping smoking it is a difficult fight. I used to smoke three packs a day when I drank. I had to quit smoking and drinking one year in advance of my transplant. I have been able to stay alcohol free but started smoking again two years after the transplant. I only smoke up to half a pack a day when I am stressed out. I have used the patch and Nicorette gum. Nicotine addiction is hard to shake.

[warriorscot]

What you need in the US is a nationalised health service its something that every country has or should at least try to have, health care is a human right not a privalige.

Smoking has a huge effect on heart disease, in countries and regions where there was a public smoking ban(ours started on sunday its fantastic) heart related illness admisions to hospitals dropped by as much as 60% thats a huge difference, the difference between over eating and over drinking compared to smoking is that both are in moderation good for you and neccesary for a healthy body and mind smoking has only disadvantages health wise, and its something countries should be taking measures to discourage more, public smoking bans are fantastic everywhere is so much cleaner now.

You shouldnt be fired for it but what they should do is help you stop. Although if i had had to have a liver transplant i wouldnt even go within 10 feet of anyone with a cigarette or touch any alcohol transplants are precious gifts of life not to be risked.