More Smoking News: Quit or Lose Your Job

[AGDee]

The topic was health insurance costs and productivity at work as being justification for an employer dictating what you are allowed to do in your home. There are numerous behaviors that people engage in that are dangerous which affect their use of health insurance and productivity time at work. I just happened upon statistics for something that seems like a very healthy thing to do, but actually does affect your health costs and your work productivity.

See, the point is, it's ok for them to dictate for smoking, because only 20% of the population smokes. But when they extend it to your eating habits (not obesity, but what you eat, because that's really what affects heart disease/high cholesterol/high blood pressure), whether you have unprotected sex (cuz you could get an STD that would cost money/time off work), whether you engage in extreme sports (because it puts you at risk). There is no difference between smoking in your home and these other things.

None of it should be grounds for being fired.

[Rudey]

But again, smoking doesn't increase productivity or lower insurance costs. While injuries may result from exercising, the overall health benefits are greater. If this were not the case, insurance agencies would constantly ask people to stop exercising like they do for smokers.

-Rudey

Originally posted by AGDee
The topic was health insurance costs and productivity at work as being justification for an employer dictating what you are allowed to do in your home. There are numerous behaviors that people engage in that are dangerous which affect their use of health insurance and productivity time at work. I just happened upon statistics for something that seems like a very healthy thing to do, but actually does affect your health costs and your work productivity.

See, the point is, it's ok for them to dictate for smoking, because only 20% of the population smokes. But when they extend it to your eating habits (not obesity, but what you eat, because that's really what affects heart disease/high cholesterol/high blood pressure), whether you have unprotected sex (cuz you could get an STD that would cost money/time off work), whether you engage in extreme sports (because it puts you at risk). There is no difference between smoking in your home and these other things.

None of it should be grounds for being fired.

[kddani]

Originally posted by AGDee

See, the point is, it's ok for them to dictate for smoking, because only 20% of the population smokes. But when they extend it to your eating habits (not obesity, but what you eat, because that's really what affects heart disease/high cholesterol/high blood pressure), whether you have unprotected sex (cuz you could get an STD that would cost money/time off work), whether you engage in extreme sports (because it puts you at risk). There is no difference between smoking in your home and these other things.

No, I don't see the point because you are comparing two totally different, unrelated and uncomparable things.

There is plenty of difference between these things and smoking in your own home. Again, as I stated, none of those things will harm you in small or moderate quantities, and how much any of those things will harm you . Smoking, in ANY amount, is harmful and has absolutely ZERO benefits. As I said in my last post, where you failed to address any of my points.

You could get a paper cut on your hand, it could get infected, get gangrene, the infection could spread, and kill you. Does this mean that people shouldn't be able to use paper? No, because the chance of this happening to someone is probably about 1 in a billion.

Bottom line is that insurance is all about odds. And the odds of smoking causing physical harm to someone are much much higher than almost anything else.

[33girl]

There's a big difference between having a cigarette after a meal and smoking 2 packs a day. Not to mention having a cigarette when drinking as LOTS AND LOTS of people do - even though they never smoke any other time.

They say they haven't decided yet how to enforce it - but I'm guessing it'll be random testing as with drugs. If that's the case, then someone who had a puff or two when they were drinking could get fired. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous for a legal substance.

And Rudey - Dee didn't say exercise - she said EXTREME SPORTS. Skydiving not step aerobics.

[kddani]

Originally posted by 33girl
There's a big difference between having a cigarette after a meal and smoking 2 packs a day. Not to mention having a cigarette when drinking as LOTS AND LOTS of people do - even though they never smoke any other time.

They say they haven't decided yet how to enforce it - but I'm guessing it'll be random testing as with drugs. If that's the case, then someone who had a puff or two when they were drinking could get fired. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous for a legal substance.

And Rudey - Dee didn't say exercise - she said EXTREME SPORTS. Skydiving not step aerobics.

She did say banning exercise in her next-to-last post.

I can see the issue with the one a day versus 2 packs a day. But again, a cigarette or two a day, or a pack a week, still have an effect on a person's health.

And don't many insurance policies exclude coverage for very risky things such as skydiving? I distinctly remember talking about that in my insurance law class.

[33girl]

Originally posted by kddani
I can see the issue with the one a day versus 2 packs a day. But again, a cigarette or two a day, or a pack a week, still have an effect on a person's health.

A cig a day is NOT the same as two packs a day, and to fire someone because they had one cigarette over the weekend is asinine.

And Dee has a point with the no exercising. If you're doing it incorrectly, you can really screw things up.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by 33girl
A cig a day is NOT the same as two packs a day, and to fire someone because they had one cigarette over the weekend is asinine.

And Dee has a point with the no exercising. If you're doing it incorrectly, you can really screw things up.

Do insurance agencies ask if you exercise when you join? Do they provide stop exercising programs? She has no point.

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/a-cigar...005-10-03.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...2/ai_n15624116
One to four cigarettes a day triples a smoker's risk of dying from heart disease and lung cancer, with women more likely to be affected by the habit.

The study also quashes the notion that 'light' smokers escape the serious health problems faced by heavier smokers.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by 33girl
And Dee has a point with the no exercising. If you're doing it incorrectly, you can really screw things up.

No, she has no point.

Here are two quick reasons: time frame and cost.

Common injury while exercising:

-Torn ACL: depending on severity, the subject may be able to walk and function, without much support in the knee etc. The remedy is surgery and physical therapy, neither of which are particularly invasive to the work day - generally, the subject's ability to work any jobs not requiring motion or lifting is unaffected or only moderately altered. Subject can still be shifted to desk jobs, less strenuous tasks or etc.

Common injury while smoking:

-Heart disease: the number-one killer of Americans, and inextricably linked to cigarette smoking as a key factor. Requires hospitalization, and often changes work abilities in a severe fashion. Shortens productive lifespan. Surgical procedures often required.

---

Now, I don't have current insurance cost figures, but I would guarantee the second is more burdensome. Also, it's more common!

[33girl]

We can go on and on and cite statistics on both sides till the cows come home.

The main argument is whether you believe your employer has the right to tell you what to do when you are not in the workplace. I personally do not - whether that's drinking, smoking, bungee jumping, smoking pot, sleeping with a whole football team, whatever. Unless you have a job where you can be called to work unexpectedly it's none of their damn business what you do in your off time.

Employers don't HAVE to offer insurance. If they do, they can alter it in all sorts of ways - they don't have to cover birth control if they don't want to, for example. If it can be found that an illness is related to smoking, they can choose not to cover it. But then that sets up a situation where the employer is constantly trying to get out of claims that they SHOULD be paying.

[33girl]

Originally posted by KSig RC
No, she has no point.

Here are two quick reasons: time frame and cost.

Common injury while exercising:

-Torn ACL: depending on severity, the subject may be able to walk and function, without much support in the knee etc. The remedy is surgery and physical therapy, neither of which are particularly invasive to the work day - generally, the subject's ability to work any jobs not requiring motion or lifting is unaffected or only moderately altered. Subject can still be shifted to desk jobs, less strenuous tasks or etc.

Umm, some people still do manual labor jobs where they DO have to lift all day. I'm betting Scott's Miracle Gro has more than a few guys who sling 50 pound bags around on a regular basis - and they're not the guys you can automatically shift to a desk job.

[AGDee]

Some of you are more trusting of authority than some of us. That's what it boils down to. If my employer doesn't want to cover my health insurance because I am a smoker.. that's fine. They don't have to take on that cost burden. If they don't allow me to smoke on their property, that's fine, it's their property. It's firing someone for doing something that's completely legal, on their own time, is absurd and I truly don't believe it will stop with smoking. Some people were in an uproar when random drug testing started. A lot of people said "Why does it matter if you're not doing illegal drugs?" The response was "Because if it's not affecting my job performance, it's not their business and they may not stop at drug testing". And now, they are pushing it another step forward. You think the possibilities I quoted are ridiculous, but 40 years ago, if you told people what the restrictions on smoking would be now, they would have thought that was ridiculous too.

Not to mention, it is completely unenforceable. There is no way to determine whether someone has been smoking if they are using nicotine gum, patches or the nicotrol inhaler to quit.

ETA: When I had a torn ACL, I was unable to drive, therefore, unable to get to work and in both of the careers I've had, if I had any physical restrictions, I was not allowed to be at work.