It's even worse than what you describe, Michael. WHO acts against her own principles and violates her own constitution in which she defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” and prohibits discrimination in its enjoyment.
So, apart from many health advocates, in her constitution she admits that health is not only physical health, but also mental and social health. When the WHO refuses to hire smokers she damages mental and social health of people. Not only because she does so herself, but also because she sets a very bad example for many other organizations to do the same.
Why would the WHO do this? Maybe it's the old explanation: pleasing the hand that feeds it. Martin F. Sturman (MD, FACP), wrote a very interesting article in which he describes the WHO's funding as:
"The World Health Organization,WHO, established by the United Nations in 1948 and based in Geneva, built its outstanding reputation on funding research and programs to fight communicable diseases. Today, WHO, with its 192 member nations, continues to coordinate and sponsor international efforts directed at treatment and control of worldwide health problems, such as AIDS, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria and a host of other diseases.
In the 1980’s, however, the organization expanded its attention to noncommunicable disease, although it was limited by a budget frozen at $450 million. Today, the international agency now takes in more than $500 million a year, more than it gets from all its member nations. This money comes primarily from drug companies whose fortunes are intimately connected to its donations to WHO.
Although spokesmen deny WHO is influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, the drug companies’ internal documents give another perspective. According to the Seattle Times Daphne Fresle, a former top official in the WHO office that monitors worldwide pharmaceutical use, resigned in protest in 2002, complaining of the agency's relationships with drug makers. Unpublished documents of WHO reports first obtained by The Guardian newspaper in 2003 describe "undue influence" on guideline panels dealing with diets and food additives."
In another article he describes how the WHO and other public health organizations can increase their market by just redefining the criteria for illnesses. Also this method of making more people sick must be nice to hear for Big Pharma.
Wouldn't it become time to untangle the close relationship between the Health industry and Big Pharma? It's a severely socially damaging cartel.......
Mike,
Your post on WHO's new policy indicates that you have no tolerance or respect for the protected legal rights of employers.
Not only do you insist that you know the correct hiring policies for every employer, but you also want to impose your version of correct hiring policies upon every employer.
And to think that I've been called a freedom hating social engineer.
Bill,
Your posts on state and local smoke-free policies indicate you have no tolerance or respect for the protected legal rights of the owners of establishments that choose to permit smoking.
Not only do you insist that that you know the smoking preferences of bar and restaurant owners and patrons, but you also want to impose your version of public health policy upon every bar and restaurant owner and patron.
And to think that you've been called a freedom hating social engineer!
Bill, you wrote: "Not only do you insist that you know the correct hiring policies for every employer, but you also want to impose your version of correct hiring policies upon every employer."
So do I gather from this that you would defend the right of an employer to hire only smokers in order to keep a friendly atmosphere in his or her office or, as you might prefer to see it, to reduce pension costs?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Bill,
your last post is a clear hint that you have no respect for the intelligence of the people reading and posting in this blog.
Yes, refusing to hire smokers because of their behaviour off-duty is legal somewhere.
As it was legal to fire and not hire Jews in public offices in Italy in 1939, when racist laws were enacted.
As it was legal to be the owner of slave people in the 1800's in the US.
As it was legal to force blacks to seat in the back of the bus, or to refuse black customers in bars, or to prohibit black childs to go into white schools 50 years ago in the US.
It is legal. Does it makes it right? Frankly, i don't expect a serious reply from you, Bill.
Bill,
Your response indicates you have litte, or no tolerance or respect for smokers. You find distain at being labeled an anti-smoker, but chose to attack those that attempt to defend the basic human rights to privacy of an individual, because those individuals are smokers.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in your assertion that Mike doesn't respect the legal rights of a company. Mike never suggested the WHO should be forced to hire smokers, instead pointed out the unwarranted intrusion of employers into the personal lives of potential employees.
Furthermore, by publicizing their stance, the WHO lend credence into the practice of discrimination by smoking status, albeit legal in some places.
As soon as you encourage the discrimination based on smoking status, you open the door to allowing employers to hire only smokers, and thus void the key argument that smoking bans are necessary to protect workers.
The WHO, as is with most anti-smokers are so obsessed with their jihad, don't see the bad precedents which they set.
Public Health oversteps the bounds when they move from encouragement of good health practices, to coercion.
I don't believe smoking status should be protected, but I also believe that the practice of this form of discrimination is very unethical.
The WHO as a quasi governmental agency has demonstrated they are unethical and violate basic human rights, and as such the US government should cease all funding.
Various state courts have ruled that employers have a legal right to require employees to abstain from smoking (similar to other drug free employment policies/contracts), unless the employee works in a state that has enacted a statute prohbiting such action by that employer.
I was merely pointing out Mike Siegel's strongly held opinion on this matter is in sharp contrast to the views (and legal rights) of employers. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, and many Chambers of Commerce and Republican caucuses in State Legislatures have actively opposed legislation that would grant special employment rights to smokers.
Courts have also ruled that employers have a legal obligation to provide a smokefree workplace environment for nonsmoking employees, regardless of the presence of a state statute requiring workplaces to be smokefree.
"unless the employee works in a state that has enacted a statute prohibiting such action by that employer."
Currently there are 19 states which have laws to prohibit employment discrimination based on smoking.
"I was merely pointing out Mike Siegel's strongly held opinion on this matter is in sharp contrast to the views (and legal rights) of employers."
Funny Bill, but I didn't see Mike say the WHO was operating illegally. If the WHO is operating in some of those states which protections against smoker discrimination, they ARE acting illegally.
If public money continues to be used to promote this form of discrimination, then by all means, I would support enacting legislation to protect smokers, why don't you? Better yet, let's prosecute those promoting this form of discrimination under hate laws.
The WHO's budget on the Tobacco Framework Convention is over $100 Billion USD (2000-200
. See: http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/i..._IGWG2_3-
en.pdf This is quite a bit larger than the entire programmes budget for WHO ($6 Billion USD for the same period) So I need to take exception to Mike's comment that the WHO isn't predominantly an anti-smoking organization.
Dear Bill,
i'm pretty sure that everyone here has understood that Mr. Siegel isn't arguing that it's illegal to fire, or refuse to hire, smokers because they are smokers. He's strongly questioning the ethical correctness of such a move.
So, what's the point of saying that some courts have ruled that discrimination on smokers is not illegal? (supposing you're not making up this, of course. Care to provide a link?)
Either you didn't read Mr. Siegel's post of you did read it but missed completely the point. But wait... the way you write suggests that you CANNOT seriously be so foolish. So a third option is to be considered.
You did read the post and understood perfectly the point, but willingly choosed to misinterpret it with the goal of heating up the debate and possibly start a flamefest.
This kind of discrimination is inherent in the anti-smoking position. The idea was never mutual compromise and accomodation of smokers' and non-smokers' interests. The idea was to punish the smokers. The smoke and mirrors about public health merely assuage the consciences of the perpetrators. Their victims are not fooled.
Those of us who opposed all this regulation, taxation, and persecution fifteen years ago knew the principals of out boomer-educated tyrants would be extended to the activities of others despised by the intelligentsia of the Least Generation.
Don't be ridiculous! we were told.
Dear tRicky,
In Town of Plymouth v. Civil Service Commission, 426 Mass. 1, 686 N.E.2d 188 (1997), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the firing of a police officer for her off-the-job smoking.
In Kurtz v. City of North Miami, 633 So.2d 1025 (1995), the Florida Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a smoker who had submitted an employment application for a city with a policy requiring such aplicants to have not smoked off the job for at least one year. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the smoker's appeal.
Bill was right. You can look it up.
Thanks Edward. I think i can trust you for the source you provide, so i'll take them for true. And Bill was right. So what? Did you read the whole thing or just limited to that row of text written in parenthesis? Just in case, i'll tell you again: Mr. Siegel is questioning the ethical correctness of firing smokers because they are smokers, and not if the think is being done in compliance with local legislation.
Both you and Mr. Bill have so far skipped the question.
I am noticing a recurrent behaviour of antismokers about the ethical merit of the thing. They rarely say something like "Yes, it is right to fire or refuse to hire smokers because they are smokers. They deserve that, and the law should not protect them".
Why? Well, i think because they would expose themselves as the intolerant bigots they are. And so they need to turn around the thing, stating that "every corporation has the right to dictate its policy about employment" (i'm an enlightened citizen who believes in the value of a free market economy) and "the Supreme Court has ruled it legal" (i'm a law abiding citizen who respect the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court on legal matters).
Too bad this tR1ck doesn't work here. The posters and the blogger seem to used to think with their own head.
Saying that the corporate interests must be protected is not enough. What with the individual rights? Both your country and mine are democracies and consider themselves as civil societies, at least for now. And in a civil society, minority rights are an essential part.
Without them, what would prevent me from firing black people because i am a racist, or fire homosexuals because i find them disgusting?
And why can't i fire women because i think that they are brainless beings that must stay at home, serve the husband, breed and nothing else, or leftists because i am a hard-core rightist who thinks that all the leftists are complete idiots?
A civil society is used to defend their citizens from unjust behaviour from something more powerful, being it an individual or a corporation. When there's a minority group that is being abused, usually a civil society respond with legislation that protects that group.
Do we want to be a civil society or not?
Bill, did you miss my question to you above?
Would you defend the right of an employer to choose to hire only smokers?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Dr Mr Sweda,
You cite a case concerning the City of North Miami refusing to hire smokers. A recent CBS 60 Minutes broadcast informed us that the City of North Miami quietly dropped its ban on smoking for its police officer applicants over two years ago. Apparently they finally realized that they were turning away higher quality recruits who would have made fine police officers. From the transcript:
“We realized that at best, we may save five percent on our insurance premium. But now we are having a problem with trying to recruit and hire highly qualified candidates. And we’re competing against agencies that did not have that policy,” says Chief of Police Gwendolyn Boyd.
Thank you for your concern.
v/r
Frank
My answer to Michael McFadden's question is YES.
I'd support an employer's right to hire only cigarette smokers.
::tipping hat to Bill::
As I said before Bill, we disagree on a lot of stuff, but I have more respect for you than for a lot of those critters I call Antismokers!
;>
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
This is why I respect Bill so much. Even though we have a few disagreements on certain policies, he is internally consistent in his positions. This is in contrast to the major anti-smoking groups, which both Bill and I have been critical of for their hypocrisy and inconsistencies.
Mr. Bill, i don't think you deserve respect for your statement, since you are essentially advocating discrimination based on off-job habits or lifestyle.
But since you finally seem willing to respond to someone's critics, let me ask a few questions:
1) would you defend the right of an employer to hire only heterosexuals?
2) would you defend the right of an employer to hire only men?
3) would you defend the right of an employer to not hire black people?
I really don't care what Boomer judges think; that generation has corrupted the legal profession as thoroughly as the medical.
"The WHO's rationalization for discriminating against smokers in hiring could just as easily be made for a policy to refuse to hire obese people"
Based on these assumptions, would former director Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland have a chance for a second office? Photo Lee/Brundtland
Commenting by HaloScan
