Slashdot Mirror
Hiring Smokers Banned In South Florida City
Penurious Penguin writes "On October 2, City Commissioners of Delray Beach finalized a policy which prohibits agencies from hiring employees who use tobacco products. Delray Beach isn't alone though; other Florida cities such as Hollywood and Hallandale Beach, require prospective employees to sign affidavits declaring themselves tobacco-free for 12 months prior to the date of application. Throughout the states, both
government and businesses are moving to ban tobacco-use beyond working hours. Many medical facilities, e.g. hospitals, have implemented or intend to implement similar policies. In some more-aggressive environments referred to as nicotine-free, employee urine-samples can be taken and tested for any presence of nicotine, not excluding that from gum or patches. Employees testing positive can be terminated. Times do change, and adaptation is often a necessary burden. But have they changed so much that we'd now postpone the Manhattan project for 12 months because Oppenheimer had toked his pipe? Would we confine our vision to the Milky Way or snub the 1373 Cincinnati because Hubble smoked his? Would we shun relativity, or shelve the works of Tolkien because he and C. S. Lewis had done the same? If so, then where will it stop?"
that's the real reason from the article.
so next up, banning for anything else that kicks up the insurance a notch.
had a heart attack? don't apply. high risk sports? forget about it. maybe they should have instead asked for the employee to pony up the extras for the health insurance.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't like cigarettes; in fact, I despise them.
But what the hell? Why should we be telling people what they can do in their own lives outside working hours? Especially when such activities are legal?
What's next? NO ALCOHOL USE EITHER! Can't even go out to the bar with friends on a weekend because you might lose your job?
Riding a motorcycle is risky to your health as well. CAN'T DO THAT EITHER.
This is one HELL of a slippery slope and we should all be greatly concerned about it.
It's not about a right to do anything and everything you please, it's about the lack of the rights of others to stop you.
I'm an ardent anti-smoker but that doesn't lead me to support idiotic employment rules. The overall problem of health care (and guess what: I support single-payer) really should be none of a company's business. So long as the employee gets his work done, is reliable, and doesn't adversely affect his cow-orkers, what he does off the clock is his business. I have no problem with a company banning tobacco use on company property&time (or banning alcohol; and I wish they'd ban cube radios playing country music too), but testing employees for off-work use of either legal or controlled substances should be flat out illegal.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
''if you can't survive without nicotine for 8 hours that's a serious addiction.''
I have noticed you, friend, leaving your cubicle frequently to urinate. Sometimes you even stop in the hallways and greet others, as if to compound this waste of valuable productive time. But then you have been observed stopping yet again -- for a big long gulp of water. Clearly this is an abusive cycle and you know that ingestion of water leads directly to urination, it's a fact.
If you'd just sip a cup of water at your desk, no more than your body needs, you could easily make the 8 hours without wasting the company's time.
Don't you think it's time you got some help??
I'm having trouble seeing the distinction, in practical terms.
Simple enough, actually. Take, for instance, abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. DON'T try to get legislation banning abortion passed to keep everybody from having an abortion just because you don't like it for reasons I'm sure you have every right to have. In the same way, don't tell me I can't have a cigarette in my own home or car when I'm all by myself. It's my choice. I'm aware of the consequences and I choose to live with them.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Prohibition was a nightmare for the country and repealed for a reason. People have pleasure needs. Maybe you like to watch 14 hours straight of Zoey 101. Others like beer. Others like smokes. Others like fatty food. I even once knew a guy who's thing was hanging from the ceiling by rings pierced into his back.
I think the biggest point to be made here however, is "what is bad for you" is subjective, and once you let someones opinion dictate your life, life may stop being worth living.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Well, that's a rather poor example. The people who "don't believe in abortion", by which I assume you mean "don't believe that abortion should ever occur", predominately believe that because they equate it to murdering a helpless child. Whether that's right or wrong, surely you wouldn't say the same thing about murder - "don't try to keep me from murdering if I want to, just because you've got a hang-up about it". Again, not arguing the case one way or the other here, but when you think about it from from their point of view (abortion == murder), at least their strong stance is understandable.
Being bad for you is NO JUSTIFICATION for making something illegal.
People should be free to seek happiness, even if the mechanism of doing so is self-destructive. That includes the freedom to overeat, sit around and relax instead of exercise, spend too much time keeping their skin tan, watching movies/TV that makes them stupid, and on and on.
When your pleasure-seeking causes direct and significant harm to others, THEN you have a case for making it illegal. If it only harms yourself, self-determinacy trumps the nanny-state (or should, at least).
I will add, from a completely practical perspective, that when you make highly-desired goods illegal you create black markets (because humans make lousy slaves). The black markets then funnel significant money into the hands of criminals who have no qualms about murdering people to maintain their power base. Not only must I then live with these threats, but my tax money gets spent on more law enforcement which is generally ineffective no matter how much is spent and which takes away even MORE of my freedom in order to search for crime. So...making these things illegal causes very direct harm to me...much greater harm than keeping them legal causes me (should I free choose not to indulge).
I totally agree with you to an extent.
However, your smoking does has an effect on me - if nothing but for financial reasons if you truly do smoke in a vacuum. Your statistically more likely to get sick, and to die early.
Would have to be calculated, and I am aware of official studies in Europe at least saying that overall a smoker is cheaper because they die earlier and are less likely to need years of care due to dementia et al. In addition, cigarettes are highly taxed in Europe to make up for whatever additional costs smokers might create. In practice it is so high that beyond additional health costs it also pays for a good deal of public infrastructure.
The sickness raises insurance premiums for everyone. When you die, it's statistically a large ordeal leading up to the death- multiple cardiac events, strokes, etc. Eventually you will die, but your insurance company will spend a lot of money keeping you alive, and the hospital will spend a lot of time caring for you.
They will do the same when I live healthy and suffer from Alzheimer's for two decades at the end. Again, a question of economics and statistics. And of course I have retaliation weapons: I practice Tai Chi Chuan a whole lot, out of my own budget and out of my own time. It may just mean that I won't fall in my old age and need a femur reconstruction, or new knee and hip joints due to bad posture. Do I get a refund for that? Can I demand that other people must practice Tai Chi Chuan as well? Can or should I be able to demand that people who do dangerous stuff at home - e.g., when renovating their house, or something - shoud not get health insurance benefits when they need them? No, and it's the right thing this way.
If you are old enough for socialized medicine, then you really do cost me more.
This does indeed effect me. The most I am gaining is some extra tax funds to the state...but those are short term gains. Long term, I am getting swindled.
And once more, present the numbers. I paid for my health insurance my whole life and will do so when old. If it is noth high enough, I hope that insurance maths and state regulation together will adapt it to a sustainable level.
It's terribly sad to see how the concept of solidarity was erased from several consecutive generations mostly in the US but in Europe as well.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I care when less people smoke, because it means less foul stench wherever I go. If you want to smoke, go for it--but I'm wouldn't appreciate that you do if I were ever to meet you.
I can't speak for other smokers, but I do try to keep my habit away from others. I don't smoke indoors, I try to stay down wind or away from non-smokers, and I use breath mints.
I wish non-smokers were as considerate of the things I despise that they do.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
If you want to smoke marijuana, then for all practical purposes you can't serve in the U.S. military, which has a rigorous drug-testing program.
I think the military should add tobacco to the list of drugs that military personnel are forbidden to use. Every military person is supposed to be combat-ready, and the effect of smoking on lung capacity alone would make them significantly less capable.
Maybe, but only if it can be demonstrably shown that use of a specific substance off-hours affects on job performance in ways that threaten the health and safety of other employees...and I mean demonstrably shown and not some bullshit specious what-if scenario..
Where does it stop?
You have an allergy to tobacco smoke, so it's okay to ban tobacco -- okay, you won't find too many objections.
Some people have an allergy to peanuts -- some incredibly sever, far worse than any tobacco smoke allergy. Should we ban peanuts? Maybe it makes sense in schools. Maybe that should be extended to other gov't buildings or business that serve the general public.
I have an allergy to the base in some perfumes -- my nose runs constantly, my eyes tear up, it's very unpleasant. Should we ban perfume? I'm on board!
How about this: We err on the side of freedom. Let businesses decide to allow or not allow smoking, peanuts, or perfume. We consider any policy that discriminates against workers for engaging in legal activity (smoking, eating peanuts, wearing perfume) outside of work to be unlawful.
Required reading for internet skeptics