Insurance companies have long since charged smokers more as they are at a higher risk. How is this different?
insurance companies simply raise their prices erik. they'll use whatever reason they can get away with but it has precious little to do with health care cost.
HEY, here's a great thought... whatever amount atlantic city got thru the state from the MSA, they should have that discounted from the city's treasure chest, no? i mean, seeing what a GOOD job they're doing of discriminating against, um, i mean, supporting anti-smokers policy.
Erik,
As you so duly noted, insurance companies can and do charge a different rate for smokers. However a company can set aside a fixed amount it pays per employee, and the employee must make up the differnce.
This is often seen in the differing rates employees must pay for singles versus family plans.
Therefore from the company prospective, it doesn't raise their health care expenses one red cent.
In other words the health care cost argument is just another example of the fallacious arguments being used by anti-smokers.
As Dr. Siegel so noted, it is just another method used by anti-smokers to spew their venomous hatred against smokers by promoting the denying them employment.
Since you haven't condemned such discriminatory policies, one has to assume you are just another one of the pit vipers.
I would just love to see some of the rabid anti-smokers bitten by their own hatred and failing a cotinine test because they are drawn to smokefilled bars like moths to a candle. Now this would be justice.
"Believe me - we don't want to go there."
Jill does: "Personally I'd support a law that makes excessive drinking by pregnant mothers illegal."
Nowe before you go pointing fingers, I have a little exprerience here when I say, believe me, FAS sucks.
I used to live in Alaska, and one of the village schools I worked at had a total of about 16 kids. Every single one of them was Alaskan native, and every single one of them was categorized as mentally retarded and in need of special education due to - you guessed it - FAS. I did not at first believe it when the teacher told me this, but it is absolutely true.
I still wonder who will grow up to be the leader of the next generation of these once proud people? The next generaion consists entirely of moderate to severe learning disabled children because momma wouldn't lay off the sauce when she was pregnant.
We get tripe about "increased risk" of ear infections and asthma from tobacco smoke, and how this is considered "a form of child abuse."
How does that compare to increased risk of being unable to read or cipher beyond a grade school level, or maybe the risk of having an attention span similar to that of a gnat because you were born with a brain that is *provably* damaged by secondhand alcohol? Seems to me that we should not be too worried if momma has a Marlboro with her Jack and Coke.
But do I support the same restrictions as Jill? Should we make it a law for momma to put down that bottle of hooch when she was preggers?
No friggin way.
It was the intereference of the white man in the first place (and yes, I am a white man) when the "will of the majority" decided it was fitting and proper to systematically destroy the culture and social dynamic of the various Alaskan native peoples, who had gotten along quite nicely before the white man for a few thousand years.
So, to compensate them for this loss, the white man gives them a bunch of money so they can buy snowmobiles, blue jeans, sattelite TV, and Jack Daniels whisky just like the rest of American consumer society, when the rest of American consumer society lives 4000 miles away and doesn't give a hoot about them at all.
The best thing we could do for them is to just leave them the hell alone; the last thing these people need is yet one more intervention at the hands of the white man, especially one who thinks he knows better.
I see a vague attempt at exonerating the ACLU. But until the ACLU stops only providing lip service to only the most draconian anti-smoking/smoker policies (they are totally silent on -- or even express approval for -- smoking bans that infringe on private property rights) and actually pursues lawsuits as vigorously as they do for such things as religious symbols on city seals, then their words are nice but empty. They do nothing to act on them.
Ask NY ACLU attorney Ron Kuby about smoking bans. You'd swear he was Jill or Erik or Bill from what he says about them AND smokers.
"Insurance companies have long since charged smokers more as they are at a higher risk. How is this different?"
And they did it without even attemtping to prove that smokers cost more over all.
With the population growing continuously older, they could as well charge smokers and elderly people.
My mother never smoked, yet she she had numerous surgeries, including cancer treatment at the end of her life (no, positively nothing to do with SHS).
My father smoked his whole life, outlived my mother and never saw a hospital from the inside. I'd guess he went to a doctor about 3 times in his whole life for the treatment of a common flu.
What Erik promotes is the stigmatization of individuals based on an arbitrary categorization.
Everybody knows that insurance companies would prefer insuring only healthy people. This is contrary to the concept of insurance.
Correction, instead of
With the population growing continuously older, they could as well charge smokers and elderly people.
please read:
With the population continuously growing older, they could as well charge higher premiums to elderly people.
"anyone that applies for a job with Atlantic Beach will be tested for nicotine."
This is a severe intrusion into the privacy of individuals. I'm surprised this is not outlawed in the United States, the land of the free.
How do they test this? Urine samples? Seems to me like public urination ...
The money for the potentially higher risk and health insurance cost is already largely payed by the smokers, but somebody else has stolen it:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/
ne...n26tobacco.html
"If the city has spent a dime of the revenue on any sort of anti-smoking campaign or health-related program, it's awfully hard to tell from looking at the previous six years' budgets. The city has received roughly $66.5 million in tobacco-settlement revenue since 2000, and a spokesman for Sanders, who took office in December, said the city doesn't appear to have spent “one red cent” on anything related to smoking-prevention or health.
[..] their group – the San Diego County Tobacco-Free Communities Coalition – has watched with disappointment as tens of millions of dollars have vanished into the city's general fund, making the money as difficult to trace as a drop of water in a stream."
" California is expected to receive $25 billion in tobacco-settlement revenue through 2025. The state keeps half the money for itself, then distributes 45 percent to every county and the remaining five percent to four cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose."
"During the Feb. 6 hearing, the council was shown a spreadsheet of what has happened to the $66.5 million the city has received. More than half the money has been placed in the city's general reserve or general fund. An additional $4 million has been spent on libraries, $13 million on parks and $9 million on the 6-to-6 after-school program for kids."
$13 million on parks where urination and smoking are banned?
$250'000 for a summer camp? For this amount, you could probably host them in a first class hotel in Dubai, flight included.
Is it just me, or does this "we won't hire smokers" stunt add a new twist?
"There's even a chance that you won'’t be hired if you test positive due to second hand smoke"
Ah, yes. I can't get a job at X because my friend/wife/husband is a smoker. Makes me wonder if satire or sarcasm can exist in a society filled with guys like Bill.
What gets me is there are valid reasons why one doesn't want to hire drug addicts, but you're not required to sign anything agreeing to not do drugs while employed somewhere...
What disgusts me mostly is not the policy in itself. It's people like Erik who try to justificate this policy, or make it appear socially acceptable, with ridicolous statements like this.
Erik wrote:
"Insurance companies have long since charged smokers more as they are at a higher risk. How is this different?"
Even a child can see the difference. If the smoker is charged more he pays more. He continues to work as usual and he will probably renounce to a pizza per week to pay the increased cost. If the smoker is fired he becomes unemployed, and loses 100% of his income.
Eric, i cannot believe that you're so stupid to not get the difference, so i must assume you're intentionally making a fallacious analogy in order to fool someone into thinking that there's no difference between charging more a smoker and firing him. It's a dirty game. It makes me puke. Please stop.
one more thing about cotinine levels; aren't they affected by diet?
and i have a feeling that this being florida, atlantic side i'm assuming in particular, that this may have something to do with not having to hire particular ethnicities.
Just wrote:
"Ask NY ACLU attorney Ron Kuby about smoking bans. You'd swear he was Jill or Erik or Bill from what he says about them AND smokers."
It's nice to see that more chapters of the ACLU now agree that the deadliest drug addiction and air pollutant doesn't deserve special legal protection.
Smokefree hiring policies benefit employers and employees (who freely agree to these employment contracts) and smokers (who are given a huge financial incentive to quit smoking).
Opponents of smokefree hiring policies have a similar mindset as those socialist French protesters who think that government should continue prohibiting employers from firing lazy and incompetent employees.
I would love to give Bill the Huge financial incentive to quit meddling in others lives by taking away his ability to make a living.
At the very least, we should give all of these "non profit tobacco control groups" the incentive to quit lobbying for changes in the law by taking away their tax free status.
Jerry wrote:
"At the very least, we should give all of these "non profit tobacco control groups" the incentive to quit lobbying for changes in the law by taking away their tax free status."
Anyone who thinks that a 501(c)3 is in violation of the federal Internal Revenue Code is free to encourage the IRS to revoke their non profit status.
"Smokefree hiring policies benefit employers and employees (who freely agree to these employment contracts) and smokers (who are given a huge financial incentive to quit smoking)."
First, the Orwellian language: "financial incentive to quit smoking." That's like the 'incentive' to hand over your money when a thief sticks a gun in your back.
Second, employees who “freely agree” to these employment contracts. I gather that it's demanded of current employees that they not smoke as it is of new employees. If so, that means that if a current employee doesn’t “freely agree,” then he’s fired and his wife and kids go hungry.
Third, “benefit employers and employees.” Godshall lives in a never-never world of sick denial. People have enjoyed smoking for centuries, but somehow they are now being benefitted by being forced to quit one of life's pleasures in order to keep their jobs! That’s the braying of a jackass.
Fourth, if employees “freely agree” to a no smoking policy, then bartenders and wait staff in bars and restaurants should be equally able to “freely agree” to work in establishments that allow smoking. Since customers also freely agree to drink and eat in bars and restaurants that allow smoking, then what’s the justification for banning smoking in bars and restaurants? And remember that Godshall has previously told us that bar and restaurant owners have the right to hire ONLY SMOKERS. But when asked whether or not the owners have a right to serve ONLY SMOKERS, Godshall became suddenly reticent and wouldn’t reply.
I’ve read on this blog that Godshall is a lawyer. Which reminded me of the joke about the two guys reading an epitaph on a tombstone: “Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.” One guy turns to the other and says, “Things must be getting tough, they’re burying them two to a grave now.”
"Anyone who thinks that a 501(c)3 is in violation of the federal Internal Revenue Code is free to encourage the IRS to revoke their non profit status."
Bill, by retracting behind a law you are demonstrating that you are short of reasonable arguments. You seem to be forgetting that these laws are dictated by interest groups, the same as the laws in Calabasas.
Not everything that's in law is necessarily right!
From Bill: "deadliest drug addiction and air pollutant"
Believe whatever you want to.
Scene 1: Person smoking in a park. Scene 2:Person shooting heroin on the side of a congested freeway.
Scene 1 is deadlier than scene 2. Whatever.
From Bill: "Smokefree hiring policies benefit employers and employees (who freely agree to these employment contracts) and smokers (who are given a huge financial incentive to quit smoking)."
I notice that you separate "smokers" from "employees," as if no employees smoke. Freely agree to employment contracts??? You are making it seem as if managment and labor are equal players here; that is a fallacy. Owners call the shots; most states are "employment at will" in any case. You can be canned for ANY reason. Additionally, these policies do NOT benefit smokers, they punish smokers by stripping them of their ability to earn a living. I guess in your mind, that is helping them.
From Bill: "Opponents of smokefree hiring policies have a similar mindset as those socialist French protesters who think that government should continue prohibiting employers from firing lazy and incompetent employees."
Maybe "socialists" have some valid ideas about protecting worker's rights. Capitalist America certainly doesn't, based on the workplace policies discussed in this group. In any case, to compare smokers to "lazy and incompetent workers" is an unwarranted insult and did not go unnoticed. The "mindset" that opposes anti-smoker hiring policies has nothing to do with a "mindset" that would oppose firing lazy and incompetent workers.
"Opponents of smokefree hiring policies have a similar mindset as those socialist French protesters who think that government should continue prohibiting employers from firing lazy and incompetent employees."
Bill, how about going from state of the uninformed to the state of the informed? Or at least get the facts right. I'm far from supporting these protesters because they abuse of every possible means to protest for the sake of protesting and because they are manipulated by the French unions. Any ressemblence with anti-tobacco groups in the US is purely coincidential ..
The fact is that the proposed law is NOT intended for firing incompetent employees.
Don't tell me you know better. For the record, I'm living in France right now.
here's some lists of numbers i'd like to see.
since it's beginning, how many people have been added to social security, and how many people have died, from all causes.
since the beginning of taxes on cigarettes, how much has been paid, in this nation, total taxes up to the most present number. (regardless of what goes where, just the taxes totaled.
and regardless (though we'd probably need a couple of inputs on this) of who this next number, how many people have died in this nation because of smoking - and how many of them were on social security?
i'd like to see how all those numbers compare. because it's like one minute, we're about to drop dead (not to mention taking a busload with each one of us) and yet, the next moment *we* somehow cost society all this money.
"Maybe "socialists" have some valid ideas about protecting worker's rights. Capitalist America certainly doesn't, based on the workplace policies discussed in this group" - anonymous
what's really scary is that it's the 'liberals' who've become the new fascists.
Harry wrote:
"I’ve read on this blog that Godshall is a lawyer."
I've never claimed to be a lawyer (since I'm not), but I have assisted many lawyers with their efforts to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, and with other cigarette related litigation.
Anonymous wrote:
"Freely agree to employment contracts??? You are making it seem as if managment and labor are equal players here; that is a fallacy."
In our society, employers and employees (as well as prospective employees) are free to negotiate and agree to the conditions of an employment contract.
If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer (e.g. to not smoke cigarettes), any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business.
O.K. So let's say a pack a day smoker has a cotinine level of 300 ng/ml, and the cutoff level for the test is 15 ng/ml. And let's say cotinine has a half-life in the blood of ~20 hrs (those are the numbers I've seen). So that means that a pack a day smoker going cold turkey for four days could easily fake out this stupid test. For a smoker of 1/2 pack a day or less, going cold turkey for 3 days would be enough.
Even if the limit of the test is set harshly lower, like 3-4 ng/ml, a pack a day smoker going cold turkey for 6 days instead of 4 could still fake out the test. Testing below that level of cotinine is unrealistic, even for the most vicious anti-smoking employer; you would simply come up against the limit of accuracy in the test, and also the level of cotinine which is naturally present in non-exposed non-smokers, which I've seen estimated at ~2 ng/ml. Even at 4-5 ng/ml I'm guessing you'd still have a lot of non-exposed non-smokers testing positive.
Bill wrote: " I have assisted many lawyers with their efforts to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, and with other cigarette related litigation."
Do you charge for that Bill?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Just think how much these employers like Weyco and now, Atlantic Beach could save on health insurance if they only hired single people.
1) no spouse, that cuts health ins claims in half
2) no kids, that cuts health ins costs by more than half.
Gravelle, economist at the Library of congress found smoking costs about 25 cents/ pack. But that was in I think 1994, so lets assume healthcare costs have doubled. So a pack a day smoker has extra HC costs of about $150/year. My last employer actually charged me about $150/year more for healthcare insurance.
The current claim is smoking costs employers about $75 B/year. but that is only about 4% of the $2T we spend each year on helathcare. So are you going to turn down a good employee to save 4% annually on healthcare, or hire a nonsmoker with 3 kids and pay about 3 times the amount each year for healthcare?
Let's face it, it's not about the money... it's bigotry. Dave
Bill Godshall: "If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer ... any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business."
Is that right, Bill?
What if the place of employment is a smokey bar?
Bill using your arguement you should be in Calabasas by now .If you epitomise the true american no wonder the US have few friends and so many enemies.You are archaic and over the hill.Employers need employees it's a balanced equation.If you are a prat of an employer you will experience high staff turnover with the associated loss of training costs,you will never retain quality employees and your business will suffer.Are you a total buffoon or just so arragant.It is obvious that you cannot comprehend the labour market and the needs of industry.You know Bill my view of Dubya Bush and his abilities have just risen several points courtesy of trying to understand where you are coming from.I am changing my opinion as to your political ideals,rather than being a fascist i think you are more of a commie,you want everyone to be identical ,not to smoke and all to follow the ethos of the laws of Godshall.Count me out.
"If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer, any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business."
But you are the one who claims to "protect" employees from tobacco smoke through the introduction of smoking bans so they don't have to make this decision for themselves!
Either this applies to all employees or it does not!
Or do you admit that your faux Libertarian posturing only applies only in the case of smokers who are being subjected to off hours smoking restrictions, but not in the case of non-smokers who choose to continue to work in a smoking-permitted establishment?
Here's what I'm guessing the effect of all this will be, a small percentage of smokers will quit, and a larger percentage will simply go 'underground', i.e. use tobacco in private while publicly being a non-smoker to their employer and health insurance company, etc. It'll be similar to the situation that has existed for pot-smokers for the last 20 years, and what existed for gays and lesbians in the 20 years previous to that (and still exists in certain places).
This will be particularly true for younger people, people with counter-cultural tendencies, stubborn individualists (god bless 'em), etc. many of whom have already had years of experience dealing with stupid rules about marijuana. At a certain point, it's just one more prohibition to flaunt; people who want to stick it to the system will always be able to figure out how to get around it.
The people who I fear will be truly hurt by all this are OLDER people, who may have less experience with flaunting these kind of rules, and who are often more vulnerable in the workplace in any case. I'm sure lots of employers and health insurers would love an excuse to get rid of people getting close to retirement age, who tend to have higher health insurance costs, etc. etc. The most vulnerable will be smokers who are both old and poor. For THEIR health, these policies will be disastrous; I'd bet that the negative effect of taking away employment and health insurance to a poor 62 year old will far outweigh any positive effect from reducing their tobacco use.
"Insurance companies have long since charged smokers more as they are at a higher risk. How is this different?"
When you get that kind of question, you know that trying to answer it is an excersize in futility.
As far as discrimination is concerned, there is no principal difference.
If legal employment were denied to tobacco users as a whole, it would be a great incentive to go look for illegal employment. For the tobacco user, this has the following positive aspects:
1) You don't pay taxes to those that villify you.
2) You come in contact with entrepreneurs willing to sell untaxed tobacco products, which are cheaper, and not MSA taxed. So no payments to those that villify you.
3) You get to work somewhere you can smoke.
4) Someone with a gun will protect you.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
"If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer (e.g. to not smoke cigarettes), any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business."
I can't believe you said that with a straight face! That applies also for smoking/non-smoking venues and employees.
If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer..., any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business.
Huh, now isn't that interesting. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, from private business owners attempting to claim their rights to set their own smoking policies.
Those words are only truth when spoken in adherence to the nico/nazi agenda.
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me too, Soren. Where can one apply?
Texas Dave wrote:
"So let's say a pack a day smoker has a cotinine level of 300 ng/ml, and the cutoff level for the test is 15 ng/ml. And let's say cotinine has a half-life in the blood of ~20 hrs (those are the numbers I've seen). So that means that a pack a day smoker going cold turkey for four days could easily fake out this stupid test. For a smoker of 1/2 pack a day or less, going cold turkey for 3 days would be enough."
But similar to other random drug testing, the employees never know which day, week or month they might be tested.
Employer drug tests for marijuana are even more sensitive, as it can take a month from last use for an individual to achieve a negative test result).
And according to federal government data, cigarettes kill about 419,000 more Americans each year than does marijuana (i.e. marijuana hasn't been attributed to any deaths).
But I haven't read any criticisms on this blog of employer policies that prohibit employees from smoking marijuana (while off-the-job).
Now if the folks who criticize me on this blog were truly concerned about unwarranted employer drug policies and random testing (as well as unwarranted drug prohibition laws), they'd focus their energy trying to reform marijuana policies and laws.
"they'd focus their energy trying to reform marijuana policies and laws" - billy g.
bill,
we can't get to the level of reasonable on the issue of tobacco, yet you think that there would be some kind of consensus on marijuana???
it cannot be just me. does anyone else see this as being a TAD skewed?
Once again, Bill Godshall cravenly dodges the question directly put to him by at least six people.
"And according to federal government data, cigarettes kill about 419,000 more Americans each year than does marijuana (i.e. marijuana hasn't been attributed to any deaths)."
Why is that, Bill? How exactly do you think people who consume marihuana go about it? In brownies? Suppositories?
When you answer the question, how many of those 419,000 smokers so you think died from the pot they smoked, as opposed to the tobacco? How could you tell?
But the REAL question is:
If, as you say, employees are free to seek employment under consitions that suit them, why should employers not be able to allow smoking at their establishments?
Bill when it suits it's LAW LAW LAW when it suits it's ILLEGAL ILLEGAL ILLEGAL are you smoking pot right at this minute ???? Whatever it is it's potent.I really do admire you for your ducking and diving you really are senate material (in ancient Greece of course just watch out for the hemlock).
In business law there is a concept called Bona Fide Occupational Occupational Qualification, or BFOQ.
A BFOQ is a qualification that is needed for someone to do a job effectively.
http://www.itssimple.biz/
biz_too...05_0270_01.html
For example, being young, atractive and having big boobs is pretty much a BFOQ for working at Hooters. Not that I like the place, I just understand their need to hire certain types of waitresses.
Some forms of counseling require that counselors be of certain ethnic or religeous groups.
Most employers would have a hard time arguing that being a non-smoker is a BFOQ. It seems fair for employers to set rules for on the clock behavior. Atlantic Beach could stipulate that employees not smoke while at work, and could justifiably fire someone who repeatedly disregarded this policy. But refusing to hire people because they smoke at home or on weekends seems unfair and unamerican.
It's very difficult to pass antidiscrimination laws as they seem to be strongly opposed by the current republican majority in all branches of the federal government. But as the case of Atlantic Beach illustrates, it would be worth supporting a law that making it illegal not to hire someone simply because they smoke.
Jill, darling, we're not talking about BFQQ, and you're skirting the issue.
You say it's fair for employers to set rules for on the clock behaviour, unless of course, that rule permits smoking inside the establishment by employees (or patrons for that matter).
Then, according to you and those you support, it's other people that get to decide thet rules for on the clock behaviour, because you and those you support claim smokers are villians who hurt and injure people (even though that's not true according to the largest study ever conducted) and therefore even consensual exposure to tobacco smoke indoors must be prohibited.
How precicely do you reconcile this, except to say that it originates from your deep and pervasive hatred of smokers, and your desire to compel them either to quit or be ostracised?
Bill, I guess I need to accept that the ONLY thing you think I've done that qualifies as "cigarette company misinformation" is use the term "Antismokers" so why don't we move onward... you have the question from me as to whether you've made money from being a "consultant" or "helper" or whatever you want to call it to lawyers in this area and you have MANY requests here from various people to clarify your sudden aboutface on employment at will. I'd like to see that answer as well.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
But I haven't read any criticisms on this blog of employer policies that prohibit employees from smoking marijuana (while off-the-job).
No one really responded to Bill's statement here...
The sale, possession and use of marijuana is illegal (except where it's been deemed "lawful" for medical purposes). The sale, possession and use of tobacco is not (yet). There IS a difference.
For the record, I'm beginning to lean toward the Libertarian position that the "Drug War" in this country is so expensive and so ineffective that we should abandon it.
But that's not the issue here at all. Smoking may be an addiction, but it's not illegal. It could said that a transvestite has an addiction, but that's not illegal either.
And while I don't want a man garbed in a ballroom gown and high heels doing computer repair work for my clients, I don't care WHAT he wears during the hours I'm not paying him.
What right does any company have to discrimate based on legal behavior that takes place during non-working hours?
I can't help but notice, when Mr. Godshall begins an argument with "I haven't read", you can wager it has probably been written.
For example ""But I haven't read any criticisms on this blog of employer policies that prohibit employees from smoking marijuana (while off-the-job)."
Back in December I wrote this
Godshall subsequently added additional comments under this same topic, but did not address this post directly.
Another example of this was concerning his inability to locate the contact us section on FORCES website, claiming he had never seen a list of their BOD or contact information, despite the fact it is clearly visible on their webpage.
Godshall frequently cites Marijuana and Open Container laws as justification for tobacco use restrictions, and I have repeatedly asked him to justify why, as two wrongs do not make a right.
Godshall depends on fallacious arguments, and misleading statements such as "I haven't read" to base his arguments.
Furthermore, Godshall has made another fallacious argument which people take to mean Marijuana is safer to smoke than tobacco, using an argument on the number of deaths attributed to tobacco use. ""And according to federal government data, cigarettes kill about 419,000 more Americans each year than does marijuana (i.e. marijuana hasn't been attributed to any deaths)."
However these fail to take into account prevalence and years of use. This can mislead young people to believe you can't suffer from smoking related diseases from Marijuana use.
Sorry for the unclosed bold.
wow, this was an interesting little blast into the recent past for me. i went to that comment thread, walt, and i noticed that along with you having made a comment about off-the-job marijuana use, this was part of billy g's response to ed pyscho;
"But many employers discriminate against fat people (that's why you don't see fat ballerinas, fashion models, jockeys or fitness trainers)"
omigawdshill, i couldn't believe it. especially since almost automatically that phrase connected for me with what jill recently (on this very thread yet) stated regarding BFOQ. to quote, "In business law there is a concept called Bona Fide Occupational Occupational Qualification, or BFOQ. A BFOQ is a qualification that is needed for someone to do a job effectively."
okay, someone's smokin' SOMETHING funny, and it is not i.
Reposted as Link not visible:
I can't help but notice, when Mr. Godshall begins an argument with "I haven't read", you can wager it has probably been written.
For example "But I haven't read any criticisms on this blog of employer policies that prohibit employees from smoking marijuana (while off-the-job)."
Back in December I wrote this
Godshall subsequently added additional comments under this same topic, but did not address this post directly.
Another example of this was concerning his inability to locate the contact us section on FORCES website, claiming he had never seen a list of their BOD or contact information, despite the fact it is clearly visible on their webpage.
Godshall frequently cites Marijuana and Open Container laws as justification for tobacco use restrictions, and I have repeatedly asked him to justify why, as two wrongs do not make a right.
Godshall depends on fallacious arguments, and misleading statements such as "I haven't read" to base his arguments.
Furthermore, Godshall has made another fallacious argument which people take to mean Marijuana is safer to smoke than tobacco, using an argument on the number of deaths attributed to tobacco use. ""And according to federal government data, cigarettes kill about 419,000 more Americans each year than does marijuana (i.e. marijuana hasn't been attributed to any deaths)."
However these fail to take into account prevalence and years of use. This can mislead young people to believe you can't suffer from smoking related diseases from Marijuana use.
I had written:
"Ask NY ACLU attorney Ron Kuby about smoking bans. You'd swear he was Jill or Erik or Bill from what he says about them AND smokers."
And Bill replies:
It's nice to see that more chapters of the ACLU now agree that the deadliest drug addiction and air pollutant doesn't deserve special legal protection.
As much as I (and many of us) know that Bill will happily choose creating false propaganda over self-respect for his reputation, and deserves little, if any, acknowledgement, we can't just leave this mangled propaganda for the audience to
Just because I say something about it NOW doesn't mean the ACLU (or any one chapter)is just NOW deciding their policy.
Kuby is simply easy to reference because he gets to broadcast his views daily from his radio show pulpit. He's been saying the same thing for years.
The ACLU suffers from the same selective intolerance as you do. Contrary to the words you're sticking in their mouths, they haven't stated anti-smoking laws/policies "don't deserve legal protection." In fact, ACLU lawyers do mumble that there are problems with them.
But the organization as a whole chooses not to get involved in this issue for the same unethical reasons that drives you -- hate of smoking -- the principles they claim to adhere to be damned. This position has been prevalent for years and years.
But I want to thank Bill for helping me to convince people that the ACLU is no friend of theirs and to stop asking why they're absent on this civil liberties/private property issue all the time.
Is it any wonder that Bill is (or was) an ACLU member? He fits right in... like peas in a pod.
Back to cotinine: The tests would also eliminate people wearing the patch and people chewing the gum, which many foks apparently do for years and years (Imus comes to mind.) So even being an EX- smoker would get you fired/ not hired. That's reasonable though. Some sins are just ineradicable.
I have never smoked pot (my decision and not a moral one,so it's up to the individual) but what little knowledge i have is that it is mixed with tobacco before smoking.Bill can you differentiate between the pot and the tobacco when it burns ?If not then why do you quote Marijuana is a safer substance?? (in your myopic view of course)
I don't count too much on it, since Bill has had so far an astounding record of ignoring questions and/or avoiding them, but i'll retake it anyway.
Bill wrote:
"If an employee or prospective employee doesn't like the conditions of employment offered by an employer ... any employee or prospective employee is free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. They can also start their own business."
Melle asked:
"What if the place of employment is a smokey bar?"
Silence so far. Why i'm not surprised at all?
Maybe I should refer to Mr Godshall as "Freemarket Bill" here to forward. I agree with Bill, if an employee doesn't like working for bar that allows smoking they could just as easily find another job in a smoke free environment.
Dr Siegel's position is once again made for him. If the only objective is to reduce tobacco use a person will turn on his/her most basic beliefs if they do not support the agenda.
One can argue that smoking should be a private matter. A behavior conducted mainly on private or non-commercial property. The government having the right and duty to heavliy regulate "public life". This is postion that I understand Bill to usually take. This would mean that their should be some limit to the invasion of personal privacy.
One can also argue that the market and society not the government should determine to a large degree what role smoking plays in our society. It would be consistent with this philosophy to not hire smokers or to allow smoking on the premises or even in the premises.
Apparently the only policies or laws that are in-valid are the ones that protect people who smoke.
Even if you don't mix tobacco with pot, there is still enough nicotine in marijuana that the pot-smoker is in danger of getting 'caught' by the cotinine test. In any case you can bet that an employer that tests for cotinine is also much more likely to test for pot.
And, just to set the record straight, I oppose most employer related drug-testing, unless there is a clear and demonstrated threat to the general public (i.e. I could believe that it makes sense for airline pilots). But 99% of drug testing is not that, it's just plain intrusion. I've seen drug testing at fast-food franchises, car dealerships, retail stores, and janitorial servies companies. This is just idiotic. Who the hell cares if the guy flipping the burgers at Jack in the Box smoked a joint the night before? I'll be honest with you, when I see a retail business that proudly posts a sign that it's employees are 'drug free', I avoid it and go to the competition. I will do the same for 'smoke(r) free' businesses.
If there's ANY good that can come of all this nonsense, it's that by lumping the tobacco smokers in with the pot smokers as a group which can be legally disrciminated against, the lifestyle fascists have increased the number of 'deviants' from 5% of the adult population to 20% of the adult population, which means it's more likely that people will start challenging the WHOLE thing.
I think that pot smokers will also start to come around. When the first wave of anti-tobacco legislation hit, the reaction of pot smokers was "Ha ha!" "We had all these restrictions, now it's your turn!". But more and more they will see that the anti-tobacco restrictions have become so harsh and broad that they aren't in their interests either, and in fact they will just end up being doubly targeted.
The third rail for the lifestyle fascists will be alcohol, if they are foolish enough to have a real go at it. The logic is all there; alcohol is addictive, alcohol is carcinogenic, alcohol is toxic, alcohol users directly cause death and injury to non-users, alcohol users are a public nuisance etc.
But alcohol drinkers are not 5% of the population, or even 20%. They are upwards of 50% of the population. Add together the alcohol users, the pot smokers and the tobacco smokers and even taking into account that these groups overlap you have ~60% of the population. I turns out, that the majority of us are not perfect! That's going to make discrimination much more difficult.
"I could believe that it makes sense for airline pilots"
Reminds me of the fact that a few years back, before the bans, pilots used to smoke in the cockpit (I have seen it more than once). If I had known that both the pilot (from smoking) and his copilot (from SHS) were doomed to keel over between 20 and 40 minutes into the flight after take-off, I would never have taken a plane.
My longest flight was some 14 hours, I'm glad we survived. But who knows, maybe the copilot dropped dead the moment he put his foot on the Hongkong tarmac.
Oh Bill, one more thing. You said:
"marijuana hasn't been attributed to any deaths"
But this is EXACTLY the argument that many of the FORCES people use about tobacco deaths. The thinking being that unlike alcohol, which CAN actually kill you in one sitting if you drink too much, it is essentially impossible to smoke yourself to death in one day with pot or tobacco, so you never have a death that you can say with absolute certainty is attributed to tobacco or pot smoking.
It's a dubious argument in either case. The health danger from smoking is NOT that you will poison yourself in one sitting, but that over years and years of a certain level of exposure you will have a higher chance than a non-exposed person of developing certain diseases, particularly lung cancer. And... I've got news for you, those VERY SAME RISKS apply to pot smokers as to tobacco smokers. Marijuana smoke doesn't NOT contain a magical ingredient that makes it non-carcinogenic in large doses. I'm guessing that we have already seen thousands of pot-related lung cancer deaths, but they are lumped in with tobacco deaths, because most pot-smokers now getting lung cancer in their 60's and 70's were also tobacco smokers.
If you are going to be consistant, then you have to either admit that smoking pot can contribute to a higher probability of getting lung cancer later in life, OR you have to join the most radical wing of the FORCES people and reject any cause of death which doesn't come from immediate use of the substance, and say that if it requires a statistical analysis taken over years to measure an effect, then it can't properly be called a 'cause'.
What you shouldn't do (which is what appears to be happening) is to use the most extreme definition one way for tobacco, where the slightest and most minor statistical blip is construed as concrete evidence of a causal connection between the substance and fatality, but then on the other hand (for marijuana) to use the most extreme definition in the other direction, where ALL statistics are rejected as a cause and you conclude that the substance is 'harmless' because people aren't dropping dead after a single exposure. That's simply inconsistant, and unfortunately it's an inconsistancy that runs through all the discussion about drugs, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, etc. The tendency is to say that MY BAD HABIT is ABSOLUTELY HARMLESS (because I didn't immediately drop dead the last time I did it) but YOUR BAD HABIT must be UTTERLY PROHIBITED because some study showed that it caused a 2% greater chance of developing ingrown toenails in women over 40.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Now if the folks who criticize me on this blog were truly concerned about unwarranted employer drug policies and random testing (as well as unwarranted drug prohibition laws), they'd focus their energy trying to reform marijuana policies and laws."
Oh, so you also focus your energy on banning internal combustion engines, campfires, fireplaces, barbeque grills, and sparklers?
McFadden wrote:
"Bill, I guess I need to accept that the ONLY thing you think I've done that qualifies as "cigarette company misinformation" is use the term "Antismokers""
That's not what I wrote, and that's certainly not my perspective.
I see no reason to respond to any of McFadden's inquiries as long as he continues to falsely refer to me and other public health advocates as "antismokers."
Same goes for others who think they can get away with calling public health advocates totally inaccurate and disrespectful terms like Nazis, communists, fascists, terrorists, jihadists, etc.
Bill,
I actually do agree with you on something; it's no employer's business if you smoke dope on your own time. Just as it's none of their business if you smoke tobacco, cloves, herbs, oregano, or whatever. Can't we just agree on the principle? When you work for someone, you get paid to perform a service, not to live a certain lifestyle. If you are able to competently provide the service to the employeer during your time on the job, in return for wages, that's it. It none of their damn business what you do OFF THE CLOCK!
Anonymous wrote:
"Bill,
I actually do agree with you on something; it's no employer's business if you smoke dope on your own time."
That's not what I wrote, and that's not my view.
I support the rights of employers to engage in any lawful form of discrimination they desire to utilize when hiring and/or retaining employees.
That said, I don't think it is cost effective or otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who occassionally smoke marijuana while off-the-job.
In contrast, I think it is cost effective and otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who smoke cigarettes daily while off-the-job.
"That said, I don't think it is cost effective or otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who occassionally smoke marijuana while off-the-job. In contrast, I think it is cost effective and otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who smoke cigarettes daily while off-the-job."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLolololololololololololololololololololo
lolololololololololol*gasp*lololeheheh*breath*he, he, heh, heh, *sighhhhhhhhh* *ehe*!
oh. waitaminnut. you're serious?
um, nevahmind.
Jill wrote:
"But refusing to hire people because they smoke at home or on weekends seems unfair and unamerican."
Do you consider Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Ted Turner, who all implemented smokefree hiring policies at their highly successful companies, unamerican?
Many employment contracts contain clauses that prohibit or restrict the activities of employees while off-the-job.
That's why most contracts for professional athletes prohibit them from participating in other competitive athletic activities (or other physical activities with injury risks) while off-the-job.
That's also why many employment contracts prohibited employees from moonlighting for a corporate competitor while off-the-job, and/or for working for a competitor for a preagreed upon period of time following their termination of employment.
Besides, addicted cigarette smokers don't leave their drug addiction at home during work hours. Rather, they bring their addiction to work with them every day, and the addiction's withdrawal symptoms can have a negative impact on their job performance while at work (especially if/when they cannot smoke at work).
Also, studies have found that, compared to nonsmokers, smokers have higher absenteeism, higher healthcare costs, lower productivity, and greater chances of being convicted of a crime.
While these may not be concerns of many employers, some employers may not desire to incur the added costs and liabilities of hiring smokers.
Bill, you have no idea do you?
I know you see magic in the air when you're smoking the weed, but I can assure you there is no magic in the air that makes marijuana smoke any more healthy than cigarette smoke.
Until you can prove smokers are addicted without changing the definition of "addiction", then I wouldn't be so quick to throw around how smokers are addicted and marijuana users aren't. I've seen a couple of psychologically addicted marijuana smokers, and guess what, their addiction goes everywhere they do too.
You have NO idea what you are talking about....
Typical cigarette smokers consume 20 cigarettes per day and inhale 10 times per cigarettes, for a total of about 200 inhales daily, or about 1400 inhales weekly.
I've never read any research or news article that reported marijuana smokers inhaling 1400 times per week, nor have I read anything indicating that marijuana smoking was physiologically addictive.
Please don't misinterpret me (which occurs often by some commenters on this blog) as claiming that smoking marijuana doesn't pose risks.
But compared to typical marijuana smokers, typical cigarette smokers are at far greater risks for cancers, heart disease, emphysema and dozens of other diseases and disabilities.
Bill Godshall:
cigarette prohibitionist by day
pro-pot crusader by night.
I love it.
"Also, studies have found that, compared to nonsmokers, smokers have higher absenteeism, higher healthcare costs, lower productivity, and greater chances of being convicted of a crime."
Especially in places like Calabasas where Mr. Godshall has consistantly opposed making drug addicts criminals as it's not humanitarian. Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, Mr. Godshall doesn't oppose the Calabasas laws. So much for consistantly oppose eh Bill?
Please cite the source for criminal statistics and how you reached this conclusion.
Thomas Edison, Bill's idea of a model american: Cans smokering employees, but is well known his own use of tobacco.
Why does it not surprise me that Thomas Edison was an anti-smoker?
Bill, my entire family is made up of pot-smokers (biological father, uncles, aunts, grandfather,cousins, great uncle..but not my great aunt) I grew up with it, I use to be one, I used to hang out with them, and just because I stopped doesn't negate YEARS of experience.
1. Yes, there can be in some weak willed people a psychological addiction.
2. Pot smokers inhale as much as they like. SOME pot smokers smoke one a day after work to chill, some smoke them more spaced out to "keep the buzz", and some will pass around 6 or 7 joints for hours...funny, like smokers..different levels of use there. I don't care what you are or are not aware of, I can assure you there are some people out there that spend different amounts of time getting high. The only "trend" I have ever noticed is that those that smoke it one after the other usually have, or end up having, other substance abuse problems.
3. Smoke is smoke. Smoke you are inhaling is still smoke...unless you can prove scientifically that marijuana smoke is not like cigarette smoke, I could really care less what you believe about who's at greater risk for anything. Until there is proof, it is belief of yours and not necessarily true. However, logic says if smoke is bad for you, that means all smoke is bad for you, not just the kinds you don't like. Back up the claim with something substantial and undoctored or biased, don't just make statements like that.
Bill,
These anti-smoker workplace rules don't discriminate between two-pack-a-day smokers and someone who lights up one cigar a year.
In fact, this latest Atlantic Beach restriction goes so far as to exclude EX-SMOKERS no matter how little they may have smoked if their last tobacco use was less than a year ago.
Do you really believe that someone who smoked one cigar a year ago is really a 'worse' employee than a daily pot smoker? Or a daily drinker?
In fact, by including recent ex-smokers, the rule actually works completely against what it's purporting to do, i.e. get people to quit smoking. It actually sends the message to potential smoking job seekers to not even bother to quit before applying, because they are ALREADY CONDEMNED.
"Also, studies have found that, compared to nonsmokers, smokers have higher absenteeism, higher healthcare costs, lower productivity, and greater chances of being convicted of a crime."
If absenteeism is a problem with an employee, an employer can fire them for exactly that: absenteeism. As they would do with any non-smoker with the same attitude. No need to fire employees on the basis of fallacious statistics and categorization.
Bill wrote: "I see no reason to respond to any of McFadden's inquiries as long as he continues to falsely refer to me and other public health advocates as "antismokers."
LOLOL!! Talk about taking the cheap way out of an argument! Even lets him off the hook of admitting what he gets paid for his "consulting" services!
Bill you ARE incredible! And totally without shame. Amazing.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
I'm afraid that it is the tobacco control movmement's support for these type of policies (firing smokers or refusing to hire smokers) that provides ammunition, and a good dose of truth, to those who call us anti-smokers instead of anti-smoking advocates. If we were public health advocates who were concerned about addressing the problem of smokING, then we would do what the rest of the public health world does about worksite health promotion, and institute programs to encourage smokers to quit or provide assistance to help them. But firing smokers and refusing to allow them the opportunity to apply is clearly a policy that is addressing the problem as one of smokERS. So while I myself do not want to be considered an anti-smokER, I see good reason for others to consider us in that way. Unless something changes, I think we are going to prove them to be accurate.
Bill, you stated:
"That said, I don't think it is cost effective or otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who occassionally smoke marijuana while off-the-job. In contrast, I think it is cost effective and otherwise beneficial for most employers to discriminate against people who smoke cigarettes daily while off-the-job."
But that is the point I was trying to make. You THINK it is cost effective for companies to discriminate against smokers. Another employer might THINK it is cost effective to discrinate against pot smokers.
The bottom line is, in my opinion, en employer has no business getting involved in what people do in their own homes, on their own time. I apologize if I misunderstood your position, but you left the impression that you felt there was something unjust about marijuana laws and how they are related to employment policies, etc. It was in that spirit that I was agreeing with you.
The way I see it, when you work for someone, they "have" you for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (if you're lucky). That's it. An employee is not chattel property of the employer.
If some here disagree with my ideas about the nature of the employee/employer relationship, so be it. But, just hope that you are not on the receiving end of any kind of employment discrimination based on whatever it is you do on your own time and on your own dime.
Dave wrote:
"These anti-smoker workplace rules don't discriminate between two-pack-a-day smokers and someone who lights up one cigar a year."
That generalization is inaccurate, as each employer's policy is different.
Someone who smokes one cigar a year tends to inhale very little smoke,
while someone who smokes tobacco daily is very likely to inhale lots of smoke. That also greatly impacts their cotinine levels.
Godshall objects to the term anti-smoker as applied to himself, apparently because he looks upon himself not as an anti-smoker but as anti-smoking. Moreover, we know he loves smokers because he’s told us he loves smokers: “I love smokers,” he’s told us. So when he speaks of “emotionally disturbed smokers ... who are in severe denial of their drug addiction,” we shouldn’t take that as anti-smoker talk, we should take it as anti-smoking love talk, or, rather, anti-smoking ‘tough love’ talk which he’s endorsed while, apparently, in the hot embrace of smoker love.
So smokers are emotionally disturbed creatures in denial, which is such a cheap travesty of the truth of most smokers, now and in the history of the globe, that one is tempted to call Godshall a dull and ignorant clot (which of course we won’t), who would rather go to bed with a descriptive inaccuracy than look at himself in a mirror to see how long his nose has grown.
As his refusal to answer Michael McFadden’s queries because – BECAUSE – McFadden may have called him an antismoker when he’s really antismokING. Naa-naa! This is playground pique unfit for adult company.
Moreover, he won’t talk to those posters “who think they can get away with calling public health advocates totally inaccurate and disrespectful terms like Nazis, communists, fascists, terrorists, jihadists, etc.” No mention here of him calling smokers inaccurate and disrespectful terms like “emotionally disturbed smokers ... who are in severe denial of their drug addiction.” No-no-no. That's strictly clinical.
Well, I’ve never been happy with the terms Nazis, communists, fascists, terrorists, and jihadists, so how about a truly accurate term to describe Godshall like “picknose control freak”? If that doesn’t satisfy Godshall, heaven knows what will.
Michael is exactly right, of course: all of the above is nothing but a cheap and cowardly way to lay your arguments on the line and get out of a discussion. Or is Godshall telling us that lo these many months he’s refused to answer questions only from those who have used “inaccurate and disrespectful terms”? Funny thing is, Godshall once told us that he has to LAUGH whenever people call him a Nazi, a communist, a fascist or a terrorist. From having to laugh, we now get ... umbrage! From his lofty perch of disdain, he’s now dropped down into the company of common folk like us and grown a thin skin.
What a chicken!
Mike wrote;
"If we were public health advocates who were concerned about addressing the problem of smokING, then we would do what the rest of the public health world does about worksite health promotion, and institute programs to encourage smokers to quit or provide assistance to help them. But firing smokers and refusing to allow them the opportunity to apply is clearly a policy that is addressing the problem as one of smokERS."
So in your view then any employer who fires an alcoholic is nothing more than an anti drinker, and any employer who fires a crack addict is nothing more than an anti coker, and anyone who fires a heroin addict is nothing more than an anti injector.
If Mike was truly interested in advocating employer drug policies that comport to his views of public health advocacy, he would acknowledge that all employer smoking policies are far less punitive and more health promoting than other employer drug policies.
It's far more humane and civilized to offer someone a job on the condition they quit smoking cigarettes than
to be fired, arrested and incarcerated because they tested positive for an illegal drug.
BILL everyone on this blog understands the pressures you have been under lately.It can't be easy being a lawyer,scientific expert on umpteen different subjects,schizo,ayatollah,bigot.....the list is endless.But he topic is tobacco not pot,crack or numerous other substances and your like or dislike of making them legal.So to help you we're going to speak to PM to see if they can add some weed into their cigarettes.Might even make them smokeable ,who knows.Herein we will not refer to tobacco but pot-tob .You can then feel assured that your preferences for pot against those of tobacco have genuinely been taken on board by everyone,not least tobacco control who will cease to exist.
Harry O, bravo! That was poetry!
I liked the label for Bill you opted for at the end.
Funny, what came immediately to mind when I read it was what Howard Cosell (sp?) called Felix Unger in an episode of the Odd Couple: An inane drone.
And when Oscar asked what that meant Felix sniffed, "a dull bee."
Bill, you seem to be a person who cannot live without crutches (laws, policies) to walk with. But instead of building your own crutches (after all, who knows better what one needs than oneself), you ask others to build them for you. Not only that, once you find that the crutches, custom built for you, fit perfectly, you conclude that everybody must use the same model. After all, you are happy with yours, they fit so perfectly, so why shouldn't others take advantage of the same comfort?
To tell you the truth Bill, some people simply don't want or even need crutches. They walk their life on their own feet. They may fall from time to time, but while walking, they are free to roam, to discover, to decide on the next steps based on momentary moods, encounters and events.
With crutches, custom built to Bill G. standards, they would feel hindered, handycapped, restricted in their mouvement. The crutches wouldn't allow them to discover other things than the ones Bill has already discovered for them. They would have to walk in his footsteps. They would have to trust in Bill's infailibility.
On the other hand, they would be guaranteed a quiet life in clean air, smokefree, protected against all odds of life (OR 1.23, CI 95% 1.0-2.0) by comprehensive legislation.
Bill: "... then any employer who fires an alcoholic is nothing more than an anti drinker, and any employer who fires a crack addict is nothing more than an anti coker, and anyone who fires a heroin addict is nothing more than an anti injector."
I would say it depends on WHY the employee was fired. If he/she constantly shows up for work intoxicated and unable to to the job, then that is perfectly reasonable. That would not necesarily make the employer an "anti drinker."
If, however, an employer fires someone for the sole reason that the employee drinks alcoholic beverages on his/her own time, regardless on its inpact on job performance, then yes I would say the employee is an "anti-drinker." I would feel the same way if the situation involved any of the other drugs you mentioned.
"...employer smoking policies are far less punitive and more health promoting than other employer drug policies..."
They would only be less punative because tobacco is legal, assuming that an employer will actually notify authorities if illegal drugs are involved. Most will not, as far as I know, to avoid police problems on their property. Employees do not issue fines or incarcerate illegal drug users, the state does. I don't agree with it, by the way. Employer smoking policies are no less punative than firing someone for drinking off the job.
As to which policies are more "health-promoting" ... that really can't be determined with any certainty, assuming that you do think it is the employer's business to "promote health" by firing people. If you accept this premise (I don't), then one would have to argue that tobacco use is far more damaging to the health than ANY other drug (legal or illegal) taken in ANY quantity. You may beleive that to be true. I don't.
Bill: "It's far more humane and civilized to offer someone a job on the condition they quit smoking cigarettes than
to be fired, arrested and incarcerated because they tested positive for an illegal drug."
I think you are talking about 2 different things here. There is a difference between an employer OFFERING the job with the conditions known about and agreed to beforehand, and issuing ex post facto policy changes that will force an existing employee to change behavior or be fired. I don't agree with either one, as I don't think it is the employer's business what anyone does outside the job. But, there is a difference. Some workplaces have had "non-smoker" hiring policies for a while (I remember Fortunoff was like this). But, to turn around and fire an employee for smoking, when it was NOT part of the original terms under which he/she was hired, is just wrong.
ILLEGAL drug use, as you know, is tied up with all sorts of other issues invoving the power of the state. An employer might fire someone who tests positive for illegal drugs because he/she is afraid of having illegal substances at the place of business, having drug deliveries made at the place of business, etc. I do think the anti-illegal drug policies ARE inhumane and I personally believe that this whole "war on drugs" has done nothing but destroy lives, create a massive violent criminal enterprise that has destroyed many neighborhoods (my old one among them) and helped us have one of the highest per-capita prison populations.
All that said, the issue of smoking is fundamentally different from that of alcohol and illegal drugs in two respects. (a) Tobacco is not illegal, and (b) it is not an inebriant (like alcohol and most illegal drugs).
"Also, studies have found that, compared to nonsmokers, smokers have higher absenteeism, higher healthcare costs, lower productivity, and greater chances of being convicted of a crime."
Ahhhhh - more "studies".
I for one am sick of being characterized by pointless studies.
Not that I would want to work for an employer who chooses to select employee on the basis of some dumb study, but is such an employer always making a wise business decision?
I'm a smoker. In 30 years of employment I have been absent for work due to illness 3 times. The only healthcare expense I have ever incurred was due to pregnancy. You'll have to take my word for it (but I could produce some outstounding evaluations) but I have always exceeded the productivity of my co-workers. I have never comitted a crime.
No compare that record to a former co-worker of mine that I worked with for 10 years.
This woman never smoked nor ever allowed herself to be exposed to SHS. She called out sick several times a month and curiously always seemed to have a "health issue" that kept her out of work for several weeks every summer. This woman spent more time in doctor's offices, having tests and we called her purse the "office pharmacy". Name the drug, she had it in her purse. I would never characterize her as one of our more productive workers. She constantly had "issues". She couldn't lift boxes so she couldn't put away supplies, she couldn't take dust, she had to leave the room if someone was spraying cleaner on the counters, she couldn't work 7 days in a row, she had an excuse and an exception for just about everything.
As far as I know, she never comitted a crime. A year after I left, she "reacted" to the paint used to paint the outside of the building. She was out of work on disabilty for months, came back on "limited" duty and was eventually reassigned to another department. She tried to sue the company for negligence and not accommodating her "disabilities".
Now, I ask you Bill. You're an employer. Who would you rather hire?
Corrections to my message:
"I would say the employee is ..."
should read:
"I would say the employER is..."
"Employees do not issue fines..."
Should read :
"EmployERS do not issue fines..."
Sorry.
Margaret, to follow up on your comments... I bet anti-smokers (not so much nonsmokers) are out sick more often or visit doctors more often than any smoker.
Being that they are so "health conscious" I bet they visit the doctor just for checkups or run to the doctors they feel are gods who can save them for just the sniffles.
In my experience, people who smoke don't go to the doctor just for the hell of it (to see what's up) or for minor things.
And as you described, anti-smokers tend to have a truly hypochondriacal personality which likely adds to the number of doctor visits they make.
I bet anti-smokers spend more on "just for regular check-up" doctor visits in a lifetime than smokers do.
Oh sure, the antis are sneering, ready to say that smokers more than make up for it when they get sick later in life. Well, strictly to play on your court, let's use SAMMEC, which comes up with only 10% of smokers getting sick from a "smoking-related" disease. And the great majority of those are over the age of 70 -- the median age of all deaths. Ummmmm, what do YOU plan to die of at the end that won't cost a cent? Oh, that's right, anti-smokers expect never to die if they don't smoke or that they will at least have a healthy death. But meanwhile, you sure did run to a lot of doctors during your lifetime while I sat around the house smoking and spent barely a dime on healthcare.
Margaret and Just the Facts-
I think you both make an important point and it illustrates just why these policies represent employment discrimination. The fact that a person is a smoker is not directly relevant to their job performance or job qualifications to work for the city, and it is not even directly related to their health care costs. If one had a choice between a 28-year old smoker without children and a 39-year old nonsmoker with a 2 year old and an 11-month old, there is little question in my mind that the nonsmoker would, on average, incur larger health care costs and more absenteeism. This is exactly the problem. And this is why it is discrimination. While the smoker would certainly, on average, incur much greater health care costs when they are 60, that's hardly relevant to the situation when they are younger. So I think this whole line of argument that anti-smoking groups are making is ridiculous. And I think what it really shows is not a logical economic argument, but just a poor excuse to punish smokers.
Soooo.... has anyone noticed whether Bill G. ever responded to the questions as to whether, and how much, money he's made acting as an antismoking "consultant" to lawyers and such? And while I believe he *may* have denied ever owning stocks in or having "consulted" with a lawyer who ever worked for a law firm that ever represented a Big Pharma interest, has he done the same with regard to smokeless tobacco companies?
:?
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
My, I didn't realize just how LONG it's been that Bill has been ignoring these questions....
=====
Soooo.... has anyone noticed whether Bill G. ever responded to the questions as to whether, and how much, money he's made acting as an antismoking "consultant" to lawyers and such? And while I believe he *may* have denied ever owning stocks in or having "consulted" with a lawyer who ever worked for a law firm that ever represented a Big Pharma interest, has he done the same with regard to smokeless tobacco companies?
:?
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael J. McFadden | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 1:27 pm | #
=====
How about it Bill Godshall? And, while you're at it, how about citing three or four of my "inaccuracies" ?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Survey reveals that the majority of employers prefer non-smokers -
A staggering 75% of potential employers said that they would recruit a non-smoker over a smoker, if the candidates were otherwise equal.
Employers’ reasons not to employ a smoker included a dislike of the smell of stale smoke, the belief that smoking breaks wasted working time, health and safety concerns, fears that smokers were more likely to be absent because of illness and concerns that nicotine cravings may affect productivity or cause mood swings.
This is the result of a survey conducted by Rooks Rider solicitors in conjunction with the Portobello Business Centre. The Portobello Business Centre provided practical, legal and financial advice to over 1,000 start-ups and existing businesses in Kensington and Chelsea each year. Caroline provided pro bono employment law lectures on a monthly basis for over a year to the Portobello Business Centre to entrepreneurs and start up businesses.
Caroline Doran, employment law specialist at Rooks Rider, solicitors says:
"It appears that cigarette packets should also carry a warning "smoking can seriously damage your career prospects".
We were surprised that the negative view of smoking and smokers was not just limited to industries such as catering or health and beauty. Even potential employers in areas such as technology or fashion also expressed a preference for non-smoking employees.
The major concern of the potential employers we surveyed was the belief that smokers were likely to take frequent smoking breaks during working hours. One employer responded vehemently that “smokers steal my time”.
Commenting by HaloScan
