The greatest argument TC uses when discussing the discrimination against smokers is that smokers are NOT a protected class, since smokers are not specifically mentioned in anti-discrimination laws. They also point out how employers are free to set their own policies regarding their PRIVATE business (apparently unlike the PRIVATELY OWNED bars and restaurants).
Well, here's a newsflash for you...........neither are the obese.
Yet apparently the assumption is that they are, since discrimination is basically against the law.
It's alright for employers and insurance companies, and medical professionals to openly discriminate against smokers, but applying the same "freedom to choose" suddenly isn't suppose to apply to anyone else?
Amazing how literal or general they can be when it suits them.
Once again, the hypocrisy shows loud and clear.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"If we are going to support the idea of excluding smokers from employment to save health care costs for employers, then we must also support the idea of excluding fat people from employment."
Let's ask Bill. He just said this the other day:
"Most smokefree advocates who hate tobacco smoke sympathize with employers who also dislike tobacco smoke and who don't want to subsidize the healthcare and lost productivity costs imposed by smoking."
so now when the obese are discriminated against (especially the ones yelling for 'pure air') we will see how they like their option in employment and entertainment choices drastically regulated, shunned, denormalized, dehumanized----I could go on and on.
Bill, If you are a tubby, perhaps you will not be eligible for funding from the usual sources. Perhaps you'll have to go get a job. Or maybe, being the swell guy you are when an obese relative or friend loses their ability to support themselves you could be a 'do gooder' and savior to them.
Britain's latest suggestion.
Give smokers time off work on full pay to attend stop smoking sessions. There is no mention if this would be voluntary on smokers side. However I can see it becoming mandatory with consequences for those that fail to quit or refuse to attend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6589285.stm
There appears to be no end to the coercion. And no matter how you wrap it up it is coercion.
The very suggestion has polarised opinion. Even the BBC "have your say" forum is awash with anti-smoker rhetoric. Which is quite informative on it's own, the HYS is one of the most rigidly moderated sites in the UK. Any and all contentious comments are deleted unless you are attacking smokers it seems!
So far we should be sacked, taxed and dead.
The cynic in me wonders if the whole ludicrous idea is being floated to split the population even further on the issue. With the ban in England coming soon this may be intended to reduce any sympathy or support in opposing the ban.
GreatScot
I read this article just yesterday and was planning on bringing it up, but was going to quote just the paragraph on the injuries and cost to the employer that obese people put on them, but omit the obese and ask if anyone could guess who they were talking about!
Anyway, thankyou for bringing it forward instead. Once again, I need to state that I have never worked with a smoker who cost the employer one red cent and has never taken a day off work due to smoking related illness. A few that I have worked with and who seemed to never be at work is women who decides to extend their families and are pregnant every other year, parents with children who has Doctor appointments, school plays, class trips or school bell fever. I have worked with sports enthusists who can't get out of bed the day after the super bowl or world series. I especially enjoy working with the people who call their dog during working hours so that the pooch can hear their voice and remain calm while home alone. I have also worked with the obese, some lazy slobs,(my opinion) and some who never misses a day of work and would stay an extra hour to help cover that guy who partied to much the night before.
I'm not sure, but I would guess that the reason you don't hear anyone from your tobacco control cartel is because they are on the obese side too and the last thing they want is to speak out and take the chance of drawing attention to themselves.
Diane, I can only echo everything you said. I have the same exact experiences in the workplace. Seems to me it's all the healthists taking time off for doctors and gyms, not to mention calling in sick for every little sniffle they get.
I worked with a woman once who seemed to catch everything anyone in the office had, including NON-commincable illnesses. So one day, after yet another session of whining about some ailment, as she walked by, I sniffled and said "gee I must be getting a cold". Sure as hell, the very next day she called in "sick" with a cold, and upon her return accused ME of giving it to her. I calmly informed her, while trying desperately not to laugh in her face, that I did NOT have a cold, I merely sniffled and suggested I might be getting one as she walked by, and apparently she appears to be a hypochondriac.
Boy was she totally pissed at me.......I can't imagine why?
Yeah, I know, I'm one sick and twisted soul........ 
BUT smokers contribute FAR MORE in taxes than any other group.So Smokers pay for the health care costs of the obese and the overbearing ignorant and bombastic individuals called ANTIS (GOES FOR SMOKING,DRINKING,OBESE YOU NAME IT)
But si, they are too busy spending those excessive taxes on ads to harass us to put it towards any "imagined" excess costs we "supposedly" create.
Didn't you get that memo? 
Yeah, I know, I'm one sick and twisted soul........ says Lynda.
Well I'm proud to be in your company! That is how I tell my real workers from the rest with little things like that. LOL
Boy Shopping Until They Drop----on the smokers dime. And they call us the addicts. They really cannot help themselves.
At Monsanto, we had an hour lunch, plenty of time to eat, but the exercise freaks, would take off at 11Am and get into their workout garb, then work out for 40 minutes, then shower, dress, and then take another hour to eat lunch. so they were away from the work stations for 2 hours at noon, I was away from my work for only one hour. Dave K
Hope you didn't smoke while on that hour lunch break, Dave K, because that would have cost the company $$ in lost productivity............
I hear you about the gym time though. I worked with a woman once who even took off an hour two to go get her hair done. And she did this regularly as she said her weekends were too busy to do it then.
I don't take a regular lunch break as I break it up for my smoke breaks so no one can complain. Plus I come in earlier than anyone else. I don't get paid for this either, so the company is basically getting FREE work from me. I dare them to claim I cost them money.
Michael;
"You don't hear anyone suggesting that to save health care and workers compensation money, employers fire fat people or stop hiring them in the first place. It simply isn't part of the discourse."
Considering the source of the research, perhaps your observation is missing the all important word
""YET""
TC started out with respectful messages to gain acceptance, as they grew the messages grew more hateful and abusive.
In time what the same health scare community says about the overweight will quickly loose its appearance of empathy.
give them time.
It's time we all started demanding that insurance be separated from the employee/government based systems of health insurance we have now before all our decisions are dictated to us.
Time to go back to paying for care and carrying catastrophic coverage before it's too late.
Margaret,
That is what I have been doing for the past 5 years. So far so good.
Since the obese are the ones 'causing' the highest health care costs, it follows that the smokers must 'cause' lower health care costs. This makes it even more suspect to discriminate smokers and not to discriminate the obese.
Perhaps it is time to give bonuses to smokers, and to subsidize smoking.
Now that I think about it, several years ago, when we lived in New Hampshire, the company I worked for did away with the smoking breakroom and when I asked why they said it was a decision by the health insurance companies with a promise to keep premiuns lower if they sent smokers outside. I do remember quite well that my boss was NOT happy with having to step outside too, but he had to do whatever it takes so to beable to continue to offer health insurance to his employees. This policy was the beginning of all this insurance nonsense. Therefore, these new studies on the cost of obesity to the employers might just be paid for by the insurance company in the first step towards weeding out fat people. This should be fun to watch. More of the everyday people will be waking up to all this dictatorship and maybe we can close down blue cross blue shield in the process. I can hear the screaming now!
GreatScot, I finally heard from the last family with the child at Virginia Tech. I am happy to report that Katie is just fine and returned to school on Monday. She stayed on campus for one day then came home and went into seclusion for a few days and her parents stayed busy consoling her instead of letting us all know that she was alright. Thanks for the prayers and it looks like they were all answered.
Doc's article says "Not so with an almost identical problem - off-the-job employee smoking. That problem is also costing employers money in terms of health care costs."
ReLLY? "That problem is also costing employers money in terms of health care costs", really?, and where is the proof of these extra costs? I used to work for one of the biggest BCBS health insurer groups in the nation, and I have seen the actuarial data, and I would really, really, love to see you provide the proof of this statement good doctor, until then, I consider this just another falaccious Antismoker claim not backed or supported by ANY evidence, and I find you good doctor as guilty (or brainwashed) as those you chastise for making fallacious claims without the proof to back them.
I would also like to see proof that smokers do, in fact, cause higher health care costs for an employer. I've worked for several large banks and corporations in my career, and I just don't see it. I agree with Diane and Lynda that pregnant women, women with children, and hypochondriacs (who are generally NOT smokers...I've never known a smoking hypochondriac) cause a MUCH higher expense to employers. It seems to me that the so called "smoking-related" diseases do not turn up until retirement age. Most companies do not provide retiree medical insurance.
Oh dear,yet another fallacy blown out of the anti smoking rhetoric.Dr Siegel,why are you getting as bad as Bill for these one line comments on most of your articles.Why do you feel the need ? Is it appeasement for your anti comrades? I really don't see the need or logic unless it is old habits die hard.
I also seem to remember, not to very long ago, an article whereby a Florida city had decided to give up their policy of not hiring smokers, or firing them as the case may be, because they DID NOT see any reduction in costs incurred from this measure, so, I ask again, where are these magical numbers that prove, or even show, that smokers cost employers and insurance companies more in terms of health care costs, especially as compared to child bearing aged employee's, obese, chronic illness/birth defects/handicapped (which have not only the protection against discrimination, but are actually holding these companies to the law where they have to make extra accomodations for them?
I agree with the overall tone of your article Dr. Siegel, discrimination is discrimination, and you (and all other Antismokers, or as you put it, those in tobacco control) really should hang your heads in shame after fostering this type of discrimination on the public for an agenda driven without proof of harm to anyone, but most especially to "innocent" bystanders. Innocent bystanders, that is what we smokers were not to long ago, just good citizens trying to live our lives, with our choices as best we could, trying to be legal, law abiding, volunteering, good samaratins. Hell, I used to volunteer tons of time and money to many different charities, until I found out how a large portion of those "charities" were (and are) actively seeking to foster discrimination against me, directly, not some nameless person, me, an average smoker, in my 5th decade. I have taken in foster children in my years, I have worked many tiring hours at volunteer tasks, have stood out in the freezing cold ringing the bells for the Salvation Army (who now wouldn't give me a bed because I smoke), donated to food pantry's, delivered food from those pantry's, had an automatic deduction taken out of my paycheck weekly to support the local United Way. In short, while maybe not a "model" citizen, I did the best I could to help where I could. Not any more, I no longer donate money to "organized" charities, Any time I volunteer, I make damn sure of what the cause is, and where the money goes, and I make damn sure it is used to actually help people who need help they are seeking, not used to foster "help" upon those not seeking it, not deciding what help they must have, not telling them how to live their lives in order to recieve my help. I help the best I can, and leave their lives to them. This would have been a respectable goal for those concerned with the effects of tobacco smoke exposure, but they have usurped that goal, and have become tyrants in due course. I used to read that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I now have proof that it does, and it is a sad day for myself and the world that those who hold this power are so arrogant as to believe they have nothing to fear from us outcasts anymore. Let them believe their own lies, it isn't over, and I will be among those at the front of this battle.
Health care costs is an interesting Pandora's box to open, as this opens the door, for your neighbor, employer or the fanatical activist justification for controlling ones behavior. Bill stated his support was out of sympathy for employers, but I'll wager he has no concern for employers picking up the health care costs associated with sports related activities such as volleyball.
My boss is very competitive, and loves a good game of racquetball or squash before coming to work. Last year he had to have his ear drum reconstructed from taking a direct hit on the side of his head, leaving him partially deaf in that ear. Today he underwent surgery to repair his knee as a result of a torn ALS from a recent squash game.
We also have a Jehovah Witness at work who argues that those who have a strong faith live longer and healthier lives, and has quite a few statistics to support that claim. Does Bill hold sympathy for employers forced to hire atheists at the expense of their higher health care expenses?
We have Tobacco Control Advocates such as our dear friend Bill to thank for obliging Ms. Pandora in the open invitation for our employers to intervene in all our personal, off the clock behavior. But they can't take full credit; as part of the war on narcotics under government encouragement, employers began to institute drug screening. What is curious about this, is the government can not insist on a drug screen of it's citizens without court order, so they get the employers to do so. Now many of the nations workers are subjected to these violations of privacy required to obtain urine samples.
If we remember Weyco's president applied his policy to even those that weren't on the company health care plan. So this was merely an excuse to persecute a behavior he didn't approve of. In addition, he said if the state he lived in didn't already have a law protecting obesity, he would have made it apply to them also.
Alleged health care costs are nothing more than an excuse to control others behavior. It is also very easy to construct a biased study to reach a predetermined conclusion especially in relation to health care costs. This is an ugly and very bad precedent.
It's only a matter of time before employers begin cholesterol screening, and BMI testing to weed out these health care undesirables.
Welcome to the age of the socialists paradise.
Jerry,
I'm with you. I stopped donating money, blood and my time years ago, way before it became so blatantly obvious. I seen where it was headed and withdrew all support. Felt like I got a pay raise once that money was no longer deducted from the paycheck too.
The barrage of anti-obesity messages we are bombarded with are not an accident. There's big money to be had in classifying obesity as a disease that's a major problem that needs treatment.
Again - if you can't get people to pay up for these treatments well then you convince the employers and insurance companies to do it.
Follow the money, who's sponsoring the obesity hysteria?
Margaret,
I do know RWJF is contributing mucho $$$$ to the "war on obesity" it was all over the news channels a couple of weeks ago.
We all know what road this is on. The pathetic thing is that all the obese non-smokers will still not be able to connect the dots and swear this isn't the same thing as the smoking issue.
Bets anyone?
My partner is fond of saying: "looking at your neighbor and calculating 'how much are you costing me'? is a very ugly obsession".
I quite agree, and I think it applies equally well to employers. Employers who are obsessed with calculating how much their valued and valuable employees might be "costing" them, are scum. Find an employer who is concerned with how well you perform your job.
Jerry Thomas wrote: I also seem to remember, not to very long ago, an article whereby a Florida city had decided to give up their policy of not hiring smokers, or firing them as the case may be, because they DID NOT see any reduction in costs incurred from this measure...
Yes, I seem to recall reading about that, too. Oh, wait! It was right here on this blog--
St. Cloud (Florida) Rescinds Smoker-Free Hiring Policy Due to Lack of Qualified Police Officers
According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, the city of St. Cloud (Florida) has rescinded its policy of refusing to hire smokers. Two reasons were provided for this decision. First, the policy was not effective in reducing health insurance costs for the city. Second, the city was unable to recruit enough qualified applicants for employment, especially in the police force. The policy was putting too much of a crimp in its ability to recruit qualified applicants.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....moker-
free.html
Jerry Thomas,
I have often wondered, when you fill out app's for insurance coverage, as I smoker I have to state that fact. While my husband simply answered NO. No further question about it.
It would seem the ins co's are missing out on all of the $$$ in not docking the non-smoking spouse of a smoker, if all of the SHS BS is true.
I would bet they know it is alot of hooey!! And they know with the current studies cannot justify their doing so.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I remember the time when non smokers were fired becasue they had the courage to complain that they were smoked out. I remember the people who died because they had been obliged ofr years (despite their complaints) to breathe their colleague's smoke. I don't recall that many smokers having been fired and WHO the policy has not been universally approved among tobacco control advocates. Yours is a very biased presentation. As for the libertarians who are so virulent about their right to smoke, why should they deny corporations their choice not to hire smokers?
Is this issue a priority? I don't think so. Let us remember, what the libertarians said so often about non smokers smoked out on their job: nobody obliges them to keep this job they can take another job. If smokers are upset about companies that prohibit smoking they can look for a job in a company that allows smoking.
According to the libertarian rule it is their choice to smoke so where is the problem?
Philippe states...." I remember the people who died because they had been obliged ofr years (despite their complaints) to breathe their colleague's smoke."
I'd like the names and death certificates of these people please. You remember so well, go look it up. We will wait for your answer.
Philippe,
While you attempt to obfuscate in libertarian rule, let me ask you where the libertarians stand up and say yes, the government should spend taxpayer money to support groups promoting hiring discrimination?
Of course it was for the poor non-smoking waitstaff that smoking bans were justified, as when it was suggested that non-smoking waitstaff seek employment in non-smoking establishments. Now individuals in tobacco control either lend their silent support of hiring discrimination of ONLY smoking employees, OR actively support it, lending they "sympathies".
Tobacco control has time and time again caught itself up in it's own hypocrisy.
It's not fair to hire smoking waitstaff staff where all exposure would be voluntary and desirable. But it is fair for prominent health organizations to actively practice and thus promote the reverse discrimination.
It's the evil tobacco industry that created "light" cigarettes because they aren't "safer" or reduce the degree of nicotine addiction, but we need FDA control to reduce nicotine content to reduce the wean smokers.
Anybody that follows this closely will see how far tobacco control speaks out of both sides of their "butts".
Tobacco industry funded research is dismissed because of conflict of interest, however research done by the fanatically obsessed is to be treated as the holy grail, with no conflict of interest.
Further, research sponsored by the alternate nicotine supplier, as to how safe and effective their products are, replaced as the primary recommended treatment of the "smoking condition".
As a libertarian, tobacco control is the epitome of inappropriate governmental intervention. My solution is remove from the public purse, any group advocating or promoting such discrimination. Tobacco control has labored very hard to keep smokers from becoming a protected class, now the more radical elements within it, are making it nessasary to seriously consider such.
Furthermore, I don't believe Dr. Siegel has even mentioned governmental intervention towards hiring discrimination, but rather has condemned tobacco control "advocates" for promoting such practice, and failing to speak out against such.
As a matter of fact, I'm one of the few people here that has even suggested governmental intervention, and I do so with deep reservations.
But I believe that since the government and it's agents have created such a climate, it is their obligation to correct it.
Like Walt H., I too am hesitant to suggest government intervention to solve the problem and prevent employment discrimination against smokers. However, the problem is starting to get so out of hand that I'm afraid government intervention may be necessary. I therefore don't think it is unreasonable for state legislatures to pass laws that prevent employment discrimination on the basis of lawful off-the-job behavior that does not directly impact job performance or relate to a bona fide job requirement.
As far as Philippe's argument goes, it doesn't hold up with me since I neither oppose workplace smoking bans nor have argued that nonsmokers can just get another job.
And then there's this...
Does smoking increase medical care expenditure?
Leu RE, Schaub T.
The impact of smoking on medical care expenditure is analyzed, challenging the widespread belief that smoking imposes a large cost burden on health services systems. The results imply that lifetime expenditure is higher for nonsmokers than for smokers because smokers' higher annual utilization rates are overcompensated for by nonsmokers' higher life expectancy. Population simulation, taking into account the effects of past smoking on present population size and composition, suggests that 1976 expenditure would have been the same if no male born since 1876 had ever smoked. The male population would have been larger, particularly at older ages, increasing medical care expenditure, but this increase would have been offset by lower annual medical care utilization rates. Thus the results imply that smoking does not increase medical care expenditure and, therefore, reducing smoking is unlikely to decrease it.
PMID: 6419350 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...0&
dopt=Abstract
Sunz wrote:
"I'd like the names and death certificates of these people please. You remember so well, go look it up. We will wait for your answer."
/Austin brings tub of popcorn and sits next to Sunz
James Austin & Sunz >>
Might want to bring a sleeping bag while your at it.
Philippe Boucher >>
"As for the libertarians who are so virulent about their right to smoke, why should they deny corporations their choice not to hire smokers?"
And why should they deny corporations their choice not to hire people based on religon? Based on eating habits? But of course denying them their choice to allow smokers to smoke indoors, even if being in an isolated smoking area is of course, out of the question right? Ridiculous.
"If smokers are upset about companies that prohibit smoking they can look for a job in a company that allows smoking."
Except of course in those states that have already banned doing so.
"According to the libertarian rule it is their choice to smoke so where is the problem?"
In other words, you are free to choose to smoke but just don't do it ANYWHERE. Including on the street, in parks, in a car if you have kids, inside any buildings, and even in your own home now if you live in an apartment. You call that choice?
Heres another one;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...st_uids=9117967
It is estimated that in 1989-90 an average smoker cost the government $203.57, while benefits received totalled an average of $620.56 in the same year. If the government were serious about addressing cigarette smoking as a primary health objective its efforts would portray this. The results of this analysis suggest that the objective of raising revenue from smoking is more of a priority than reducing smoking rates.
And this one;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...st_uids=2918654
On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes; but one may, nonetheless, wish to raise those taxes to reduce the number of adolescent smokers. In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others.
Again;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
Both initial estimates and the results of sensitivity analyses performed on key assumptions and parameters of the estimation methodology rejected the hypothesized existence of a financial externality arising from smokers' health care utilization.
More;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
CONCLUSIONS: If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
This one is fun;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
Compared to other subjects, ex-smokers had a higher frequency of having a history of medical care. Ex-smokers showed higher and current smokers lower values of both visiting (percentage of subjects utilizing medical facilities at least once a year) and monthly rate of receiving examinations when compared to non-smokers. Current smokers had the lowest average number of days utilized for medical services,
For balance the words from the other side are quite sobering;
refering to a smoker as cousin it and refering to ceasation promotions as by design?
What could that mean?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
The civilian noninstitutionalized population of cigarette smokers in 1985 who are age 25 and older is expected to incur over its remaining lifetime excess medical expenditures of $501 billion, or $6,239 per smoker. It is possible that future changes beyond recent historical trends in the habits of those who currently smoke, such as reductions in the amount smoked, higher rates of quitting, whether occurring fortuitously or brought about by design, may result in lower costs of smoking than estimated
Hypochondriacs aside, people who come to work with bad colds and flus really do make coworkers sick. We're talking about germs-- nontheoretical agents that directly, provably, and quickly spread a disease.
Per the NY Times Dec. 26, 2006, this spreading-the-germs syndrome is now so pronounced that it's even given a name: it's called "presenteeism" and 57% of employers say it's a problem.
""Because of lost productivity ill workers on the job account for as much as 60% of corporate health costs, according to researchers at Cornell University-- more than absentee workers, and far more than companies pay in direct medical and disability costs."
Then, too, the costs could be higher since a worker made sick by another coworker's sneezes can spread the flu to his wife, who spreads it in her office and so on and so on.
Another article, same paper, same date, says the cost to emoployers from people with diabetes is "$13, 243 per year" more than "5 times as much" as non-diabetics.
And, at least as far as I know, there is no constitutional right to be diabetic. The slippery slope is engaged.
Finally, many states (tho only about... 20?) have laws against so-called "lifestyle" discrimination, but recently no states that haven't had them of longstanding are keen to consider them now. And mostly because the legislators have all been "carefully taught" to also despise smokers-- the only group (so far) to have their "lifestyle" despised.
:
Margaret asked, who's behind the focus on employee obesity and implied "follow the money. "
Bingo. This article, about employer interference, should blow everyone's mind.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....urvey-
says.html
:
One more interesting nugget to put it all in perspective
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=15149482
Principal Findings
Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.
The distribution of health care costs is strongly age dependent, a phenomenon that takes on increasing relevance as the baby boom generation ages. After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50 (Meerding et al. 199
. Bradford and Max (1996) determined that annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. Personal health expenditure also rises sharply with age within the Medicare population. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84 (Fuchs 199. Nursing home and short-stay hospital use also increases with age, especially for older adults (Liang et al. 1996).
Let us remember, what the libertarians said so often about non smokers smoked out on their job: nobody obliges them to keep this job they can take another job. If smokers are upset about companies that prohibit smoking they can look for a job in a company that allows smoking.
Philippe, neither this topic nor this blog is about libertarianism, so just cut it out. Besides, your argument works against your own believes: nobody obliges non-smokers to work in smoky bars. Nobody obliges YOU to patronize a restaurant you consider smoky.
By the way, if you are the real Philippe Boucher, it is interesting to follow your ties:
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation : Secured $100,000 grant to develop, create and launch the Tobacco Control Directory.
Secured $50,000 grant to survey and analyze tobacco control websites and to produce 52 interviews.
National Committee for Tobacco Control
Executive Director Paris, France 1991-1997
Initiated and supervised more than 200 lawsuits to enforce the Tobacco Control Act.
Obtained more than $2 million in punitive damages and out of court settlements.
Initiated aggressive TV media campaigns funded by money from punitive damages and out of court settlements.
Union International Union Against Cancer:Secured funding to conduct and edit 50 interviews of tobacco control leaders from around the world via e-mail.
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad...cher/
index.html
I think most here are familiar with it, but for those who are not you might want to check out an overview of the taxes/cost question at:
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/...e=article&
sid=7
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Following the money from Walt's link
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....ealth-
care.html
and
http://www.wbgh.org/services/
ack...wledgements.pdf
Somehow you just had to know; RWJF and the CDC would have to have a heavy hand in all this.
Yes Kevin----who would have thuuunk it?
Research has finally been put to a good purpose for a change.
Now watch some taxpayer funded group come along and paternalise the banning of it's use.
http://www.scientificsocieties.o...04-1306-
269.pdf
Hypochondriacs aside, people who come to work with bad colds and flus really do make coworkers sick.
Walt, I agree. Except that I also noticed it is usually the non-smokers who are the ones that seem to catch every little germ that hits them. Many times I've told them to take up smoking just to avoid having those pesky colds, etc knock them down..........hehehehehe They of course remind me of how early I'm going to die, at which point I ask them for the proof of that, and then remind them that I'd rather die young and happy than old and drooling all over myself back in diapers again.
I get such nasty looks.........I don't get it....hehehehehe
Walt,
I remeber a study which found smokers who go to church regularly live as long as nonsmokers.
Dr. Siegel, actually about half of all states do have laws prohibiting job discrimination against smokers. Missouri does as part of it's clean indoor air act. I remember Scotts Miracle Grow said they would discharge smokers in states without discrimination laws, but not in states which prohibit smoker job discrimination.
I don't think any states have laws probibiting job discrimination against the obese. i think some airlines are beginning to charge them more too.
Dave K
OT---but relevant:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
48e334ce...0b5df10621.html
Hopefully, someday the TC scam will be revealed for the fraud it is!!!
It is still permitted to dream, isn't it?
Kevin,
re: last post
you wise acre you
Like Walt H., I too am hesitant to suggest government intervention to solve the problem and prevent employment discrimination against smokers. However, the problem is starting to get so out of hand that I'm afraid government intervention may be necessary. I therefore don't think it is unreasonable for state legislatures to pass laws that prevent employment discrimination on the basis of lawful off-the-job behavior that does not directly impact job performance or relate to a bona fide job requirement.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 04.25.07 - 11:45 pm | #
And that is the problem with you tobacco control freaks (not you Walt) you always go to the government to solve the problems YOU created. Tobacco control freaks messing with private employment decisions is nothing new. I was dealing with the ACS, ALA, AHA, and the rest of the alphabet soup body part/disease mongering cartel as long ago as 1992 witht he first (so-called) "Clean Indoor Air Act" was implemented in Delaware. There was a clause in it to prohibit such discrimination against smokers and the anti-smokr cartel went absolutely ballistic over it.
A few years later legislation was introduced to prohibit hiring/firing based upon legal activities outside work hours and the work place. No mention of smoking was included in the language, yet the anti-smoker cartel control freaks screamed from the rafters it was a "smokers' rights law."
The antis won the argument and to this day one can find classified jobs ads in Delaware newspapers stting "smokers need not apply."
You are being hypocritical here Dr. Siegel, but that is par for the course for tobacco control freaks. You claim employers should not discriminate employment based upon whether one smokes, yet support discriminating against employers who wish to have a smoker friendly environment. You may think you are taking the high road by opposing such employer discrimination, but you are not, as you are very supportive of discrimination of smokers with your backing of smoker bans in private businesses, whether they are open to the public or not.
Slightly off topic, sort of:
I am so glad I am beyond all this. This is some scary doo doo:
Brain-altering baby milk may neuter obesity risk
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
world...7180567757.html
SCIENTISTS are working on a baby formula that would chemically restructure children's metabolic system to ensure they do not become obese.
The health thing has gotten way past smokers rights. In the interests of their views of what's right regarding your body (obesity being the prime one), they are willing to alter the very food you eat. But noone's worried about that. In the drive to do "good" they don't realize the bad they are doing to get the "good" done. (Yes, I know that sentence was a bit convoluted). The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The fact that the majority of people do not see the same step by step procedure (in the "obesity crisis" as in the SHS "scare")is more scary than the fact that the scientists have figured out that they can do this. The fact is, scientists can and should figure out anything they want, but it's up to us as the public to demand respect and human diginity. That is not tampering with our food,water, etc without a good cause that we understand and endorse. Not to push their own private agenda in some fear that they alone live in. Doctors and scientists used to be trustworthy, now they are nothing more than "false prophets", so to speak.
Gabz, excellent points of observation. I've noticed the same thing.
Jalestra, I agree.
I agree with Gabz, Doctor. As I stated in a previous post, you are willing to protect your interests (in removing links from this site)yet you refuse to connect the dots on this total ban in all private business sanctioned by the state.
Points well made Gabz.
I believe that Robert Wood Johnson has already dedicated $500 million as a kick off party to his next fraud. Pills and obesity go hand in hand historically with the diet industry so RWJF will not waste any time getting laws passed by the numerous legislators he has already purchased. As the world renowned $16 billion oracle from Mt. Princeton, N. J. he foresees big profit in fat futures, my children.....oh yeah, it's "for the children."
SCIENTISTS are working on a baby formula that would chemically restructure children's metabolic system to ensure they do not become obese.
While they are at it, they may as well work on a formula that chemically restructures children's metabolic system to prevent anorexia.
And with the generous help of Robert Wood Johnson alias Johnson & Johnson, they could develop a formula that would diminish the sexual urge in order to prevent sex crimes.
Holy Smokes!!!
Not Bionic Kids
MEDIBONIC BABIES
I can hardly wait----and I thought "frozen grandchildren" was unique. (frozen embryos, sperm, etc)
And to think all this with NO RISK---member any risk is not permitted.
Doctors and scientists used to be trustworthy, now they are nothing more than "false prophets", so to speak.
Jalestra | 04.26.07 - 1:19 pm | #
OUCH, Jalestra, that one's gonna hurt........and I hope it hurts real good.
Lynda F. and Sunz, thanks for the support.
Unlike most of the tobacco control freaks I have met, I actually think Dr. Siegel is a good peron, very misguided, but agood person nonetheless. I also like Dr. Siegel, and imagine I would totally enjoy sitting down over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine (or beer, or a martini, or whatever) with him. However, that personal "feeling" does not keep me from calling a spade a spade. Dr. Siegel frequently refers to the fact he has been in "tobacco control" for 21 years, thus he needs to accept part of the responsibility for the creation of the anti-smoker cartel of today. Without the "tobacco control" pioneers such as Dr. Siegel, there would not be as may Stonton Glantz's, Ed Sweda's, John Banzhaf's, Joe Cherner's, Bill Godshall's, or Carl's or Cathy Bell's as there currently are.
Dr. Siegel is not one of the hate mongerers of the anti-smoker cartel, but he was at the forefront of the movement that created them.
Dianne,
I am so pleased that your friends daughter is fine. I am sure she, and all others affected by this atrocity, will need support for sometime to come.
best wishes
Greatscot
It's like living a second life ... déjà vu, under different circumstances and on another topic... simply replace "fat" by "smoker"
'If you're fat you most probably won't get that job'
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
And in case your never heard about fallacious claims (not supported by the underlying study) and groups with financial interests, read this:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....g-only-
fat.html
Gabz,
Again I have to agree with you. I do like the Doc, but I won't sit here and let him get away with what I see as misleading comments either. Nor will I let him off the hook for his part in this nightmare we are now living.
I'd love to sit down with him, but I'd have to smoke too, and that won't work............so I'll just have to settle for this here.
I like the guy as well. But that doesn't excuse the large permanent dent he and TC have put in all of our lives.
I really do believe if he came out in a huge media format it might start slowing this down. But that is going to be one long haul. One I will not see the result of in my lifetime, and I'm only 55!!!
An acquaintance of mine used to talk perpetually about those in power pissing in the same pot. He was right: most of them do. A someone else said, however, empires, and public health IS now an empire, get weaker the bigger they grow because they have more probelms stretching their logistics and resources. This is also true and corrupt "imperial" public health will not be powerful forever, particularly when it requires so much money to drive it. Most of us on the other hand are entirely self-finacing and that's our great strength. WE don't need big bucks to operate.
Gabz and Lynda,
I'd have a drink with you anytime (it would probably be a beer). I'd even hang in a cigar bar with you, so you could smoke. But I'd have to leave after 29 minutes, lest I suffer a heart attack. 
I actually do agree with you that as someone within the movement, I do bear some responsibility for the actions of the movement. That is exactly why I am speaking out now - because my silence would amount to my being complicit in those actions of the movement which I find objectionable.
But do cut me a little slack. Some of these groups have simply gone off the deep end, and with or without me they would have ended up there.
Then Doctor would you be willing to cut us smokers a little slack, and let us decide the proper way to conduct our lives, raise our children, freely associate---when where and with whom we choose, take the risks we choose....?
How about cutting some slack to the list (posted on the NJ Ban blog) and give us your best case on SHS? I know there are some on that list that could help us all understand what the real deal is.
Lynda, Gabz, to be honest with you, I really wasn't referring to Doc, while he may have instigated this, I do not hold the current activities of the TC movement actually against him, as much as I wish that he would see his good intentions led right down the road to hell. I tend to blurt what I'm thinking without considering it can be taken wrong by the person I'm addressing, it's a very nasty habit of mine. I wasn't even thinking of him when I typed that. I feel a "false prophet" is one that has intentionally set out to mislead the public. In all fairness, Doc has tried very hard to overcome quite a few of his initial feelings. While he still may have some way to go in our opinion, I do not consider him a "false prophet".
Ah, I see you're on here now Doc, allow me to tender my apologies for any slight you might have felt. I do agree with you that TC would have ended up on this road regardless, whether it was tobacco or something else. Somewhere I saw a story, where a man ran into a friend who had turned into a very extreme drunk. Some years later they ran into one antoher again, and the man had become and extremely devout religious nut. As he was telling another mutual friend about the drunk/nut, the mutual friend said "He really hasn't overcome his addiction, he's only found a new one". TC is the same way. Their addiction is a cause, and if it isn't one cause, it will always be another.
"He really hasn't overcome his addiction, he's only found a new one".
I subscribe to the theory that people give up nothing...they merely trade.
I also believe (only half joking) that people who do not have obvious vices do nasty, despicable things in private.
Smoking was once an acceptable common vice. The majority in the US smoked.
Now, the majority do not smoke. Instead, they eat more, drink incredible amounts of soft drinks and the percentage of those on legal drugs (including children) has shot through the roof.
The incidence of asthma, allergies and diabetes has increased tremendously - all while the percentage of smokers (and the presence of ETS) has declined hugely.
Actually, none of us would be here today if our ancestors, reaching back hundreds of thousands of years, had not used wood (later coal, in some areas) as a fuel to keep themselves warm and cook their food. They also purposely set brush fires as a hunting technique. Wood and coal (and yes, charcoal briquettes) contain heavy concentrations of the substances that are labeled carcinogens - many identical to cigarette smoke.
How did the human race ever become the dominant species and fill every corner of the earth if they were so delicate, so sensitive to smoke and many other substances?
Humans are not delicate. Dr. James Le Fanu: "It is a biological necessity that the human organism be resilient and not readily injured by miniscule levels of pollution in air and water."
In Michigan, Lung Cancer contributes 35% of its cancer costs. So if you "buy" that smoking causes 85% of lung cancer, than it has a share of these "preventable" costs. It is kind of surprising since 60% of lung cancer occurs after age 65 when most people have medicare and BCBS exposure is much less. It's also probably why in Michigan, the health care insurance law was changed last year to begin to allow health insurers to be able to offer differential rates based on health risk indicators such as obesity and smoking. It's going the way auto and life insurance actuarial tables work. By the way, I blew out the rest of my knee skiing two weeks ago. MRI alone was $1500. I suppose the argument is that these sport injuries contribute a lower amount to the overall health care bill than does the disease caused by not being active.
First sentence should have read...causes 35% of BCBS of Michigan lung cancer costs.
Geo does your term "buy" equate to the term "the consensus of opinion" since both defy a definitive scientific statement.
Geo,
Sorry to hear about your knee, but not skiing doesn't imply sedimentary lifestyles, there are many far safer forms of exercise rather then the adrenaline thrill of sliding down a fresh powder mountain.
So should I feel sympathy for your employers profit margin and encourage them to ban such dangerous sports activities by their employees so they can save a buck?
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
