Denying Employment Due To Smoking (1 Viewer)

[Uruk-Hai]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No you can't.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I thought the idea was to higher the best candidate for the job. So you are shrinking your work pool for something that is legal and is a personal choice. Is smoking cigars on the golf course also going to prevent Drs from the job?

Somebody has smoking weed on the brain.

To your point though, the goal is to hire the talent that provides the best cost/benefit ratio. If the goal was to hire the best candidate and cost had nothing to do with it, you would see a lot of millionaire janitors.

 

[msommer]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

 

[msommer]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

You lit your forst smoke - ie. no one accidentally gave you 'the disease' bycoughing on you. It was your act that made you 'sick'- And don't give me that some people are more susceptible to addiction - if you are, don't get into stuff that is addictive.

 

[FUBAR]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

It seems we're already moving in that direction. Difference imo though is a person's obesity or eating crap doesn't impact others like the act of smoking does.

 

[FUBAR]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

YepDiscrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

You lit your forst smoke - ie. no one accidentally gave you 'the disease' bycoughing on you. It was your act that made you 'sick'- And don't give me that some people are more susceptible to addiction - if you are, don't get into stuff that is addictive.

That's a simplistic view. You don't really know you are susceptible until you get into it. Also, not every addiction is entirely negative.

 

[bigbottom]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

The First Lady makes childhood obesity her signature issue, and more often than not, she gets ridiculed or pilloried for her efforts. It's sad really.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

You lit your forst smoke - ie. no one accidentally gave you 'the disease' bycoughing on you. It was your act that made you 'sick'- And don't give me that some people are more susceptible to addiction - if you are, don't get into stuff that is addictive.

Did you miss my posts where I own the responsibility for my cancer? I started smoking at 11 or 12, not an age normally associated with responsible, adult thinking but I'm not blaming someone else for MY issues (what little ego I have left at 52 years old won't allow that); my statement was more in a general, societal vein.

I'll say this, though. By putting "disease" and "sick" in quotation marks (as if they aren't real things), you come off as a giant ###-wipe. Here's hoping you don't fall off that high horse you're on, because it appears to be a long drop.

Cheers and have a great day.

 

[msommer]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

You lit your forst smoke - ie. no one accidentally gave you 'the disease' bycoughing on you. It was your act that made you 'sick'- And don't give me that some people are more susceptible to addiction - if you are, don't get into stuff that is addictive.

Did you miss my posts where I own the responsibility for my cancer? I started smoking at 11 or 12, not an age normally associated with responsible, adult thinking but I'm not blaming someone else for MY issues (what little ego I have left at 52 years old won't allow that); my statement was more in a general, societal vein.

I'll say this, though. By putting "disease" and "sick" in quotation marks (as if they aren't real things), you come off as a giant ###-wipe. Here's hoping you don't fall off that high horse you're on, because it appears to be a long drop.

Cheers and have a great day.

You too, 'Hai

 

[msommer]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

YepDiscrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

You lit your forst smoke - ie. no one accidentally gave you 'the disease' bycoughing on you. It was your act that made you 'sick'- And don't give me that some people are more susceptible to addiction - if you are, don't get into stuff that is addictive.

That's a simplistic view. You don't really know you are susceptible until you get into it. Also, not every addiction is entirely negative.

Sure it is simplistic, but it is also simplistic to state that people can't help smoking because it is an addiction and use that as a basis for disagreeing with an employers health policy/strategy.

BTW I don't see too many obese people working in fitness centers. What's up with that (I don't think that is a coincidence). Or Breastaurants, many obese there?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No, that just make the analogy even better. Smokers don't choose to be addicted to nicotine any more than my son chose to be 15.

 

[msommer]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No, that just make the analogy even better. Smokers don't choose to be addicted to nicotine any more than my son chose to be 15.

So you are saying that people cannot stop smoking?

 

[Christo]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

If you can prove that you were strapped down and forced to smoke until you became addicted I'll give you a pass.

 

[Christo]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

 

[msommer]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

 

[Christo]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

 

[msommer]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

 

[Christo]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

The problem combating obesity as opposed to smoking is that it's necessary to eat.

 

[msommer]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

The problem combating obesity as opposed to smoking is that it's necessary to eat.

Wait, I thought you point was that it would take less than 40 years?

Did you change your mind?

 

[Christo]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

The problem combating obesity as opposed to smoking is that it's necessary to eat.

Wait, I thought you point was that it would take less than 40 years?

Did you change your mind?

Your comment was that people would think differently about obesity in 40 years. They think differently now, nimrod. Thinking that it's a problem and knowing how to do something about it are two completely different things.

 

[Sabertooth]

Kind of hypocritical for a business who makes tons of money from something to ban it.

 

[msommer]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> America

And the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

The problem combating obesity as opposed to smoking is that it's necessary to eat.

Wait, I thought you point was that it would take less than 40 years?

Did you change your mind?

Your comment was that people would think differently about obesity in 40 years. They think differently now, nimrod. Thinking that it's a problem and knowing how to do something about it are two completely different things.

What's with the name calling? Feeling insecure? Want a cookie?

 

[Christo]

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

Give it 40 years or so and there might be a change in the way people think about obesity also

Why do people keep saying this like it already hasn't started to happen? What do you think the NYC ban on large drinks was all about?

NYC <> AmericaAnd the 40 years was not picked out of the air. that's how long it took with smoking. Did we learn and now we react faster? We'll see

There's a billion dollar diet industry. People are very aware that obesity is not a good thing.

There's a multi billion dollar fast food industry (etc.) and obesity rates don't seem to be declining.

The problem combating obesity as opposed to smoking is that it's necessary to eat.

Wait, I thought you point was that it would take less than 40 years?Did you change your mind?

Your comment was that people would think differently about obesity in 40 years. They think differently now, nimrod. Thinking that it's a problem and knowing how to do something about it are two completely different things.

What's with the name calling? Feeling insecure? Want a cookie?

I'm secure in the knowledge you like to move goal posts when your argument falls apart.

 

[Herb]

I'm with NCC. This is a fantastically slippery slope.

I smoke cigars on occasion- it's what remains of my once pack-plus a day cigarette habit. My health insurance carrier thinks I'm a non-smoker, because I am. Except for those occasional cigars. Let's say I have a doctor visit- whether it was a biopsy on a bump on my lung or something as normal as a sore throat. Could either of those things be linked to smoking cigars a few times a year? Yes. Now if my insurer suddenly decided to test me for a nicotine a day after I gunned a stick, could they then refuse payment on a service that could potentially be linked to smoking an occasional cigar? Could they drop my coverage altogether?

This is the direction this sort of thing could go in.

 

[Freelove]

I'm secure in the knowledge you like to move goal posts when your argument falls apart.

That's the thing. You shouldn't be.

Your whole argument is based on the idiotic premise that because he stated his belief that people would be thinking differently 40 years from now, that it must somehow mean they haven't changed their beliefs at any point in the past.

Thinking differently in 40 years doesn't imply in the slightest sense that the current state of thought has remained static throughout history. The existence of a billion dollar diet industry doesn't imply in the slightest sense that social attitudes toward obesity are locked in place for the foreseeable future.

It was a sad attempt at rhetorical logic, backed by boneheaded self-assurance.

Guess we know who bought his law degree from a second tier state school, don't we?

 

[randall146]

Smokers cost more to insure than the average of a perfectly healthy young adult.

The obese cost more to insure than the average for a perfectly healthy young adult

Perfectly healthy young adults who are risk takers or drinkers or stoners cost more to insure than the average perfectly healthy young adult.

Single gay people cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Women in their childbearing years cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Insurance use to spread the risks. Now they want no risks. If they start excluding groups they are reducing their customer pool. They will figure this out. They will also figure out that they can construct like risk groups, but since we move through groups so frequently in our lives that we may get tired of constantly changing from group to group.

In the end I am fine with employers making economic decisions.

Can you flesh this one out a little bit? Fact or hyperbole? Doesn't sound right to me

 

[Christo]

I'm secure in the knowledge you like to move goal posts when your argument falls apart.

That's the thing. You shouldn't be.

Your whole argument is based on the idiotic premise that because he stated his belief that people would be thinking differently 40 years from now, that it must somehow mean they haven't changed their beliefs at any point in the past.

Thinking differently in 40 years doesn't imply in the slightest sense that the current state of thought has remained static throughout history. The existence of a billion dollar diet industry doesn't imply in the slightest sense that social attitudes toward obesity are locked in place for the foreseeable future.

It was a sad attempt at rhetorical logic, backed by boneheaded self-assurance.

Guess we know who bought his law degree from a second tier state school, don't we?

 

[FUBAR]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

YepDiscrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No, that just make the analogy even better. Smokers don't choose to be addicted to nicotine any more than my son chose to be 15.

So you are saying that people cannot stop smoking?

Apparently it takes a year.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Great idea...Plus smokers are offensive...IMO

 

[FUBAR]

I'm with NCC. This is a fantastically slippery slope.

I smoke cigars on occasion- it's what remains of my once pack-plus a day cigarette habit. My health insurance carrier thinks I'm a non-smoker, because I am. Except for those occasional cigars. Let's say I have a doctor visit- whether it was a biopsy on a bump on my lung or something as normal as a sore throat. Could either of those things be linked to smoking cigars a few times a year? Yes. Now if my insurer suddenly decided to test me for a nicotine a day after I gunned a stick, could they then refuse payment on a service that could potentially be linked to smoking an occasional cigar? Could they drop my coverage altogether?

This is the direction this sort of thing could go in.

Uh, you're not a non-smoker.

 

[mr roboto]

Great, now a want a cigarette.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I'm with NCC. This is a fantastically slippery slope.

I smoke cigars on occasion- it's what remains of my once pack-plus a day cigarette habit. My health insurance carrier thinks I'm a non-smoker, because I am. Except for those occasional cigars. Let's say I have a doctor visit- whether it was a biopsy on a bump on my lung or something as normal as a sore throat. Could either of those things be linked to smoking cigars a few times a year? Yes. Now if my insurer suddenly decided to test me for a nicotine a day after I gunned a stick, could they then refuse payment on a service that could potentially be linked to smoking an occasional cigar? Could they drop my coverage altogether?

This is the direction this sort of thing could go in.

yes because you are a smoker.

 

[msommer]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

YepDiscrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No, that just make the analogy even better. Smokers don't choose to be addicted to nicotine any more than my son chose to be 15.

So you are saying that people cannot stop smoking?

Apparently it takes a year.

The point being, not all people who are addicted to a substance is powerless to stop their addiction. We should incentivize those that can control it to do so, for the better of public health. Is that a slippery slope. Maybe. Maybe it should be done with alcohol and fatty foods as well. But we are many years away from that happening. It will also be harder to legislate as people don't get fat from second hand eating.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.

Not exactly (or all that close, really) - you can make the case that nicotene is addictive and people are being over-taxed for a disease.

No, that just make the analogy even better. Smokers don't choose to be addicted to nicotine any more than my son chose to be 15.

So you are saying that people cannot stop smoking?

I don't know very many people who smoke, but according to those who do, it's really hard to quit. I'm taking my FFA brethren at their word on this. I understand that nicotine is physically addictive.

All I'm saying is that if you think that smoking is a freely-decided choice, then obviously it's fine to discriminate against smokers. And if you think that smoking is not really a choice (started young and stupid and now it's outside of one's control), it's still similar to other valid forms of discrimination, such as that against young drivers. Either way, no problem.

 

[NCCommish]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.



We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

Way to abuse a quote.

Personally I have no problem with people smoking and will defend their right to do so, as long as it doesn't impact others rights to clean air.

But, I also support a business decision made by a private company when it's made for objective reasons. If, in their analysis, smokers cost the business more than the benefit the business, that's a business decision. They aren't firing anyone either.

Some day you will be the focus of their objectivity. Hopefully you'll be cool with it.

 

[FUBAR]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.



We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

Way to abuse a quote.

Personally I have no problem with people smoking and will defend their right to do so, as long as it doesn't impact others rights to clean air.

But, I also support a business decision made by a private company when it's made for objective reasons. If, in their analysis, smokers cost the business more than the benefit the business, that's a business decision. They aren't firing anyone either.

Some day you will be the focus of their objectivity. Hopefully you'll be cool with it.

My profession, like many others, is currently downsizing and has been a key point in politics. My chosen field within that profession has especially been under scrutiny lately and it impacts everything we do. We pay higher life insurance costs if we chose to insure outside the "company" because we're higher risk.

So to your point, people like me are already a focus of other people's "objectivity", it's a fact we deal with.

 

[Herb]

I'm with NCC. This is a fantastically slippery slope.

I smoke cigars on occasion- it's what remains of my once pack-plus a day cigarette habit. My health insurance carrier thinks I'm a non-smoker, because I am. Except for those occasional cigars. Let's say I have a doctor visit- whether it was a biopsy on a bump on my lung or something as normal as a sore throat. Could either of those things be linked to smoking cigars a few times a year? Yes. Now if my insurer suddenly decided to test me for a nicotine a day after I gunned a stick, could they then refuse payment on a service that could potentially be linked to smoking an occasional cigar? Could they drop my coverage altogether?

This is the direction this sort of thing could go in.

yes because you are a smoker.

OK. What if an average guy, who doesn't smoke, lights one while drunk at a bachelor party? Then gets tested and tagged as a smoker?

Then what?

 

[JohnnyU]

As a ex-smoker, I didn't realize until after I quit smoking how much those who smoke stink. I quit 6 years ago and I also work for a hospital. It's not a good thing to smell like an ashtray when you're around patients. It paints a poor image of the hospital.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

Assuming it would be testable, it's also ok to not hire employees because they eat at McDonalds?I understand why insurance companies would push this - they want the premiums but don't want to pay out #### and smoking introduces health issues that may not otherwise happen. But employers should be careful what they're doing here, as they're reducing their potential talent base by a good bit.

Obesity is easily testable with a scale.

Yeah and don't hire women either.

 

[FattyVM]

I was going to say, what happens when we start getting denied employment if you have an occasional drink? This is a pretty shaky slope, but I guess since the employee pool is so large at this point, you can use anything as a valid screening criteria.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I was going to say, what happens when we start getting denied employment if you have an occasional drink? This is a pretty shaky slope, but I guess since the employee pool is so large at this point, you can use anything as a valid screening criteria.

Why would a firm fire workers who have an "occasional" drink? Moderate drinking has little or no health consequences, making it completely unlike smoking. To make this analogy work, the firm would have to be firing alcoholics, and I have no objection to that either.

 

[Sarnoff]

Hopefully they are applying this to fatties as well and not just being hypocrites.

I'd pay extra to go to a hospital where all the nurses were young, healthy, hot women.

No fatties!

 

[Christo]

I was going to say, what happens when we start getting denied employment if you have an occasional drink? This is a pretty shaky slope, but I guess since the employee pool is so large at this point, you can use anything as a valid screening criteria.

Why would a firm fire workers who have an "occasional" drink? Moderate drinking has little or no health consequences, making it completely unlike smoking. To make this analogy work, the firm would have to be firing alcoholics, and I have no objection to that either.

There are some health benefits to moderate alcohol consumption.

 

[Sarnoff]

I was going to say, what happens when we start getting denied employment if you have an occasional drink? This is a pretty shaky slope, but I guess since the employee pool is so large at this point, you can use anything as a valid screening criteria.

Why would a firm fire workers who have an "occasional" drink? Moderate drinking has little or no health consequences, making it completely unlike smoking. To make this analogy work, the firm would have to be firing alcoholics, and I have no objection to that either.

There are some health benefits to moderate alcohol consumption.

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

 

[Christo]

I was going to say, what happens when we start getting denied employment if you have an occasional drink? This is a pretty shaky slope, but I guess since the employee pool is so large at this point, you can use anything as a valid screening criteria.

Why would a firm fire workers who have an "occasional" drink? Moderate drinking has little or no health consequences, making it completely unlike smoking. To make this analogy work, the firm would have to be firing alcoholics, and I have no objection to that either.

There are some health benefits to moderate alcohol consumption.

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

We're so far afield from where this started it's amusing.

 

[Steve Tasker]

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

I don't really have a problem with an employer firing an employee for any of these reasons. I do have my doubts that it'd be beneficial for the employer in the long-term as the policies really make no sense, but I don't think it should be illegal/disallowed.

 

[Christo]

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

I don't really have a problem with an employer firing an employee for any of these reasons. I do have my doubts that it'd be beneficial for the employer in the long-term as the policies really make no sense, but I don't think it should be illegal/disallowed.

Yeah, but what if the car was green? That'd be one step too far, right?

 

[Sarnoff]

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

I don't really have a problem with an employer firing an employee for any of these reasons. I do have my doubts that it'd be beneficial for the employer in the long-term as the policies really make no sense, but I don't think it should be illegal/disallowed.

Yeah, but what if the car was green? That'd be one step too far, right?

I was honestly asking a question. It seems unclear whether excluding smokers would have a lower cost to the employer (due to them dying earlier and saving later expenses), so I was wondering if, with cost not being an issue, it matters whether drinking is good for you or not in setting a policy where only teetotalers would be hired.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But they could, right? I mean, whether or not it's legal is different from whether or not it's possible. Certainly if they could deny employment to smokers, they could deny employment to people who drive blue cars or part their hair on the right, correct? Does there need to be a bona fide reason for their policy, or, as you said in your first post in this thread, shouldn't both parties be willing participants in this relationship?

I don't really have a problem with an employer firing an employee for any of these reasons. I do have my doubts that it'd be beneficial for the employer in the long-term as the policies really make no sense, but I don't think it should be illegal/disallowed.

Same here. I'm not worried about this kind of thing because it's sufficiently stupid that no profit-maximizing firm would go down that road, but yeah if a firm waned to deny employment to people who drive the wrong color car, hey it's their firm.